Boxer Bullies Senate's Birth Doc

[audtatious]

By Debra Saunders

In July, federal authorities indicted Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, on corruption charges on the grounds that Alaska's Prince of Earmarks concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and improvements to his Alaska home provided by a powerful oil services company. Also this summer, amid the mortgage meltdown, newspapers reported that a number of senators -- including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; and Barack Obama, D.-Ill. -- were the beneficiaries of sweetheart home loans.

In June, the Senate Ethics Committee began an initial look into Dodd's and Conrad's discounted Countrywide Financial VIP loans, as is fitting. Meanwhile, with all of the ethics stink bombs lurking in Washington, the committee, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, is aiming its guns at Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for "a serious violation of Senate rules."

Coburn's bad? An obstetrician by profession, Coburn won't heed the committee's threat to reprimand him for delivering babies back home in Oklahoma -- for free.

"On my own time, I'm taking care of women who have a need, and I'm going to continue to deliver babies," Coburn told Politico.com.

And, bully for him: "I'm not going to stop." When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so -- if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

When elected to the Senate, which was first run by Republicans and now Democrats, Ethics Committee members told Coburn that if he wants to treat patients -- largely poor and "at risk" mothers -- he could not charge them, and thus would have to eat the costs of his practice.

The Senate Ethics Committee allows big-buck book deals for U.S. senators, but in a May memorandum, it told Coburn, "you are allowed to practice medicine if you provide such services for free." So he started working for nothing.

Even free wasn't good enough. After the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, where he practices, was taken over by a for-profit operation, the committee told Coburn to cease "providing any and all medical services" by June 22, pursuant to Senate Rule 37 on conflicts of interest. Coburn could practice medicine only as a solo practitioner, for a private entity that provides services for free, or for a government or tribal health facility.

What's really going on here? The senator -- who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn -- has been a thorn in the side of both big-spending Republicans and Democrats. He calls earmarks "the gateway drug" to Washington's spending addiction. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote back in 2006 when the GOP ran the Senate, "Tom Coburn is like an imam at a pig roast: He sees pork everywhere, and he doesn't like it."

Coburn bucked party leaders as he tried to block Stevens' $229 million earmark, largely to a bridge between Ketchikan and an island with 50 residents, infamously dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere."

When Democrats took over the Senate, Coburn challenged their pork-barrel projects as well. In July, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bundled 35 spending bills into a $10 billion omnibus package, Coburn successfully led the charge to block the measure -- citing next year's projected $482 billion deficit. As Coburn likes to say, the American people elect senators to "make hard choices and live within our means."

After I called Sen. Boxer's office, a committee spokesperson sent me a note that said, "The work of the Ethics Committee is confidential and we cannot comment on matters that may be before it." In July, Boxer told the Washington Post, "He knows what he's supposed to be doing."

The savvy observer has to conclude that because Coburn has challenged Senate pork, the Ethics Committee essentially is willing to stick it to poor pregnant women, who might benefit from a free delivery.

It's a tactical blunder. If the committee continues to push for a public reprimand, Coburn has the right to ask for a full Senate vote. While Boxer may not mind coming across as petty and vindictive, other senators might hesitate before publicly bullying a man for delivering babies for free.

As Coburn spokesman John Hart noted, there have been many stories about lawmakers, their friends and families profiting from earmarks, but "no one has ever chosen to have Dr. Coburn deliver her baby in order to sway his vote."

With Democrats in charge, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is no more ethical than it was under the GOP. In going after Coburn, its mandate is clear: Forget Ethics, It's Payback Time.

[email protected]

---------------------------------------------------------

[rn79870]

Wow, it's a good thing she isn't running for Vice President because I'm sure she did something wrong, somewhere.

[szh]

Wow, it's a good thing she isn't running for Vice President because I'm sure she did something wrong, somewhere.

How is this snide remark related to the original post? Please don't let your anti-Palin bias run away with you!

Z

[srellim234]

1. Maybe Coburn should have been McCain's V.P. choice instead of Palin.

2. It confirms what everybody already knows about Boxer (and Pelosi, for that matter). They are Washington insiders, corrupted by power, who will do absolutely anything to keep nonconformists out.

[szh]

It confirms what everybody already knows about Boxer (and Pelosi, for that matter). They are Washington insiders, corrupted by power, who will do absolutely anything to keep nonconformists out.

Entirely agreed!

Z

[rn79870]

How is this snide remark related to the original post? Please don't let your anti-Palin bias run away with you!

Z

The OP was a non-sequitur with respect to Boxer's culpability. Boxer refused to comment on a matter before the committee. It's not like she tried to ban books from the public library or something is it?

[szh]

It's not like she tried to ban books from the public library or something is it?

And, you don't think this is another anti-Palin dig ... that has nothing to do with Boxer or the issue in the original post?

Practice what you preach, please.

Z

[rn79870]

Okay, what exactally is the issue with Boxer here. Tell me specifically what she did wrong.

[audtatious]

It shows the hypocrisy of our system and I posted it for that reason.

[szh]

Okay, what exactally is the issue with Boxer here. Tell me specifically what she did wrong.

Goes to show how Washington insiders - like Boxer - like to operate. Disgusting lack of moral principles.

Z

[rn79870]

It shows the hypocrisy of our system and I posted it for that reason.

You mean her comment...

"The work of the Ethics Committee is confidential and we cannot comment on matters that may be before it."

That's hypocritical? That's being a bully?

[szh]

That's hypocritical? That's being a bully?

No, this is (see my bolding). Typical of Boxer ... going after a Republican ... with petty partisanship at its worst. Some extracts ...

Meanwhile, with all of the ethics stink bombs lurking in Washington, the committee, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, is aiming its guns at Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for "a serious violation of Senate rules."

Coburn's bad? An obstetrician by profession, Coburn won't heed the committee's threat to reprimand him for delivering babies back home in Oklahoma -- for free....When elected to the Senate, which was first run by Republicans and now Democrats, Ethics Committee members told Coburn that if he wants to treat patients -- largely poor and "at risk" mothers -- he could not charge them, and thus would have to eat the costs of his practice.

The Senate Ethics Committee allows big-buck book deals for U.S. senators, but in a May memorandum, it told Coburn, "you are allowed to practice medicine if you provide such services for free." So he started working for nothing.

Even free wasn't good enough....With Democrats in charge, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is no more ethical than it was under the GOP. In going after Coburn, its mandate is clear: Forget Ethics, It's Payback Time.

Z

[rn79870]

Wow, imagine the Senate insisting that someone who is taking full time pay for being a Senator devote his full time to the duties of that office. That's unreasonable?

[szh]

Wow, imagine the Senate insisting that someone who is taking full time pay for being a Senator devote his full time to the duties of that office. That's unreasonable?

Yes. It is on his own time and his own hook.

By your standards, the Committee should:

1. Reprimand Obama for his two book deals that he worked on.

2. Reprimand McCain and Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Biden for running around the country campaigning.

Can't have it both ways ...

Z

[rn79870]

And they allowed him to work for free. The hospital is the one who told him he couldn't work for free.

I don't suppose his agreeing to follow the rules set down for professional conduct by the Senate when he sighed on matters, does it?

So the problem is exactly what?

Oh and books. psssttt....JM wrote some books too. Shall we call that a draw?

[szh]

And they allowed him to work for free. The hospital is the one who told him he couldn't work for free.

No. On the contrary, the Senate Committee told him that in May - not the hospital.

Oh and books. psssttt....JM wrote some books too. Shall we call that a draw?

Nope. I am not being partisan. My point was that you were saying that all side work was not acceptable. So I will rephrase my post (and not edit the the first one).

Here is what you said (to which I will provide a revised response):

Quote »Wow, imagine the Senate insisting that someone who is taking full time pay for being a Senator devote his full time to the duties of that office. That's unreasonable?[/quote]Yes. It is on his own time and his own hook.

By your standards, the Committee should:

1. Reprimand Obama and McCain for the book deals that they worked on.

2. Reprimand McCain and Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Biden for running around the country campaigning.

Can't have it both ways ...

Z

[rn79870]

No. On the contrary, the Senate Committee told him that in May - not the hospital.

And, bully for him: "I'm not going to stop." When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so -- if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

IE, for free..

This is really a non issue. If the good Senator doesn't want to follow the rules set forth by the Senate (which allow for campaigning incidentally) then let the good Senator resign and he can deliver babies all day long. Simple as that.

[audtatious]

How is it not a non-issue? The guy wants to help the public and the poor by delivering children for free and they are effectively saying he can't. As a member of the House of Representatives they allowed him to do it for a fee as long as he did not make any profit. Once he joined the Senate they stated he could not do it anymore because the hospital he was giving the free work changed to a "for profit" hospital. Colburn was still NOT charging for his services (thus, free) but the Ethics committee decided to further chain his hands.

As I have stated before, the Democrats are supposed to be the party that supports the little people. Colburn is supporting the little people by giving his time and skills for free. It seems in Boxer's mind that is absolutely OK unless you are a Republican who keeps chastising members over pork-barrel spending.

[rn79870]

Apparently the Senate has a set of rules that apply to all Senators. If any one of the Senators doesn't want to abide by those rules, they are free to resign and return to their previous profession. If he doesn't like the rule, let him work to change them, but rules are rules.

[AZhitman]

Boxer refused to comment on a matter before the committee.

...and yet when a Rep declines to comment on a question that's clearly none of anyone's business, the left cries foul.

[audtatious]

...and yet when a Rep declines to comment on a question that's clearly none of anyone's business, the left cries foul.

And they "leak" all the details to the press.

[audtatious]

Apparently the Senate has a set of rules that apply to all Senators. If any one of the Senators doesn't want to abide by those rules, they are free to resign and return to their previous profession. If he doesn't like the rule, let him work to change them, but rules are rules.

You are right Bob. There's nothing to it. It's OK for Obama, McCain, Biden and others to write books for profit but it's not OK for a Doctor, who is a Senator, to give free healthcare to those who are needy.

[AZhitman]

Actually, McCain's book profits went (all or in part) to charity.

[szh]

Actually, McCain's book profits went (all or in part) to charity.

Very true. I had forgotten about that - I posted it earlier in another thread. All of it went to charity.

Z

[AZhitman]

Ah - Nice. That speaks volumes... Kudos to the Mac.

[audtatious]

And in effect, so does the work that Coburn is doing.

Obama and Biden kept their proceeds I do believe....

[AZhitman]

I have no issues with someone making money for their work. Just making that clear.

[audtatious]

I have no issue either. Just wanted to be clear as to what those running for office did with their book proceeds. Wonder what the Ethics committee feels about having two working Senators who spent time writing books instead of working towards solutions to our problems. Colburn was serving the people and they are wanting to shut him down.

[mtcookson]

And, bully for him: "I'm not going to stop." When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so -- if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

IE, for free..

No, when he was in the House he was allowed to deliver babies charging only his expenses. When he elected for Senate he was only allowed to work for free. When the hospital became "for profit" he wasn't allowed to work for free there anymore as the committee basically deemed it a conflict of interest per some rules, so if he wanted to continue he had to work for a private practice that offered free services or work for the government or a tribal medical center.

Anyway... the issue is that he's being heavily hassled over offering his services for only his costs then for FREE while these other politicians who are making big money, some very unethically, aren't being hassled near as much (if at all). The reason appears to be because this particular politician is highly against pork barrel spending and makes sure to go after it on both the republican and democrat sides. He is basically being treated VERY unfairly and over a service that HELPS people... that is the issue and it most definitely is a big issue.