Date: 10/14/2008 11:58 AM
By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Barack Obama and John McCain both have big-ticket proposals to change how people obtain and pay for health insurance. A long history of failed health-reform plans shows how difficult it is to achieve that goal. And the job only got tougher for any future president with the financial meltdown.
Despite the worsening economic picture, though, neither candidate has signaled any intention to scale back his plans. And the head of the Senate Finance Committee, which would have a big say in just about everything the next president hopes to accomplish on health care, says he won’t let the current financial crisis stop the committee from tackling it.
“While some suggest that the current economic situation might thwart efforts to overhaul America’s health care system, I believe the state of the U.S. economy makes the need for health-care reform even more urgent,” Baucus said. “The Finance Committee will move forward on comprehensive health reform early next year.”
Still, with the federal government sinking ever deeper into debt and a $700 billion financial rescue package being implemented, many question just how much either presidential candidate can hope to deliver.
“Do we have the money to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper? The answer is no,” said Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University. “We have to worry about Goldman Sachs. That’s where we are.”
Both presidential candidates insist their health-care plans would not add to the national debt, but independent analyses suggest otherwise. The private Tax Policy Center, for example, puts the price tag for Obama’s plan at $1.6 trillion over 10 years and for McCain’s at $1.3 trillion over that time.
Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant, believes the odds of enacting costly health reforms in this tough economic environment are “zero,” and said the onus is on the candidates to show how they can pull it off.
“They owe us more of an explanation than they gave us at the debates,” he said.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, agrees with Baucus that health reform can’t wait. But he’s primarily focused on taking steps that would lower health-care costs, such as speeding the use of electronic record-keeping for patient medical records, directing more resources to illness prevention and lowering the cost of malpractice insurance.
“I know that taking care of the uninsured is really an issue by itself, but you make that job easier to the extent you get health-care cost under control,” Grassley said.
McCain and Obama have remarkably similar stances on cost-cutting measures, such as greater use of electronic medical records and greater coordination of care. Those steps don’t require large sums of money up front. They also will take many years to reduce health care costs.
“They’re not controversial with the stakeholders. That should tell you something about how impactful they will be,” Laszewski said. “If you want to get at health care costs, you’ve got to … step on some toes. Neither McCain nor Obama are stepping on any stakeholder toes in terms of slowing costs down.”
Where the two candidates do step on toes is with their proposals to provide more people with health insurance.
McCain has proposed a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for a family that buys health insurance. The credit would replace the tax break people now get for obtaining health coverage through their employers. McCain also wants to let people shop across state lines when buying insurance, which would let consumers bypass states where insurance is more expensive and comprehensive.
Previous Congresses have rejected both concepts. The tax credit idea is comparable to what President Bush proposed in 2007, which went nowhere. And the notion of letting people, through trade associations, shop for insurance plans from any state failed to generate the 60 votes needed to stop debate in the Senate in 2006. At the time, Democratic lawmakers said that states worked for years to enact consumer protections such as coverage for treating alcoholism and cervical cancer screenings, and it would not be right for lawmakers in Washington to take that away.
Obama, meanwhile, wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it.
The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers.
One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.
The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. Obama would cover some of the costs by raising taxes on those households with incomes exceeding $250,000. He also would require all but small businesses to make a “meaningful” payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange.
Obama has also proposed expanding Medicaid for poor adults and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the next president will get a vigorous debate on health care next year if he seeks it. Regardless of economic conditions, Altman is betting the next president will have to phase in any changes he seeks, rather than implement sweeping reforms.
“Coming up with the money to pay for health reform and expanding coverage was always a huge mountain to climb,” Altman said. “It just got much higher.”
_____
On the Net:
Comparison of candidates’ health plans: http://www.health08.org
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Wis. shooting victims sue law enforcement leaders
Date: 10/13/2008 7:36 PM
CRANDON, Wis. (AP) _ The parents of four young people killed by a sheriff’s deputy and the lone survivor of his shooting spree last year claim in a lawsuit that the gunman’s law-enforcement superiors were negligent in supervising him and giving him access to weapons.
The lawsuit filed in Forest County Circuit Court also claims authorities knew Deputy Tyler Peterson, 20, had a history of violence, yet gave him too much decision-making responsibility.
Peterson was also a part-time Crandon policeman, and the lawsuit names Crandon Police Chief John Dennee, Forest County Sheriff Keith Van Cleve and their insurance companies as defendants.
Peterson killed his one-time girlfriend Jordanne Murray and five other people during a party at her home in Crandon on Oct. 7, 2007. Authorities have said Peterson was angered by the idea that Murray was dating someone else.
After breaking down the door, Peterson fired at least 30 shots from an AR-15 assault rifle he was issued as a member of the Forest County Sheriff’s SWAT team. Peterson shot and killed himself hours later after police efforts to get him to surrender failed.
He killed Murray, 18; Bradley Schultz, 20; Lindsey Stahl, 14; Aaron Smith, 20; Lianna Thomas, 18; and Katrina McCorkle, 18. Charlie Neitzel, 21, was shot three times but survived by playing dead.
The parents of Schultz, Stahl, Thomas and McCorkle joined Neitzel in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, Dennee and Van Cleve had been warned that Peterson was a “violent person and a danger,” and they knew that Peterson had abused Murray.
None of the complaints against Peterson were investigated, the lawsuit said, adding that the sheriff and police chief failed to protect the public from the dangers posed by Peterson.
Van Cleve and the city attorney for Crandon did not immediately return telephone messages Monday. The sheriff’s dispatcher who answered a call for the Crandon Police Department said Dennee was not in his office Monday afternoon.
The city of Crandon and Forest County earlier denied the families’ claims seeking more than $5 million in damages. Those decisions opened the door for the civil lawsuit.
The two insurance companies named as defendants in the lawsuit are the League of Wisconsin Municipality Mutual Insurance and Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
CRANDON, Wis. (AP) _ The parents of four young people killed by a sheriff’s deputy and the lone survivor of his shooting spree last year claim in a lawsuit that the gunman’s law-enforcement superiors were negligent in supervising him and giving him access to weapons.
The lawsuit filed in Forest County Circuit Court also claims authorities knew Deputy Tyler Peterson, 20, had a history of violence, yet gave him too much decision-making responsibility.
Peterson was also a part-time Crandon policeman, and the lawsuit names Crandon Police Chief John Dennee, Forest County Sheriff Keith Van Cleve and their insurance companies as defendants.
Peterson killed his one-time girlfriend Jordanne Murray and five other people during a party at her home in Crandon on Oct. 7, 2007. Authorities have said Peterson was angered by the idea that Murray was dating someone else.
After breaking down the door, Peterson fired at least 30 shots from an AR-15 assault rifle he was issued as a member of the Forest County Sheriff’s SWAT team. Peterson shot and killed himself hours later after police efforts to get him to surrender failed.
He killed Murray, 18; Bradley Schultz, 20; Lindsey Stahl, 14; Aaron Smith, 20; Lianna Thomas, 18; and Katrina McCorkle, 18. Charlie Neitzel, 21, was shot three times but survived by playing dead.
The parents of Schultz, Stahl, Thomas and McCorkle joined Neitzel in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, Dennee and Van Cleve had been warned that Peterson was a “violent person and a danger,” and they knew that Peterson had abused Murray.
None of the complaints against Peterson were investigated, the lawsuit said, adding that the sheriff and police chief failed to protect the public from the dangers posed by Peterson.
Van Cleve and the city attorney for Crandon did not immediately return telephone messages Monday. The sheriff’s dispatcher who answered a call for the Crandon Police Department said Dennee was not in his office Monday afternoon.
The city of Crandon and Forest County earlier denied the families’ claims seeking more than $5 million in damages. Those decisions opened the door for the civil lawsuit.
The two insurance companies named as defendants in the lawsuit are the League of Wisconsin Municipality Mutual Insurance and Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Wisconsin State Journal endorses Obama
The Wisconsin State Journal endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday:
“Obama is best-equipped this election to make America feel good about itself again. That’s a powerful feeling — one that could go a long way toward invigorating our economy and national sense of purpose.
Obama is convincing in his call for a new kind of politics in Washington. His life story and history-making bid for the White House also have forced the rest of the world to view America in a new and more positive way.”
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
“Obama is best-equipped this election to make America feel good about itself again. That’s a powerful feeling — one that could go a long way toward invigorating our economy and national sense of purpose.
Obama is convincing in his call for a new kind of politics in Washington. His life story and history-making bid for the White House also have forced the rest of the world to view America in a new and more positive way.”
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Scenes from the ground game
Date: 10/11/2008 11:13 AM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Dale Lehrer, of the northern Milwaukee suburb of Grafton, is a lifelong Republican who has come to regret her vote for President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Lehrer, 55, switched sides this election and is spending 20 hours a week hosting events and canvassing for the Obama campaign.
Some of her Republican friends thought she was joking at first. Her own husband, a Republican who won’t tell her who he’s supporting, “thinks I’m a fanatic,” she said.
“There’s no way we’re going to win Ozaukee County,” Lehrer admits, “but from a percentage standpoint we’ll probably blow them out of the water from what we’ve had historically.”
Republicans concede that Obama’s campaign is doing more to target voters in the Wisconsin suburbs than did previous Democrats, but they say they are confident that McCain will do just as well as Bush in the area.
“I just keep telling them, ‘Spend your money. Knock yourself out,'” Republican state Sen. Ted Kanavas says of the Obama campaign. “The bottom line is the Republican Party is fine in Waukesha County. It’s invigorated.”
—By Ryan J. Foley.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Dale Lehrer, of the northern Milwaukee suburb of Grafton, is a lifelong Republican who has come to regret her vote for President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Lehrer, 55, switched sides this election and is spending 20 hours a week hosting events and canvassing for the Obama campaign.
Some of her Republican friends thought she was joking at first. Her own husband, a Republican who won’t tell her who he’s supporting, “thinks I’m a fanatic,” she said.
“There’s no way we’re going to win Ozaukee County,” Lehrer admits, “but from a percentage standpoint we’ll probably blow them out of the water from what we’ve had historically.”
Republicans concede that Obama’s campaign is doing more to target voters in the Wisconsin suburbs than did previous Democrats, but they say they are confident that McCain will do just as well as Bush in the area.
“I just keep telling them, ‘Spend your money. Knock yourself out,'” Republican state Sen. Ted Kanavas says of the Obama campaign. “The bottom line is the Republican Party is fine in Waukesha County. It’s invigorated.”
—By Ryan J. Foley.
Wis. judicial panel: Punish new judge for false ad
Date: 10/8/2008 3:51 AM
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ State regulators say a Willie Horton-style campaign ad that suggested the first black member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court freed a child molester played so loose with the truth that the court’s newest member should be disciplined for it.
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a complaint against Justice Michael Gableman on Tuesday, claiming he violated a rule that prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly misrepresenting facts about their opponents.
Gableman was the first challenger to defeat an incumbent justice in 41 years when he knocked off Louis Butler in the April election with 51 percent of the vote. Gableman, 42, joined the court for a 10-year term in August.
During the campaign, Gableman faced intense criticism from independent observers when his campaign ran a television ad that showed a picture of Butler, the state’s first black justice, next to a mug shot of convicted rapist Reuben Lee Mitchell, who is black. A narrator said: “Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child.”
When Butler was a public defender, he represented Mitchell on the appeal of his 1985 conviction for raping an 11-year-old girl.
Butler convinced an appeals court that Mitchell deserved a new trial because certain evidence should not have been allowed. The Supreme Court overturned that decision and Mitchell served his full sentence. After his release on parole in 1992, Mitchell was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
Gableman knew those facts when he personally approved the ad, the complaint said. Therefore, he knew Butler was not responsible for Mitchell’s release from prison and subsequent criminal behavior as the ad suggested, it said.
“The misrepresentation was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth by Judge Gableman,” the complaint said.
Gableman defended the ad during the campaign as contrasting his background as a prosecutor against Butler’s as a defense lawyer.
His campaign manager, Darrin Schmitz, said in a statement that the complaint has “no basis in fact or in law” and tramples on Gableman’s rights to free speech.
“The Commission chose to ignore the plain language of the ad, which is factual,” he wrote. “Instead, the complaint alleges that the ad contains false statements on the basis of inference and implication. The First Amendment does not allow a claim to be made on that basis.”
He added: “We’re confident that in the end actual judges will apply the law and the matter will be dismissed.”
Seven members of the judicial commission participated in the decision to file the complaint. They were either appointed by the governor or the Supreme Court and include prominent lawyers, businesspeople and an appeals court judge.
Butler, who recently accepted a faculty position at the University of Wisconsin law school, declined comment. “It’s important to let the process work itself through,” he said.
A three-judge panel will now hear the complaint and determine whether it has merit. If it does, the panel will make a recommendation on discipline to Gableman’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, which will make the final decision. Discipline could include a reprimand, suspension or even removal from the bench.
Lawyers across the political spectrum called Gableman’s ad misleading before the election and the liberal-leaning Citizen Action of Wisconsin filed the complaint that prompted the commission investigation.
“What’s most discouraging about this complaint was not only that everyone saw it coming but that the campaign worked,” University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Howard Schweber said.
The ad had echoes of the one featuring Horton, who was serving a life term for murder and was granted a weekend furlough under a program overseen by then-Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. Horton escaped to Maryland, where he robbed and raped a woman.
A TV ad in the 1988 presidential campaign associating Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, with the incident hurt him in his race against Republican George H.W. Bush, who won the election.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ State regulators say a Willie Horton-style campaign ad that suggested the first black member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court freed a child molester played so loose with the truth that the court’s newest member should be disciplined for it.
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a complaint against Justice Michael Gableman on Tuesday, claiming he violated a rule that prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly misrepresenting facts about their opponents.
Gableman was the first challenger to defeat an incumbent justice in 41 years when he knocked off Louis Butler in the April election with 51 percent of the vote. Gableman, 42, joined the court for a 10-year term in August.
During the campaign, Gableman faced intense criticism from independent observers when his campaign ran a television ad that showed a picture of Butler, the state’s first black justice, next to a mug shot of convicted rapist Reuben Lee Mitchell, who is black. A narrator said: “Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child.”
When Butler was a public defender, he represented Mitchell on the appeal of his 1985 conviction for raping an 11-year-old girl.
Butler convinced an appeals court that Mitchell deserved a new trial because certain evidence should not have been allowed. The Supreme Court overturned that decision and Mitchell served his full sentence. After his release on parole in 1992, Mitchell was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
Gableman knew those facts when he personally approved the ad, the complaint said. Therefore, he knew Butler was not responsible for Mitchell’s release from prison and subsequent criminal behavior as the ad suggested, it said.
“The misrepresentation was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth by Judge Gableman,” the complaint said.
Gableman defended the ad during the campaign as contrasting his background as a prosecutor against Butler’s as a defense lawyer.
His campaign manager, Darrin Schmitz, said in a statement that the complaint has “no basis in fact or in law” and tramples on Gableman’s rights to free speech.
“The Commission chose to ignore the plain language of the ad, which is factual,” he wrote. “Instead, the complaint alleges that the ad contains false statements on the basis of inference and implication. The First Amendment does not allow a claim to be made on that basis.”
He added: “We’re confident that in the end actual judges will apply the law and the matter will be dismissed.”
Seven members of the judicial commission participated in the decision to file the complaint. They were either appointed by the governor or the Supreme Court and include prominent lawyers, businesspeople and an appeals court judge.
Butler, who recently accepted a faculty position at the University of Wisconsin law school, declined comment. “It’s important to let the process work itself through,” he said.
A three-judge panel will now hear the complaint and determine whether it has merit. If it does, the panel will make a recommendation on discipline to Gableman’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, which will make the final decision. Discipline could include a reprimand, suspension or even removal from the bench.
Lawyers across the political spectrum called Gableman’s ad misleading before the election and the liberal-leaning Citizen Action of Wisconsin filed the complaint that prompted the commission investigation.
“What’s most discouraging about this complaint was not only that everyone saw it coming but that the campaign worked,” University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Howard Schweber said.
The ad had echoes of the one featuring Horton, who was serving a life term for murder and was granted a weekend furlough under a program overseen by then-Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. Horton escaped to Maryland, where he robbed and raped a woman.
A TV ad in the 1988 presidential campaign associating Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, with the incident hurt him in his race against Republican George H.W. Bush, who won the election.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Couple learns their tot died in foster home crib
Date: 10/8/2008 5:51 AM
By JAMES A. CARLSON
Associated Press Writer
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ A Milwaukee couple is still waiting for answers after their baby boy died in foster care last week — two days after being removed with three other children from their home.
“A week before he was taken from the home we had taken him to the doctor and he was as healthy as can be,” the boy’s father, Robert Whitman, said Tuesday night. “Today was supposed to be his 2-month checkup.”
The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office reported Oct. 2 that 2-month-old Robert R. Whitman was found dead earlier that day in the crib where he was sleeping at a foster home.
The report listed the cause of death as undetermined, pending an autopsy.
Whitman said Tuesday that he and the boy’s mother, Valissa Reynolds, have been told an autopsy was inconclusive on what caused the death. Officials were waiting for results of throat cultures because the youngest girl in the family had strep throat, “and they thought that might have something to do with it,” he said.
A worker from the Bureau of Child Welfare removed the four children Sept. 30 because of filthy conditions in the residence and bruises on one child, according to the medical examiner’s report.
Whitman said the bruises on the child’s legs probably happened while two of the children were jumping on the bed, something they love to do.
As for the disarray, Reynolds has said that she had been ill with a virus for two weeks, and her house otherwise would have been clean.
Whitman said he and Reynolds learned of the death at a disposition hearing Thursday, when they had expected to find out when the children would be returned to them.
The death has left friends and family members “completely shocked and stunned,” Whitman said. “Both grandmas on both sides of the family are completely mortified.”
Whitman said he and Reynolds, who aren’t married but live together, don’t know when the three children, ages 1½, 3 and 7, will be returned.
“Essentially if we can prove to them that we can keep our house clean, we can have them back,” he said.
The medical examiner’s report said details of the case were given to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Kathy Kucharski, who did not return a message from The Associated Press seeking comment Tuesday night.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By JAMES A. CARLSON
Associated Press Writer
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ A Milwaukee couple is still waiting for answers after their baby boy died in foster care last week — two days after being removed with three other children from their home.
“A week before he was taken from the home we had taken him to the doctor and he was as healthy as can be,” the boy’s father, Robert Whitman, said Tuesday night. “Today was supposed to be his 2-month checkup.”
The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office reported Oct. 2 that 2-month-old Robert R. Whitman was found dead earlier that day in the crib where he was sleeping at a foster home.
The report listed the cause of death as undetermined, pending an autopsy.
Whitman said Tuesday that he and the boy’s mother, Valissa Reynolds, have been told an autopsy was inconclusive on what caused the death. Officials were waiting for results of throat cultures because the youngest girl in the family had strep throat, “and they thought that might have something to do with it,” he said.
A worker from the Bureau of Child Welfare removed the four children Sept. 30 because of filthy conditions in the residence and bruises on one child, according to the medical examiner’s report.
Whitman said the bruises on the child’s legs probably happened while two of the children were jumping on the bed, something they love to do.
As for the disarray, Reynolds has said that she had been ill with a virus for two weeks, and her house otherwise would have been clean.
Whitman said he and Reynolds learned of the death at a disposition hearing Thursday, when they had expected to find out when the children would be returned to them.
The death has left friends and family members “completely shocked and stunned,” Whitman said. “Both grandmas on both sides of the family are completely mortified.”
Whitman said he and Reynolds, who aren’t married but live together, don’t know when the three children, ages 1½, 3 and 7, will be returned.
“Essentially if we can prove to them that we can keep our house clean, we can have them back,” he said.
The medical examiner’s report said details of the case were given to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Kathy Kucharski, who did not return a message from The Associated Press seeking comment Tuesday night.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day
Date: 10/3/2008 9:26 PM
By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president’s mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.
The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders,” the lawsuit said.
The national proclamation issued this year asked God’s blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino also are named.
The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that attacked President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
The White House and Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner had no comment on the lawsuit. A message seeking comment from the task force was not returned Friday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president’s mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.
The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders,” the lawsuit said.
The national proclamation issued this year asked God’s blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino also are named.
The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that attacked President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
The White House and Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner had no comment on the lawsuit. A message seeking comment from the task force was not returned Friday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Winfrey’s mom countersues store for its $156K bill
Date: 9/30/2008 10:56 PM
Winfrey’s mom countersues store for its $156K bill
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ Oprah Winfrey’s mother says she shouldn’t have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn’t have extended credit to her.
Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000.
Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her “lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity” when creating her credit account.
Court papers say Lee resolved a 2002 case with the company over a $175,000 bill. The resolution prohibited Valentina from extending further credit to her.
A message left for Valentina co-owner Tony Chirchirillo was not returned Tuesday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Winfrey’s mom countersues store for its $156K bill
MILWAUKEE (AP) _ Oprah Winfrey’s mother says she shouldn’t have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn’t have extended credit to her.
Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000.
Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her “lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity” when creating her credit account.
Court papers say Lee resolved a 2002 case with the company over a $175,000 bill. The resolution prohibited Valentina from extending further credit to her.
A message left for Valentina co-owner Tony Chirchirillo was not returned Tuesday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Protesting pastors back candidates from the pulpit
Date: 9/28/2008 4:03 PM
By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press Staff Writer
WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) _ Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.
“I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life,” Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.
“I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin,” he said. “But friends, it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice. I won’t be in the voting booth with you.”
All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.
Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Thirty-three were chosen, in part for “strategic criteria related to litigation” Stanley wouldn’t discuss.
Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain “holds more to a biblical world view.”
He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.
“The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it’s a First Amendment issue,” Hice said. “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.”
“It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair said in an interview.
Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.
“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.
Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month’s Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.
Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with “legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.”
Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be “a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation.” That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.
The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.
Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press Staff Writer
WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) _ Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.
“I’m telling you straight up, I would choose life,” Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.
“I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin,” he said. “But friends, it’s your choice to make, it’s not my choice. I won’t be in the voting booth with you.”
All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors’ sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.
Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” Thirty-three were chosen, in part for “strategic criteria related to litigation” Stanley wouldn’t discuss.
Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain “holds more to a biblical world view.”
He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.
“The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it’s a First Amendment issue,” Hice said. “To say the church can’t deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, “As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain.”
“It’s absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits,” Blair said in an interview.
Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.
“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.
Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month’s Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.
Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with “legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.”
Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be “a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation.” That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.
The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.
Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly — a sometimes murky line.
The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday’s initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.
The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
Opposition to Sunday’s sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because “we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt.”
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock and AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Who will inherit your retirement account?
Date: 9/26/2008 5:32 PM
By DAVID PITT
AP Business Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Financial planners say it happens all too frequently: a person dies unexpectedly leaving ex-spouses or relatives they haven’t seen in years large chunks of money because they hadn’t updated their retirement plans or life insurance policies.
It’s a problem that you can try to head off at the pass this open enrollment season. But be aware that for most insurance and retirement accounts, changes can be made any time and do not require you to wait for your annual benefits selection.
It’s important to keep beneficiary designations current because a lot is at stake. Collectively, the amount of money held in retirement accounts in the United States is large and growing.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute said IRA assets grew 12.5 percent to $4.75 trillion in 2007.
Private-sector defined contribution plans including 401(k) accounts held $3.5 trillion, and private-sector defined benefit plans held $2.33 trillion in 2007.
Many people may believe that an updated will is sufficient to take care of any financial issues left behind, but that’s not the case, said Rande Spiegelman, vice president of financial planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, a division of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Retirement plan assets and life insurance benefits generally go directly to the named beneficiaries, and those survivors likely will have their money before a will is processed in probate court.
Many people have multiple life insurance policies and retirement funds from different employers and forget to update beneficiaries. So, if you’ve divorced and your first wife is still the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, there could be a problem for other survivors who may be depending on the benefits.
“This is probably not one of those things that’s the top priority for most folks,” Spiegelman said.
He recommends reviewing beneficiary declarations on retirement accounts and insurance policies every two to three years. They also should be reviewed when major life changes occur such as a birth, death of a family member, a divorce or a move to another state.
Some advisers recommend an annual review to keep the policies and accounts as up-to-date as possible.
Accounts that may have beneficiary designations include individual retirement accounts — 401(k), 403(b), or 457. Self-employed accounts such as a Keogh or qualified retirement plan. Credit union plan accounts, disability insurance policies, life insurance policies and annuities also have beneficiary forms. Also think about beneficiaries for accounts at brokerages, he said.
As a practical matter, most married people will name their spouse as the primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries if the primary isn’t still living.
Spouses have certain benefits when it comes to inheriting a retirement account. They can roll the money over into their own retirement account or keep it in a separate account and defer taking out any money until they turn 70½ — when they must take required minimum distributions. A spouse also has the option of taking the money out in distributions over his or her lifetime, taking advantage of the tax-deferred status of the account.
It’s important to note that federal law makes your spouse the default beneficiary on the retirement account through your employer such as a 401(k). Someone other than your spouse can be named the beneficiary only if you authorize it and your spouse signs a release form.
For unmarried people, parents, other family members, domestic partners or others close to them may be chosen as beneficiaries.
Failure to name beneficiaries means the money goes into your estate and becomes part of the probate process, which means the cash will be tied up in a court process and some of it will be lost to the expenses of the probate process.
Some people have made the mistake of naming their estate as the beneficiary, which again locks up the assets in court-managed probate.
In a few cases, an individual may want to name a trust as the beneficiary, which places the money in control of a trusted money manager. It’s an option if you believe the beneficiaries of your money may not have the skills to handle it.
Marvin Feldman, president and CEO of the Washington-based Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, a nonprofit group formed by insurance companies, said a trust might be important if you decide to leave the money to a minor child.
The trust would be named as the beneficiary of your money and the person you name to manage it, the trustee, would be responsible for distributing funds to your child in the way you establish in the trust documents.
Sometimes trustees are given some flexibility to make distribution decisions as needed but within parameters you establish.
Trusts may also be an option if you’re divorced with minor children and former spouse has custody of the children. A trust would ensure that the money you leave is used to support the child’s needs.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By DAVID PITT
AP Business Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Financial planners say it happens all too frequently: a person dies unexpectedly leaving ex-spouses or relatives they haven’t seen in years large chunks of money because they hadn’t updated their retirement plans or life insurance policies.
It’s a problem that you can try to head off at the pass this open enrollment season. But be aware that for most insurance and retirement accounts, changes can be made any time and do not require you to wait for your annual benefits selection.
It’s important to keep beneficiary designations current because a lot is at stake. Collectively, the amount of money held in retirement accounts in the United States is large and growing.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute said IRA assets grew 12.5 percent to $4.75 trillion in 2007.
Private-sector defined contribution plans including 401(k) accounts held $3.5 trillion, and private-sector defined benefit plans held $2.33 trillion in 2007.
Many people may believe that an updated will is sufficient to take care of any financial issues left behind, but that’s not the case, said Rande Spiegelman, vice president of financial planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research, a division of Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.
Retirement plan assets and life insurance benefits generally go directly to the named beneficiaries, and those survivors likely will have their money before a will is processed in probate court.
Many people have multiple life insurance policies and retirement funds from different employers and forget to update beneficiaries. So, if you’ve divorced and your first wife is still the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, there could be a problem for other survivors who may be depending on the benefits.
“This is probably not one of those things that’s the top priority for most folks,” Spiegelman said.
He recommends reviewing beneficiary declarations on retirement accounts and insurance policies every two to three years. They also should be reviewed when major life changes occur such as a birth, death of a family member, a divorce or a move to another state.
Some advisers recommend an annual review to keep the policies and accounts as up-to-date as possible.
Accounts that may have beneficiary designations include individual retirement accounts — 401(k), 403(b), or 457. Self-employed accounts such as a Keogh or qualified retirement plan. Credit union plan accounts, disability insurance policies, life insurance policies and annuities also have beneficiary forms. Also think about beneficiaries for accounts at brokerages, he said.
As a practical matter, most married people will name their spouse as the primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries if the primary isn’t still living.
Spouses have certain benefits when it comes to inheriting a retirement account. They can roll the money over into their own retirement account or keep it in a separate account and defer taking out any money until they turn 70½ — when they must take required minimum distributions. A spouse also has the option of taking the money out in distributions over his or her lifetime, taking advantage of the tax-deferred status of the account.
It’s important to note that federal law makes your spouse the default beneficiary on the retirement account through your employer such as a 401(k). Someone other than your spouse can be named the beneficiary only if you authorize it and your spouse signs a release form.
For unmarried people, parents, other family members, domestic partners or others close to them may be chosen as beneficiaries.
Failure to name beneficiaries means the money goes into your estate and becomes part of the probate process, which means the cash will be tied up in a court process and some of it will be lost to the expenses of the probate process.
Some people have made the mistake of naming their estate as the beneficiary, which again locks up the assets in court-managed probate.
In a few cases, an individual may want to name a trust as the beneficiary, which places the money in control of a trusted money manager. It’s an option if you believe the beneficiaries of your money may not have the skills to handle it.
Marvin Feldman, president and CEO of the Washington-based Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, a nonprofit group formed by insurance companies, said a trust might be important if you decide to leave the money to a minor child.
The trust would be named as the beneficiary of your money and the person you name to manage it, the trustee, would be responsible for distributing funds to your child in the way you establish in the trust documents.
Sometimes trustees are given some flexibility to make distribution decisions as needed but within parameters you establish.
Trusts may also be an option if you’re divorced with minor children and former spouse has custody of the children. A trust would ensure that the money you leave is used to support the child’s needs.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.