Subscribe by RSS
With two failed picks for commerce secretary behind him, White House officials say that former Washington Gov. Gary Locke will be President Obama’s next choice to be hoisted out to the public.
From Fox News:
Locke, a Democrat, was the nation’s first Chinese-American governor when he served two terms in the Washington statehouse from 1997 to 2005.
Since leaving office he’s been working for the Seattle-based law firm Davis Wright Tremaine on issues involving China, energy and governmental relations. He argues that global engagement is a way to improve China’s human rights record and deal with piracy of intellectual property.
Obama surely wants his third nomination to the commerce department to be as drama-free as possible. Already troubled by the personal controversies of nominees for other more high-profile departments, Obama has run into unexpected problems filling the commerce post.
The typically low-profile head of the department oversees agencies responsible for the once-a-decade census, for oceans policy and for many aspects of international trade, among other things.
But in Obama’s administration, the delay in getting a commerce secretary has been top news in part because it has been accompanied by other Cabinet troubles. He still does not have a Health and Human Services secretary, either. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for that post amid a tax controversy.
The loss of Gregg for the commerce job also highlighted the difficulty Obama has had reaching out to Republicans. Gregg would have been one of three Republicans Obama had put in his Cabinet to emphasize his campaign pledge that he would be an agent of bipartisan change.
Despite those and other efforts, Obama drew hardly any GOP support for his main legislative priority, the stimulus package.
Locke, 59, was born into an immigrant family and lived in a Seattle public housing project until he was 6. He graduated from Yale University, which he attended with a combination of scholarships and financial aid, and Boston University Law School.
He lists among his accomplishments as governor a package of tax breaks that persuaded The Boeing Co. to assemble its new 787 jetliner in Everett, north of Seattle, and expanded transportation and construction budgets.
Locke is married to Mona Lee Locke, a former television news reporter who is now executive director of the regional affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a breast cancer research and advocacy organization. They have three children.
Perhaps Locke will pass muster with the Senate. We’ll be watching.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
Gary Locke seems clean. No contriverial organizations or scandals in his past. Hope he doesn’t feel like a duck out of water surrounded by people with more colorful past. Seems to be a nice enough guy..
I wonder what his position will be on putting the census in the White House. Do you suppose obama chose him because he’ll be a yes man for his agenda?
Babs
You have a bad habit of QUESTIONING ! No wonder you are now a Conservative Republican
“But Locke’s reputation also remains haunted by criticism that he lacked the courage or passion to risk his political capital for fundamental reforms”.
“Or perhaps he remained popular precisely because he declined to trade in that capital on risky proposals”.
“Beyond making history because of his ethnic heritage, Locke and his two terms will not likely be remembered for a centerpiece achievement or short, meaty list of accomplishments, friends and observers say”
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206299_locke03.html – 55k
http://seattlepi.nwsource.....cke03.html
Yes, I think those quotes pretty much answer those questions, don’t you think? As far as me asking a lot of questions, Bill, I wish the country had asked a whole lot more before Nov. 4, 2008. Don’t you?
Babs
Do I need to dignify that with a answer ?
I tried to find list of Congress people getting contributions from Acorn. No luck yet.
I did learn moveon.com is for gun control. Obama-moveon.! I found that interesting. Money trail from spending law to Acorn and moveon involved in this mess. I smell rotten meat. Maybe more than we already knew
Babs
You should ask your Congress to question this guy. Did you notice
“and a controversial scheme to borrow against the state’s share of the national tobacco settlement”.
Congress did this to social security and countless other funds to hide deficit spending. You know they never paid back all/most of these funds
There isn’t anything controversial about it MANY STATES used the money that was targeted for supposed health issues from the tobacco industry for other projects.The government is faced with a double edge sword with tobacco. On one hand they don’t want to lose the tax revenue from tobacco and on the other from what I read they are considering including smokers in any national health care plan with the same regard as non-smokers.Meaning they don’t pay extra for the extra heath risk of smoking.
DDMao, in all honesty, smokers shouldn’t pay more for health benefits. If you really study it, there are smokers who have smoked for decades who will never get cancer – because they don’t have the right genes for it. But besides that, and more importantly, if they are going to restrict tobacco users on insurance policies, they should also restrict drinkers – even social drinkers – because they have an higher risk of liver disease, kidney disease, high blood pressure – a whole host of high risk issues. Yes, smokers may kill themselves with tobacco, but no one ever got behind the wheel of a car and took an innocent life because they had one CIGARETTE too many. The double standard here reeks, and can include obesity, diabetics, and a whole ton of other human conditions that should be excluded as well if tobacco users are excluded. The higher rate for smokers has nothing to do with health standards, IMO, because its no more dangerous than the other things I have mentioned. Smokers are being discriminated against in this area because its deemed to be politically incorrect to smoke.
I bought a year supple and I make my own cigs. When gone, I buy from Canada or Indians, depending on price
Babs ….The subject being discussed was the money from the tobacco settlement.By using smokers it was just an example and by using it I didn’t mean drinking is less harmful by leaving it out.Currently pre-conditions and other factors are taken into account by insurance companies as I feel it should be.Some of these other factors are age,history of heart trouble in family,weight etc.If it wasn’t taken into account it would leave open any irresponsible behavior on the part of the individual and putting these institutions at risk much the same way the banking industry was prey upon.This has nothing to do with political correctness but responsibility and good business practices.
I know what the subject was, DD, I was just picking up on the comment that smokers incurred higher premiums. And I can agree with you to a point. But as a retired Respiratory Therapist, it’s a soapbox I climb on with every opportunity. I’ll give you one small example of the injustice, from my own experience.
I performed a pulmonary function study (PFT)on a patient one day. (Actually, many days but I’ll just use one for the example.) In the pre-test questions: Do you smoke? Yes. How many cigarettes a day do you smoke? Three, one after each meal. (VERY common answer). How many years have you smoked? 20-30 the most common answer. Ok. Check ABG results (arterial blood gas). Normal. Completely normal. No sign of pulmonary disease, i.e. copd, emphysema, asthma,etc. Perform the PFT. Patient scores 100% on every phase of the study.
What’s my point, you say? This patient with totally normal oxygen levels in the bloodstream, totally normal lung function with no obstructions, gets increased premiums on their healthcare policy because of the first question. Do you smoke? Yes. Bam.
Pre-existing conditions warrent higher healthcare premiums. That’s a given. But not a blanket hike on smokers – unless you’re going to give the same blanket hike to drinkers.
*Stepping down from my soapbox now.*
Babs……..I’m not a member of the health care industry.While seeing your side of the arguement and believing you have some skin in the game (you’re a smoker)I believe the term used is “risk factor”.Even though this patient doesn’t show signs now his behavior gives an added risk over a non-smoker.Much the same way as premiums are higher for race car drivers over the regular driver.Insurance companies raise the rates after you have ANY accident due to risk factor and past behavior.
In regard to drinkers when we file for an insurance policy we are asked “Do you drink?” Then the followup question is always how much and what kind of liqueur? When you tell them you have a history of alcoholism in your family BAM your rates go up.Trust me I know from this……..I kid you not.
Neither smokers or drinkers tell HONESTLY how much they indulge.This isn’t like income tax where you need documentation.Therefore they have only a risk factor to go on.I am puzzled why you can understand responsibility and good business practices are needed on the part of the individual and industry in the banking crash but unable to for the insurance industry when even less documentation is needed.This argument you give is also a slippery slope for drug users and any other irresponsible behavior to receive blanket rates.
With deepest respect……DDM
DD, you have me confused with Bill. I have smoked and I have drank. I will still smoke if I’m drinking – too much, my friends and some family refer to me as a “social smoker” in jest, since I tend to only light up as one would savor a chocolately treat, and then only when tipsy. *L* But I seldom drink, either, so there ya go. My husband is a smoker. He’s also a mild drinker, and a racer of cars and boats. But I have no “skin in the game”, no. I do, however, have skin in the health insurance game. I haven’t been hospitalized in 28 years, and I haven’t filed a health insurance claim in 20 years, with the exception of an ER bill when I broke my foot a few years ago. My doctor bills were not covered. Still, my insurance premiums have ballooned every quarter for the last 15 years. Its not because I’m high risk – obviously.
The crux of our health care crisis isn’t found in these people anyway, DD. It’s found in the exploited fees of healthcare professionals and drug companies. Its a domino effect for insurance companies. They charge higher premiums because doctors, hospitals, and drug companies are out of control with their fees. Trust me.
I hope you aren’t advocating national health care.If you think your premiums are high now they will skyrocket once the government takes over due to people sucking the system dry.Premiums go up for many reasons one of which where you live.National health care can be a slippery slope and include abortions,cosmetic surgury and any number of things such as the beloved European system enjoys.I have a friend who is a Brit and he had to wait 2 months for an MRI and 9 months for an operation.When the government can run it’s VA hospitals then come back and we’ll discuss national health care.As you state there is a DOMINO EFFECT in which healthcare professionals and drug companies are charged.Being sued and research top the list of their expenses.
Sure fees are high and things can be done like health care accounts linked to tax deductions.People don’t go to England,France, or CANADA for operations……they come to America and there is a reason for that.Our health care is the best in the world and the government will only screw it up.
But like elections the American public will only look at the surface CRISIS and not the consequences.
Not at all, DD. If I’m advocating anything, it’s competition in the markets of drugs, hospitals, and health care equipment. Example – when I worked as an RT, MY TIME was billed at $60 per hour in 1977, 5 times what I was actually paid, and I was paid well for that time. Then equipment and treatment charges were piled on top of that. Another example, I took my mother to the emergency room a couple of weeks ago. They did a urinalysis, drew blood for an SMA18, and kept her sitting in the room for 9 hours for nothing else. I got the bill Monday. $3,365. Sorry, that’s just not in line with reality. Nationalizing healthcare is not going to help that, if anything, it will encourage it.
I don’t know if you mentioned, but you also pay for uninsured and high law suite cost. Adding test to cover legal possibilities. Milpractice insurance
All true, Bill, and some of those things can’t be avoided, like malpractice insurance. But the outlandish medical costs being billed by healthcare providers can be.
Babs………As I said I have time now due to family matters which have to do with health care to my In-laws in NYC.So I know what you mean about expenses and 9 or 10 hours in an emergency room.
I’m glad to see we basically agree on not nationalizing health care,competition and making realistic adjustments such as carrying health care from job to job or medical accounts.Hope all is well with your Mom……..DDM
She’s well, thanks. At 90, some days you just don’t feel well when you get up. And at 90, that scares you sometimes. So we do what we can to make it better.
DD
I had to work a year after retirement. I worked at Columbia Hospital in Missouri. They flew patients in from another hospital by helicopter because they had no insurance and this hospital was required to accept.
Bill…. Good point about having to accept patients.I have an article somewhere telling the exact law Congress passed making that a law.Lets see if I can find it.
Babs……My in-laws are 91 (Dad) and 87 for Mom and they are celebrating their 66th wedding anniversary today.
OMG, please tell them happy anniversary from me! We could learn much from their experiences. I was told stories of the Great Depression so often and so descriptively, I somehow feel I was there. Take advantage of their memories, they make us wiser.
DD I know Springfield would send them to Jeff city. Considering patient condition, might be by ambulance to hellicopter.
Amount of judgement in lawsuites the Doctor felt would increased cost and test run just for protection. You learn alot listening to nurses.
I saw pople on medicare demand everything with Doctors giving in to un-needed stuff. In my opinion. Go to ER for nose bleed. Small stuff.
Here is a great link on the History of Health Insurance.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/