Here's a list of the "autism deniers," how long they have been in the House of Delegates, and their haul from the health care industry:Rob Bell (R-Albemarle, 2002-2010): $55,820
Dickie Bell (R-Staunton, 2010): $10,747
Ben Cline (R-Rockbridge, 2002-2010): $$57,498
Johnny Joannou (D-Norfolk, 1998-2010): $14,200
Chris Jones (R-Suffolk, 1998-2010): $263,683
Steve Landes (R-Augusta, 1996-2010): $129,175
Dave Nutter (R-Montgomery County, 2002-2010): $119,182
Chris Peace (R-Hanover, 2006-2010): $82,384
Brenda Pogge (R-York, 2010): $$13,350
Lacey Putney (I-Bedford, "forever"): $101,522
Roxanne Robinson (R-Chesterfield, 2010): $27,865
That's not to say that the others haven't gotten lots of loot from health care, just that the industry didn't make it to the top of their contributor lists. For example, Greg Habeeb (R-Roanoke County, 2010) pulled in $21,266, while Lynwood Lewis (D-Accomack, 2004-2010) got $52,479.
My delegate, while he has several contributions from the healthcare industry this cycle (enough for anyone to be suspicious on his change of heart), is nowhere near the top of list. Corruption is a word I hear bandied about a lot - most when one side of the political spectrum doesn't like what someone on the other is doing. But I think that when you have this much money passing through the political process, it leads to a systemic corruption. And if you look at the affliations, it has infected Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. That needs to be changed - it is immoral and everything good government shouldn't be.
1 comment:
I recently read a painful column in which the author claimed we have no right to ask government to pay for "charity" and that only a few will benefit from taxes that support autism treatment while the 'rest of us' have to foot the bill.
How short-sighted! Do they really want to encourage lifelong dependence? Do they think refusing to help people reach their highest potential is a smart thing to do, the most frugal thing to do?
If disabled children and adults are not supported, they still become a financial "burden" to tax payers. What happens when parents don't have the money to help their children and so are forced to claim bankruptcy or foreclose on their homes? What if the child ends up in an institution?
The arguments these people are making are based in selfishness and ignorance. Look, guys, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Eventually, though, someone is going to pay. And we can't depend on the generousity of the rich, those 5% who own the world.
Someone I love said people who make these decisions are usually not going to live long enough to see the results. It's easy for them to pander to the here and now. I agree.
Post a Comment