Three nonprofit organizations that claim to speak for older Americans are in fact heavily bankrolled by the pharmaceutical industry, an examination of tax records by the AARP Bulletin shows. United Seniors Association, for example, got more than a third of its funds in 2001 from drug-industry sources. The big donors included Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry's trade association; Citizens for Better Medicare, a PhRMA-funded nonprofit group; and Pfizer Inc. Total industry contributions: at least $3.1 million.

For starters, all three organizations claim to be nonpartisan, though they support—almost without exception—the campaigns and causes of one political party.

All three organizations were formed by, or with help from, direct mail entrepreneur Richard Viguerie, and two have been operated in recent years by former officers or employees of Viguerie's companies.

All three organizations have been criticized over the years for questionable fundraising practices, and, recently, the Social Security Administration ordered one of them to halt what it determined to be misleading mailings. All three organizations claim to speak for millions of older Americans, although as recently as 2001 none of the three listed any revenue from membership dues on their tax returns. Moreover, an investigation by the AARP Bulletin shows that virtually all of their largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source—the nation's pharmaceutical industry. AARP Bulletin, 30 June 2003.

Meanwhile, two other Alexander Strategy lobbyists, Mike Mihalke and Chris Bertelli, also worked with the seniors groups. The pair were Republican operatives who had fine-tuned their skills in several underhanded campaigns (see “Dynamic Duo”). Although both Bertelli and Mihalke worked out of the Alexander Strategy office, they created a separate company, Advocacy Technologies, which officially did the work.

Mihalke supervised a mail campaign for the Seniors Coalition in at least 11 competitive districts. The mailing was strikingly similar to letters sent by America 21 and 60 Plus. (In Colorado, all three contained an identical misspelling of a Republican candidate’s name). David Breaux, a political science professor at Mississippi State University, analyzed the mailings of the three groups in his state, and concluded in a report that they were so similar it “caused one to wonder if there was any coordination.” Neither Mihalke nor Bertelli would say whether Advocacy Technologies produced all three letters (both failed to respond to numerous requests to comment for this article). However, Mac Haddow, a top Seniors Coalition official, acknowledged that the campaign was intended to prevent Democrats from using the Medicare issue against Republicans. The mailings were “prophylactic,” he said, “to make sure that we didn’t allow this issue to be politicized in the context of election warfare.” John Powell, who headed the Seniors Coalition at the time, worked closely with Advocacy Technologies on this effort, and soon afterwards went to work for Alexander Strategy. Since the firm shut its doors this January, Powell has been trying to form his own consulting firm with Mihalke.

While the Medicare drug benefit is not structured in a way that will truly expand access to affordable prescription drugs for our Nation's seniors, I am dedicated to ensuring that beneficiaries receive the information they need to make informed decisions. I will also continue to work to correct the deep flaws in the new Medicare drug benefit.

As a first step, I have introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act (S. 345) to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to employ negotiating strategies to bring down drug prices, similar to the negotiating authority used to reduce drug prices for our Nation’s veterans. This will help the many Americans who struggle with the cost of drugs, including many who currently face a choice between buying food and buying essential medications.

In addition, my legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to offer a nationwide Medicare-delivered prescription drug benefit in addition to the private plans that will be available under the new law. This Medicare-administered plan would have a uniform nationwide premium and preferred drug list. This option would allow seniors to obtain their medications through Medicare rather than having to go through a private drug plan. Seniors who choose to enroll in this plan could stay enrolled as long they desire, regardless of any turbulence in the private market. I am hopeful that the Senate will debate and vote on S. 345 before the Medicare drug benefit is fully implemented in January 2006.

Meanwhile, as we approach the implementation the Medicare prescription drug benefit, seniors are facing a mountain of prescription bills and a growing stack of glitzy brochures from insurance companies looking for new customers. Our seniors deserve a less confusing, less expensive drug plan, but until we succeed in changing that reality, the least we can do is give them adequate time to understand their options and make the best choice.

That is why I have also cosponsored the Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005 (S. 1841). This measure, which was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), would extend the initial enrollment period for the Medicare drug benefit until the end of 2006, so that beneficiaries can learn more about the new drug benefit, obtain independent counseling, and make the right choice among the options that are available. In addition to expanding the existing six-month enrollment period to the entire year of 2006, the Medicare Informed Choice Act will also give every beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. This would allow beneficiaries an opportunity to change plans without penalty if they sign up for one plan and later find out that it does not meet their needs. Additionally, S. 1841 would protect employees from being dropped by their former employer's prescription drug plan during the first year of the implementation of the Medicare drug plan.

The new prescription drug program also represents an opportunity for individuals to prey on seniors and persons with disabilities. Under current law, the 136 different private prescription drug plans that will be offered in Illinois can both send mail to and call people who are eligible to enroll in the Medicare Part D benefit, in an effort to market their plans. Even if the private prescription drug plans are themselves honest brokers, it's easy to imagine how difficult it may be for a beneficiary to distinguish between honest and dishonest telemarketing calls. Unscrupulous individuals and companies could come up with schemes to defraud the vulnerable Medicare population by convincing beneficiaries to share their Social Security Number, credit card number, or bank account information. Medicare's rules on telemarketing prohibit private prescription drug plans from soliciting any of this information from beneficiaries over the telephone, unless the telephone call was initiated by the beneficiary.

To help prevent fraud and identity theft connected to the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I am a cosponsor of the Medicare Do Not Call Act (S. 1798), which would prohibit Medicare-approved prescription drug plans from engaging in telemarketing, impose serious criminal penalties on individuals and companies that seek to defraud Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing appeals, and provide additional resources to the State Health Insurance Counseling and Assistance Programs (SHIPs) to provide individualized counseling and enrollment assistance services to Medicare beneficiaries.

I also support efforts to amend the Medicare drug benefit to expand access to affordable prescription drugs through reimportation. It is essential to ensure that re-imported drugs are safe, but that standard should be constructed in a way that maximizes the ability of seniors to safely obtain lower-priced medicines from other countries. Instead, the safety standard imposed in the new law essentially blocks reimportation. To correct this problem, Senator Dorgan has introduced the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act (S. 334), which will allow pharmacists and wholesalers to safely import prescription drugs from Canada. I am a cosponsor of this legislation.

...Schweitzer asked how many in the crowd thought the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old. Most of the children in the audience raised their hands.

He then asked how many believed the planet was less than a million years old. At least two people, including Koopman, who was in the crowd, raised their hands.

During an interview later with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Schweitzer noted Koopman’s response. He said some people believe the planet is only 4,000 to 6,000 years old, despite geological evidence to the contrary.

Schweitzer said he needs support from a state Legislature that will help move Montana’s agenda forward, ‘‘not people who think the Earth is 4,000 years old.’’

If [Schweitzer] had wanted to use this as an example of how divergent people’s thinking is on even the most fundamental points of information, then the governor might have been justified. But it appears he instead wanted to belittle people who hold different beliefs than him, and for this there is no excuse. Editorial, 15 October.

Koopman had initially planned to introduce a bill during the 2005 Legislature allowing the teaching of the controversial ‘‘intelligent design’’ theory, and other alternatives to evolution, in public schools. He never pursued the measure and said he has no plans to introduce a similar bill in the next session if re-elected.

Ussher now concentrated on his research and writing, and returned to the study of chronology and the church fathers. After a 1647 work on the origin of the creeds in 1648 Ussher published a treatise on the calendar. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world), which appeared in 1650 and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior in 1654. In this work, he famously claimed, that the Earth was created at nightfall preceding 23 October, 4004 BC. Other scholars calculated their own dates for Creation, such as that by the Cambridge academic, John Lightfoot. The time is frequently misquoted as being 9 a.m., noon or 9 p.m. on 23 October. See the related article on the calendar for a discussion of its claims and methodology. From the Wikipedia.