Remember this back in 2005 when Rural Democrats formed their Own Caucus after losing complete control of the State

"We are not the Democrats of the national party. We tend to be more conservative in our views on all of our issues," said Georgia state Rep. Gerald Greene (D-Cuthbert), in a interview with Fox News back in 2005. He has represents House District 134 for more than 25 Years.

"We are just trying to put back what a true Democrat believes and the ideology that we have had in the past," Greene added.

These comments was on the heels of Rural Democrats forming their own caucus after republicans took total control of the State.

It was attempt according some to some analysts to save the party that people say was growing more liberal.



Then former State Rep. Bob Holmes , who represented Atlanta, said instead of a separate caucus, his party must unify if Democrats ever hope to take back Georgia's House, Senate and governor's office.

"You work from within. You try to build it up," Holmes said. "You sit down and you say, 'This is what we need to do.' You don't go out and support the enemy. I am from West Virginia where we call people 'traitors' who do that to their party."


We're going to see can the party, which in many ways is still somewhat divided from the more moderate & conservative democrats of rural Georgia & their progressive counterparts in the Urban & Surburban areas of the state & Metro Atlanta can come together to take back the governor's mansion in 2010 & other offices as well.

3 Top Obama Advisers Favor Adding Troops in Afghanistan

The New York Times is reporting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan, but President Obama remains unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy, administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Obama is to consider four final options in a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters. The options outline different troop levels, other officials said, but they also assume different goals — including how much of Afghanistan the troops would seek to control — and different time frames and expectations for the training of Afghan security forces.

Three of the options call for specific levels of additional troops. The low-end option would add 20,000 to 25,000 troops, a middle option calls for about 30,000, and another embraces Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly 40,000 more troops. Administration officials said that a fourth option was added only in the past few days. They declined to identify any troop level attached to it.

GOP senators push for term limits? Give me a Break!

CNN is reporting that a handful of Republican senators have proposed a constitutional amendment to limit how long a person may serve in Congress.

Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve six years in the House.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment -- a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994.

This will never happen in my opinion. These lawmakers love the power & influence they enjoy as a congressman or a senator. Some of these politicians have made a career out of this, some have gotten rich as a result. I really hope we do have term limits. Some of these Politicians have stay way too long. Maybe having term limits can result in getting more things done in Washington & get this country moving forward.

Rep. Jim Marshall speaks on the House Floor about the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill

Congressman Bishop returns home after narrow vote

Len Kiese of WALB Albany reported on this last night.

–The battle over health care is far from over but it did clear a major hurdle over the weekend when the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill. Congressman Sanford Bishop returned home Tuesday night for the first time since that narrow vote.

Supporters of health care reform are touting the House's passage of a bill as a victory. Congressman Bishop says the bill will give a lot of hope to a lot of people but some people still aren't sold.

There was singing and applause at Albany Towers for Congressman Sanford Bishop and his vote of yes on healthcare reform Tuesday evening. "I am uninsured and it's going to help me personally as well," said one supporter.

Several supporters filled the lobby outside his downtown Albany office to say 'thank you'. "This will take the pressure off a lot of people to be able to have health insurance," said supporter Bill Dennis.

"The current system is broken and we have to start somewhere," said another supporter.

Bishop told the crowd the road to that narrow 220 to 215 vote in the House of Representatives was a long and hard one. "But you know they say the journey of 1,000 miles begins with the very first step," said Bishop.

But he says with the tough decision upon lawmakers he had to ask himself a question. "I had to ask myself what would Jesus do?," said Bishop.

So he went with the package he touts as a good start for reform he says will outlaw denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions and give affordable and accessible insurance to almost everyone in the 2nd Congressional District. "With the exception of those who are here unlawfully in this area," said Bishop.

"With this vote right here, he showed us where his heart is at," said a Bishop supporter.

Not everyone feels House lawmakers had the best interest of Americans at heart with last week's vote. "The government is getting bigger and bigger. Any government that is able to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you've got and we're moving in that direction and it's scary," said Kathy Young who's opposed to the bill.

"It's government taking over a service that like everything else is not going to work," said Kevin Jackson.

Jackson feels the current bill would end up hurting who it's aimed to help. "They look at it like oh no it's not going to affect anybody. All these policies negatively affect the poor but the Democrats and liberals act is if these are the things that are going to help," said Jackson.

Supporters including the local NAACP disagree. "The public option means more choice, more families covered and fewer forced into bankruptcy," said an NAACP representative.

"I think that it is a good first step," said Bishop.

It's a first step but there are plenty more to go until a final bill is passed. Bishop says the bill isn't perfect but with more input from the Senate he's confident there will be a final bill that Americans will be proud of.

He also says the House plan won't add a dime to the federal deficit. The House version would impose a 5.4-percent surcharge on individuals who earn $500,000 or corporations earning $1-million a year to pay for the bill.

Why do African-Americans Vote Democratic? And why they don't trust the GOP.

Black America is still one of the most conservative groups of people in America, especially the older ones. They are God fearing and church going, they are against abortion and homosexuality, they tend to stick to their traditional ways even if it was a method to survive adversity, they still stick to their traditional foods even if they are considered unhealthy, and they still believe in family even though the man maybe absent. If this is the case, why then, do Blacks vote Democrat?

The Republican Party claims to be conservative because they stand for family, God, morality, do not support gay or abortion rights, and believe in tradition and heritage. The difference between their conservatism and Black conservatism is that they have power, wealth, influence, and they do not want any system to change their advantage. The Blacks on the other hand lacks all these things and have no advantage. The only advantage they seem to have is civil rights and affirmative action, which is actually a hand out from the government to make up for their lack and disadvantage. You would expect two conservative groups to be best of friends, but it is not so between the Republicans and the Blacks. The conservatism of the Republicans is to maintain their culture, way of life, and most importantly to maintain their economic and political status. Black conservatism is more religious than cultural, but a little bit of both. They feel that is what the Bible said and so be it. Blacks are the true American conservatives but why do they vote Democrat?

Black America already knew God, they already know morality, they will always reject abortion and homosexuality, they are the conservatives, but they are in search of economic and political relevance. As long as the Republicans are in power and are interested in keeping things the way they are, the Blacks will never achieve economic and political relevance. Despite the fact that the Democrats are a little too liberal on some morale issues, many Blacks perceive them as the vehicle to attaining true freedom, equality, and opportunity. The conservatism of the Republicans helps make laws or create a system that hinders Black progress, (like the attempts to roll back the Voting Right Act, elimination of affirmitive action, etc.), while the liberalism of Democrats promotes acceptance and tolerance for various groups to excel, be it good or bad.

Just as it is easy to call trading farmers traders, so it is easy to call Blacks liberals. Blacks are one of the most traditional and conservative people. If the Republican Party can find a way to make laws and systems that encourages Black political and economic relevance, they can be sure to win every election in the United States. Black America will always vote for God, morality, and tradition as long as they do not have to worry about equality and survival. This could be the reason why many Blacks become Republicans when money and influence is no longer an issue. So far, may be the Democratic Party is the way to the relevance Blacks desire because they already have God and morality.

Steele: White Republicans Are Scared Of Me

I Always Wondered What Makes People Vote Republican instead of Democrat? Here's what I think.

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? But now that we can map the attitudes of conservatives, I have Ccome to this conclusion: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. This probably explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our mind tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Now this is just me talking, but people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.

The Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military. The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane—of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don't understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping.

The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words "God" and "faith." God is useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a collection of individuals—each with a panoply of rights--but as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending and caring.


If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Why Many Democratic Voters in Rural Areas Vote Republican when it comes to Gun Rights.

Many Democrats have voted for Republican candidates because of the official Republican position on gun control. The scare tactics used by Republican organizations include attacks on the "Jack Booted Thugs of the ATF" to the statement that the "Democrats will take away your hunting rifle if you don't vote Republican". This highly successful campaign has alienated a strong group of former Democratic voters. Most Democratic gun owners, however, have recognized the political fallacy of the Republican attack and remained loyal to the Democratic Party.

I agree with the authorities who believe there is a need for controls on firearms to limit their easy access by the criminal community. I agree that background checks, waiting periods, and tighter regulations on dealers are necessary steps to attain this goal. I do not agree with the fringe groups who want to disarm decent American citizens. Their contention that the presence of a firearm in the home increases crime is exactly opposite of the reality. Any unbiased evaluation of world history will show that crime is reduced by arming the citizens.

Criminals prey on the vulnerable and avoid those who are capable of defending themselves. A simple survey of crime victims will demonstrate this. Women, the elderly, children, and men disabled by alcohol or for other reasons are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than other groups. Arming the vulnerable reduces the likelihood of criminal attack.

Several states have enacted concealed carry laws in recent years in spite of the opposition by anti-firearm groups. This alone should demonstrate the American public's recognition that there is a need for self defence beyond the responsibility of the police. Reasonable control on gun owners is a good idea. Disarming America will result in anarchy.

We Need Someone to Standup for Rural Georgia

Rural Georgia is more than the land. It is a way we are connected in culture,& Heritage. While it may be vast, it is far from empty. Probably 40% of the state's population live in Rural Georgia, and far more grew up there. Rural Georgia reflect the full diversity of the State in who we are, what we do, and what we want to achieve.

When rural Georgia succeed, the State does better, and cities and suburbs have more resources on which to build. Conversely, when rural communities falter, it drains the State's prosperity and limits what we can accomplish together.

We now face the challenges of how we sustainably fuel, feed, and nurture ourselves A vital rural Georgia has a contribution to make in this effort and the responsibility to take on that endeavor.

Every child should have an equal chance to learn, excel, and help lead America to a better, brighter future. Education policy should recognize the distinctive challenges and opportunities for rural schools and reflect the unique needs of those students, families, and educators.

The majority of Georgia is mostly rural. It is a heritage and a trust. We all have a responsibility to protect the environment and develop and sustain our natural resources in ways that strengthen rural communities for the long haul. Good environmental practices and responsive public land management provide the opportunity to promote energy independence, grow healthy food in a sustainable manner, and develop stronger natural-resource-based economies.

All people in Georgia deserve access to good, affordable healthcare. If we want small towns and rural communities to contribute to the well-being of the State, we need rural healthcare systems that work. These should include preventive care, health education, and both community-based and high-tech delivery systems.

To fight poverty, create wealth, and build sustainable communities, everyone in Georgia needs access to a safe and equitable system for saving, borrowing, and building capital. To fully participate in and contribute to the Georgia economy, rural communities need public and private investment, access to philanthropic resources, and the tools to develop their own community-controlled assets. This is only my Opinion.

Some out there would say that rural Georgia cannot be saved, but I beg to differ. When I see candidates like General David Poythress go & campaign in rural Georgia, that tells me that he is really sincere & he knows the importance of rural Georgia to the future of this great state. We cannot afford to see rural Georgia continue to go down a downward path. That's why we need someone who will take rural Georgia seriously & not just come to visit us only just to say what he or she thinks folks here wanna hear & use wedge issues like Guns & Marriage just to get a vote. That act is growing old now.

PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS PRAISE HOUSE FOR PASSAGE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN DAY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA

"The House of Representatives answered the call of history today when they passed health care reform. While it would be tempting to call this a Democratic win, the truth is the American people are the winners of this hard fought victory.

That's why Democrats For Life of America applauds Speaker Nancy Pelosi for agreeing to clear the way for the passage of this historic legislation. But we would be remiss if we didn't thank Congressmen Bart Stupak, Brad Ellsworth and other Members for their heroic efforts to fight for the amendment that removed tax payer funded abortions from the final bill.

Democrats proved today that we are a big tent party that can put our differences aside to help the American people. Republicans can't make that claim. That's why we stand ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our Democratic majority to expand the big tent so that we can fulfill President Obama's challenge to make America a place where anything is possible.

Moving forward, we encourage the Senate to see how quickly they can pass their version of the Public Option when we put health care reform before ideological fights like abortion. We stand willing to work side-by-side with the Senate leadership to craft and promote the bill if tax payer funded abortions is removed from their bill."

A banner day for EGC

East Georgia College experienced history in the making on October 22, 2009 as the College's inter-collegiate athletic program "kicked off" in style. After receiving approval from the student body and University System of Georgia Board of Regents earlier this year, the athletics program has moved full-force ahead. The program will initially include men's and women's basketball, women's fast-pitch softball and men's baseball. The first home basketball game will be held in the EGC gym on November 16th.

To commemorate the occasion, Coach Vince Dooley, former Head Coach and Athletic Director at the University of Georgia, came to campus to meet with the athletes, students, faculty, and staff and presented an autographed basketball, baseball and softball to the College. While here, he visited Emanuel County beginning with a tour and reception on campus, followed by a book signing at Daniels' Chevrolet, Buick, GMC Trucks, and a dinner at McKinney's Pond Restaurant.

Made possible by two very generous donors - the Daniels' and Dr. and Mrs. Harold Harrison, there was much excitement surrounding the Coach's visit. He was welcomed to campus by faculty, staff and students, including members of the basketball teams and the cheerleaders. The book signing was a tremendous success as he continually autographed books and memorabilia from 3:30-6 p.m.

Later, he joined over 125 EGC supporters and dined on McKinney Pond's legendary fried shrimp and catfish. Following dinner, he recalled his 40 years in college athletics. He highlighted many memorable plays made during his tenure and fondly recalled the players that made them. He shared great memories of Barry Young, Greg (Muddy) Waters and Bill McWhorter, former UGA players that Emanuel County calls our own.

Mixed with the anecdotal stories and remembrances, Coach Dooley had a strong message about leadership and what it takes to develop a successful athletic program. He was very complimentary of East Georgia College and Emanuel County and provided assurance that the College and the community have what it takes to make the EGC athletics program a success - leadership, support and well-rounded athletes.

The EGC Bobcat Basketball home games will begin on November 16th with opponent Albany Tech. The women's game starts at 5:30 p.m. followed by the men's game at 7:30 p.m. in the EGC Gym. The East Georgia College Staff Council will be sponsoring a spaghetti dinner prior to the games. All members of the community are encouraged to attend this inaugural game and be a part of history in the making. Go Bobcats!

East Georgia College, a two-year associate degree-granting unit of the University System of Georgia, is a student-oriented, non-residential, access and opportunity college serving east-central Georgia and is fully accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4097.

Officials with the Georgia Department of Transportation say that a new interstate will not be cost effective to Southwest Georgia.

Matthew Fowler, assistant state transportation planning administrator for the Georgia Department of Transportation, says the state will not recommend that a new interstate be constructed in Southwest Georgia.

According to GDOT’s Southwest Georgia Interstate Study findings, Fowler said the cost of building an interstate would far outweigh the benefits from improving access to existing interstates.

“Interstates, especially in today’s economic climate, are very, very expensive,” he said. “You have to have benefits that outweigh the costs.”
Fowler said the two benefits that the study closely looked at were the economic impact and the travel impact of an interstate to communities in Southwest Georgia.

“These two benefits did not add up to the overall cost,” he said. “Out best performing corridor only had .33 percent benefit over the cost.”
Fowler said the GDOT study focused on a handful of main corridors: Columbus to Albany to Valdosta, Columbus to Albany to Tifton and Cordele to Albany to Tallahassee, Fla.

According to Fowler, the GDOT study began 18 months ago in response to local officials asking for information on a new interstate.

“We blocked off 32 counties in Southwest Georgia and focused on the needs of those communities,” he said. “We looked at upgrading existing roads and improving access to existing intestates such as I-75, I-185, and I-10.”
In the study, GDOT collected data on existing and historic traffic volumes on all major roads, researched previous transportation studies, and obtained locally-adopted land-use plans.

“We also based our models on reports of communities projected growth that they gave to us,” said Fowler. “We also came up with a model that projected future traffic volumes and areas of congestion.”

Fowler said GDOT forecasted to the year 2040 and the one area that showed on the map as having congestion and traffic problems was Georgia Highway 133.

“The good thing is we have existing projects that are in the engineering stage to widen 133,” he said.

“If people want an interstate now in would take 30 years worth of dollars saved up to fund an interstate,” he said. “That mean for 30 years you could not spend money on anything else.”

“The final study should be available on our web site around January,” he said.

Georgia tax collections drop again

Tax collections for the state fell again in October compared to the same month in the previous fiscal year, according to figures released Monday by Gov. Sonny Perdue's office.

Collections were off 18 percent, or 15 percent for the first four months of the fiscal year.

One group called for tax increases to prevent further cuts, but Mr. Perdue's staff said emergency action isn't needed.

Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley said the governor already has cut $900 million from the budget he signed into law in April, so deeper cuts are not necessarily imminent. The numbers look bad, he said, because the drop in collections caused by the recession hadn't hit in October 2008.

The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, an independent think tank, said action is required and recommended taxes be raised to stave off further cuts.

"Georgia cannot cut its way to prosperity," the institute wrote in a statement. "The governor and General Assembly must look to raise revenues, as a majority of states have done, including a majority of our conservative Southern neighbors."

What will be the fallout for Barrow & Marshall for their "NO" votes on the Healthcare Legislation.

You see it on blogs like Blog for Democracy the disappointment of Democrats by the votes of Jim Marshall & John Barrow against the House Version of the Healthcare Legislation.

So what will democrats do?

I hear alot of talk about how they need to be kicked out of the democratic party, or they need to have primary challengers. Let me say this, I would rather have a Jim Marshall, a John Barrow as my congressman that a Rabid- Right Winger, who would only cater to its Base that is increasingly growing more extreme by the day. I would have loved to see both of our Conservative Democratic Congressmen vote "Yes" for the Legislation, given how it would improve Healthcare for Rural Georgians, but I'm not mad, or disappointed at them. I'm kinda surprised that Barrow would voted against the bill, given that Obama won the District back in 2008.

So ask yourself, who would knockoff Jim Marshall or John Barrow in a Primary? I hear Regina Thomas is considering another challenge to Barrow, but even if she were to win in the primary, she would get clobbered in the General Election. The best bet for democrats is for Barrow to (1) Run for U.S. Senate, or (2) Come home to run for State Agriculture Commissioner in 2010. That's it and then recruit a moderate like a Josh Lanier of Statesboro, or State Senator J.B. Powell(D-Blythe) to run for the 12th District Seat.

The Same for Jim Marshall, either persuade Him to run for the Senate, or have someone like former Macon Mayor C. Jack Ellis to run against him next year & even if he were to beat Marshall, he wouldn't stand a chance in the General Election.

So before people start to talk about how awful they are, it could be much worse. The 8th could Have Mac Collins, or Rick Goddard & the 12th could have Max Burns. And before people start talking about primary challenges to both men, you better ask yourself can that person win in a General Election?

Powell could win, Lanier, could win. Regina Thomas? No way. C. Jack Ellis? Hell No? And it's not because they are African-American. A liberal Democrat can't win in either of those districts the way they are made up right now. That's the bottom line. And both Thomas & Ellis would get slaughtered in a General Election.

Healthcare Reform passes the House, but still has a long way to go.

Saturday Night, the House passed the Healthcare Reform bill by a vote of 220-215. All of the Georgia Republican Congressmen voted "NO" for the legislation, while Democrats John Lewis, David Scott, Hank Johnson all voted "Yes". Congressmen John Barrow & Jim Marshall voted "No" while Sanford Bishop voted "Yes". Only one Republican voted yes & that was a Louisiana Congressman who represents a overwhelimingly Democratic District.

"Fixing the broken health care system is one of the most important issues of this generation, and it's one of the reasons I came to Congress," Barrow said in a statement. "But this bill costs too much, doesn't regulate the insurance companies enough and doesn't reform the system in a way to make health care sustainable."

"Costs are through the roof," Marshall said, according to the Web site of Macon television station WMAZ-13. "I think we can expand access, maybe improve quality but maintain quality and control costs if we head in a slightly different direction."

Like Marshall, fellow Blue Dog Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Albany, had expressed concerns about whether the Obama administration-backed plan provided enough protection for rural hospitals and health care providers.

“During my town hall meetings on health insurance reform last August, I said that we have a moral obligation to ensure that all Americans receive the health care they need to live healthy and productive lives,” Bishop said.

“I have long been concerned about the poor health indicators among my constituents, and this evening I cast a vote that I believe will have a significant impact on improving the lives of Southwest Georgians now and into the future.”

What will this all mean. Well, Barrow is most likely to get a challenge in the primary. It would be a surprise if he didn't get primaried, given how liberal groups like Moveon.Org, Netroots. Democracy for America has targeted Barrow in the past, Marshall, I highly doubt he will get primaried in the 8th. Even if he does, he will enjoy croossover support from republican voters & conservative democrats & Bishop, he already faces a challenge from State Rep. Mike Keown, a Right-Winger & aomeone I consider a product of the Tea Party movement down in South Georgia. But Bishop will be safe, barring some unforeseen consequence between now & 2010.

Now the Senate now has to come up with their version & according to Harry Reid, it may not come up for a vote until next year. It looked like for a while that the senate was close to a deal, but for some reason Reid decided to include a public option in the bill that most of the moderate democratic senators have voiced opposition to. If that's the roadblock that will keep the Healthcare Bill from Passing, you csn blame it on Reid & you wonder how will that sit with the White House. Stay Tuned.

What will Healthcare reform mean for Rural America?

Good question! Take a look at what current proposals include:

1. Affordable coverage – New rules will limit health insurance premium increases, and tax credits will make premiums affordable for middle-class families and the self-employed. Credits will be refundable – so you get a check if the credit exceeds your taxes – and provided on a sliding scale up to $88,000 in income for a family of four. Small employers will also receive credits to offset the cost of coverage for their employees.

2. Peace of mind – New rules will prohibit health insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, age or gender and from canceling your health insurance if you get sick.

3. Secure coverage – New rules will cap out-of-pocket costs, the leading cause of medical debt and individual bankruptcies, and annual and lifetime insurance limits will be prohibited.

4. Access to care in your community – New programs such as college loan forgiveness will provide incentives to increase the number of medical providers in rural communities.

5. Choice & competition – Reform will allow you to keep the insurance you have, if you like it, or provide you the option of buying insurance from a different provider in a new health insurance marketplace. This will allow you to compare plans, foster competition and make buying health insurance more like buying any other product.

6. Better Care – Health insurance companies will be required to spend a greater amount of premiums on medical care. There will be incentives for insurers to promote prevention of health problems, coordinate care, and reduce medical errors – all things that reduce costs.

Health reform will strengthen and protect the best of rural America – family farms and ranches, small businesses and prosperous communities. A fair health insurance system will protect genuine opportunity to earn a living, raise a family and prosper in a small town. Reform that guarantees affordable care will foster a system of family farms, ranches and small businesses.

A balance between self-interest and the common good means we cannot allow people to be driven out of business simply because they cannot afford the ever-rising cost of health insurance. And it is not good enough to have people die from waiting too long to go to a doctor because they are uninsured.

Rural Schools—Not So Much—In the Middle

Status of Education in Rural America, a new report from the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES) has some pretty interesting information about rural schools.

For example, rural students face more challenges related to college access and participation than students in any other locale. High-poverty rural schools spend LESS per pupil than high-poverty urban schools and less than most other rural schools.

And, "remote" rural schools -- those that are more than 35 miles from a city and more than 10 miles from a town -- have higher rates of poverty than many urban schools. In fact, African American and American Indian/Native Alaskan students who attend remote rural schools are more likely to attend a high poverty school than are their peers in cities.
Despite these challenges, remote rural schools have higher averaged freshman graduation rates than all other locales except suburbs, which they equal.

But you wouldn’t learn this information from most news reports. Those tend to focus on how rural is "in the middle," doing better on most indicators than cities and not as well as suburbs.

That's because news coverage has focused mainly on the rural "averages" highlighted in the report's own summary.

The reality, however, is that “rural” is highly variable. Rural places differ from one another more dramatically and on more dimensions than most suburbs or cities.

Some rural schools in affluent communities have plenty of resources, long histories of public support, and lots of opportunity. In short, they skew up the rural averages.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of struggling rural districts that face poverty rates as high or higher than most of the nation’s poorest urban districts (see "The 'Rural 800' Districts"), and many have long-standing histories of political and social struggle. Yet these poor rural districts have even fewer financial and municipal resources than districts in most large cities, and they get less attention.

When indicators for the best-resourced rural schools are averaged with those for the most challenged schools, the result reveals little about either school setting. And the averages divert attention from real needs. And from real possibilities in rural schools, including struggling ones.

So what does the report have to say about rural schools that is revealing and important?



Although much of the data in Status of Education in Rural America is averaged across rural schools, the report breaks down data for some indicators within the “rural” category. That is, it not only compares indicators across rural, town, suburb, and city schools. It also compares indicators across rural schools based on how close they are to an urbanized area--fringe, distant, or remote.




These "remoteness" breakdowns along with a few indicators that are separated within locales by the percentage of students in poverty hold useful and compelling data.

Here are some of the important pieces of information that you can dig up if you read the report closely:




High poverty rural schools spend less, per pupil, on average, than low poverty rural schools and less than high poverty urban schools, even after adjustments are made "to reflect geographic cost differences." By contrast high poverty city schools, on average, spend more per pupil than other city schools. This funding circumstance of poor rural districts is important to note because the averaged expenditures of rural districts -- the ones that got most attention in the report -- are higher than other districts.


Remote rural schools have much higher poverty rates than other rural schools and higher than many urban schools. Forty-five percent (45%) of students in remote rural schools attend a schools where 50% or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; only large and midsize cities have larger percentages of students in schools where more than half of students qualify.

For African American and American Indian/Native Alaskan students in remote rural schools, the percentages are even higher. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of African American and 79% of American Indian/Native Alaskan students attend a moderate to high poverty remote rural school, compared to 78% and 62%, respectively, in cities. In fact, more than three-quarters of African American students and nearly half of American Indian/Native Alaskan students attend remote rural schools where more than 75% of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Students in remote rural schools earn, on average, lower scores on the NAEP than students in almost all other locales, except cities.

These statistics make it clear that there are needs in these remote rural schools that are getting very little national response, or even attention.
But the NCES report also makes clear that there are important strengths in these schools as well:

The averaged freshman graduation rate for students in remote rural schools is equivalent to the suburban rate and higher than all other locales.

Despite high rates of poverty, students in remote rural schools scored higher than students in cities on most of the tests in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Rural students scored relatively well on the NAEP science tests, generally outpacing towns and cities and equaling suburbs, with remote rural students scoring at levels similar to other rural students in the 8th and 12th grades.

Remote rural schools are smaller, on average, than all other schools. This structure offers more possibilities for individual attention and for student and parent participation.
Within the averaged rural data, there is some interesting and important information. For example:

Rural teachers report fewer discipline problems of all kinds and express more satisfaction with teaching conditions than teachers in other locales.

Rural schools, on average, have lower student to teacher ratios and lower ratios of students to instructional computers with internet access than other locales.Rural teachers earn less than teachers in other locales, a circumstance that has been well-documented in a number of sources, including "The Competitive Disadvantage: Teacher Pay in Rural America."



One of the more troubling aspects of the report is what it shows about college participation and access for rural students. Here again, the data is averaged across all rural schools, so students in remote rural schools are likely to face even greater challenges:

College enrollment is lower in rural areas than in all other locales for both 18-24 year olds and for 25-29 year olds. Rural adults are also less likely than adults in other locales to take work-related courses or university credential programs.
The percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree is lower in rural areas than nationally.

Rural parents are less likely than parents in all other locales to indicate that they expect their children to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Rural high schools are less likely to offer students access to college-level/college credit classes. Rural schools offer dual enrollment courses (courses than carry both high school and college credit and are usually offered in conjunction with community colleges) at about the same rate as cities, but at lower rates than towns and suburbs.

Further, rural schools are less likely than schools in all other locales to offer Advanced Placement (AP) classes, which provide students who take the course and pass an exam the opportunity to earn college credit for the course. What’s also worth noting is that cities and suburbs are more likely to offer AP classes than dual enrollment classes, compounding the gap for rural students.
This gap across rural areas in students’ access to and participation in college suggests something of the challenge that distance poses. Even in “fringe” rural areas, students live further from colleges and often have little or no direct access to and experience with them.

These colleges, in turn, are often less likely to seek or form partnerships with rural schools to offer college level classes or to provide professional development for teachers that is targeted to the needs of smaller and more distant schools.

As the overall economy continues to drain resources out of most rural communities, particularly those that are not adjacent to metropolitan areas, rural people who earn college degrees are likely to migrate to urban areas for employment, leaving rural communities with fewer people who can help young adults make the transition to college.

The information in Status of Education in Rural America helps expose a real need for national policies and resources targeted to the poorest and most remote rural schools. It also helps to point up the need for policies and programs that provide rural young people and their families with better access and connections to colleges and the opportunities offered through them.

Medicaid Rule Change Would Affect Schools

A rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will reduce schools’ ability to access federal help to serve low-income students who receive special education services at school. More information is below. You can read the proposed changes and comment on them at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. (Rule CMS-2287-P) Deadline is tomorrow!

Under the proposed rule, schools would not be able to receive payments for “administrative” services or for most transportation provided to students in special education whose families are eligible for Medicaid.

In addition to cutting reimbursements for transportation to and from school, to school activities, and to outside therapeutic providers, the cuts would also affect administrative services such as outreach to families, referrals, or training for staff who work with these students. In addition, districts would not be able to use these funds for expanded physical, occupational and speech therapy programs for students, services which many students would not otherwise receive.

The changes are intended to meet the President’s budget goals and would cut $3.6 billion over five years. The reduction would force districts to reduce services to low-income students and/or pay for the services from the district’s general funds, which many districts find are increasingly strapped by other demands and requirements.

It is important to note that the rule change would not affect payments for direct medical services provided in schools to children who qualify through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The Medicaid cuts are being carried out through an administrative process called a rule change. The public is allowed to comment on such rule changes, but the deadline is nearly here – it is November 6. To read the proposed rule, visit www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. You can also submit your comments electronically at the site -- scroll down to CMA-2287-P for this particular rule. Comments do not have to be formally composed.

Majority of Southerners say Obama has Done Better Job than Bush

This finding from the new CNN poll is buried deep in CNN’s article, but it’s striking. According to the network’s polling director, Keating Holland, the internals show that a majority of southerners thinks Obama has done a better job than native son Bush:

Fifty-seven percent say Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush; only a third say Bush’s track record was better.

“Compared to Obama, Bush does fairly well among southerners and rural voters. But even in those categories, a majority still says Obama has done a better job than Bush,” says Holland.

Obama’s numbers have generally been far worse among southerners: A recent Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos found that Obama’s favorability rating in the south is a meager 28%. Another recent survey found that a majority of southerners either don’t believe Obama was born in the United States or are not sure.

According to CNN, though, a majority of southerners still prefers Obama’s performance to that of Bush — yet another measure of how abysmally unpopular the former president remains. I’m trying to get the internals with the exact numbers and will update if I get them.

The Politico: Election result: Red-state Dems worried, rethink agenda

Election Day losses in Virginia and New Jersey have congressional Democrats focused like never before on jobs — their own.

While the White House and party leaders are urging calm, Democratic incumbents from red states and Republican-leaning districts are anything but; Tuesday's statehouse defeats have left them acutely aware that their votes on health care reform and other major Obama initiatives could be career-enders in 2010 or beyond.

“I should be nervous,” said Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Huntsville, Ala.

Griffith said the Democratic rank and file is “very, very sensitive” to the fact that issues being pushed by party leaders “have the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats.”

Democratic Sen. Jim Webb — who watched Republican Bob McDonnell and other statewide candidates erase years of Democratic gains in his home state of Virginia — said Tuesday’s results show that Republicans are “energized from what happened last year” but also that “people up here on our side need to get their message straighter, too.”

Says Virginia Senator Mark Warner: "We got walloped".

But if Tuesday’s results leave red-state Democrats nervous about health care reform, a climate change bill and regulatory reform, it’s going to be harder — not easier — for Van Hollen and his leadership colleagues to develop that record of legislative accomplishment.

And that’s certainly where things seemed to be headed Wednesday. As Pelosi’s office ordered members to stay in town for a possible Saturday night House vote on health care, other Democrats were suggesting that it's time to take the foot off the gas.

As members came to grips with the election returns, Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.) said he wants “as much time as I possibly can [have] to review both sides and make the best decision I can make” on the health care bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a big swing vote for Democratic leaders, said Tuesday’s elections should tell Democrats that their “agenda needs to be patterned towards” the economy.

“People need to be saying slow it down and don’t add more to the deficit,” Nelson said. “And what have many of us been talking about? We don’t want to see anything added to the deficit unless there’s cost containment.”

On health care, Nelson said: “Let’s see coverage extended, … but at what cost?”

Earles, Smith prepare for Georgia House 129 runoff on Dec. 1

Pine Mountain businessman Steve Earles has less than four weeks to figure out how to cut into Kip Smith’s large advantage in the race for the vacant Georgia House 129 seat.

Smith was the leading vote-getter in a four-man race to fill the seat held for 17 years by his father, Vance Smith, now commissioner of the Department of Transportation. Kip Smith got 49.4 percent of the vote and fell less than 60 votes short of winning the race without a runoff, according to totals supplied by the Secretary of State’s office.

Earles got 22 percent of the vote, more than 1,200 fewer than Smith.

Smith easily carried Harris and Muscogee counties, while Earles took a small victory in Troup County.