We previously listened to Rick Santorum as he suggested to religious college students that a vote for him might keep them from being devoured. Now it appears it may also protect you from being snatched up by crazed euthanizing Dutch doctors who will send you to the Nether Regions unless you are wearing a bracelet. He also appears to relish the good old days when abortions in America were regulated to “the shadows.”
Santorum told voters that (1) ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands were by euthanasia, (2) people have to wear bracelets now to be sure not to be euthanized at hospitals, and (3) 50 percent of euthanasia is performed “involuntarily.”
Before any of our statisticians demand to be euthanized, let’s correct a few of these facts.
The bling-bling of death is hard to figure out. Clearly people can wear bracelets with their blood type or other instructions like do not resuscitate — as they do in this country. However, such bracelets are not needed in the Netherlands and Santorum’s comments appear to come as a surprise to people in that country.
The ten percent figure is a bit bizarre. While growing, the number of people choosing euthanasia remains small and less than 3%. In 2010, 136058 people died in the Netherlands and only 3136 did so through euthanasia. That is roughly 2.3% of the total deaths.
In 2009, the annual report on euthanasia showed 2,636 cases of euthanasia — or 2 percent of all Dutch deaths. Over 80 percent were cancer patients and more than 80 percent of the deaths occurred in the patient’s home — not in those bureaucratic hospitals dispatching everyone who comes in with a slight fever without their bracelet.
As for those 50% of cases dispatched against their will, the Dutch law is extremely strict. It now only requires consent but a waiting period. If a doctor dispatches someone without their consent or satisfying the tight controls, he is charged with murder.
The doctor must document that he or she confirmed that the patient requesting euthanasia or assisted suicide is making a voluntary and informed request. The record must also show that the patient was suffering unbearably and was fully informed about the prospects. Then a second doctor must examine the patient and supply a second written opinion on the satisfaction of the criteria. The government found only nine cases in 2009 of a doctor failing to complying with the strict criteria. There was no mention of a bracelet.
As for the claim that abortions were once forced to occur “in the shadows,” the part is entirely correct. It is just unclear why that is a positive image even for those who oppose the right to choose.
Putting aside these tiny factual disagreements, it is good to finally see a politician willing to take on our greatest threat: the Dutch. Dutch propagandists like Rembrandt, Vermeer and Van Gogh have already infiltrated our schools and museums. Our leaders (except Santorum) are deaf to the growing sound of their wooden-shoe stomping, marzipan-eating hordes. I for one will be on the ramparts with Rick wearing my do not euthanize bracelet before I eat a single herring from the hands of our Dutch overlords.
Idealist707 made a request above to have a topic concerning the rights to a fair trial by a jury not composed of racists. Although he did not put it in such stark terms, that is the way the innocent may be convicted in state or federal trials in this country. As one who has represented minorities in criminal cases in rural counties of all white jury panels in a former slave state, allow me to chip in as to how this topic might be framed. Just a few days ago there was a discussion as to whether the accused football coach in Pennsylvania would seek or oppose a transfer of his crimnal trial for pedophilia to a county outside of the county of the offense. Too many friends of his live in his home county some commenters said.
The right to a jury of one’s peers is not set forth as such in our Constitutiion. It first significanly appears in Chapter 29 of the 1688 English Bill of Rights.
A section from a history blog on that score will follow. But how does a minority defendant get a fair trial if he/she is charged with an offense in an all white redneck rural county win swampeast Missouri. By change of venue to a venue with a jury population of his peers. A mechanism for affording that right should be central to a discussion. The history blog section on jury of one’s peers follows.
I did not see this topic today or Idealists request above until this late hour and I hope that my little contribution here can render some asssitance on this topic.
Civics Library Of The Missouri Bar
The Right to a Jury of One’s Peers
The Sixth Amendment rights associated with trial proceedings — the right to a speedy trial, the right to a public trial and the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers — are so bound together by circumstance and tradition that it is almost inconceivable to separate them. Still, each of these parallel rights has developed in its own manner through the centuries.
The right of a person to be tried by a jury of one’s peers is traditionally founded on a provision contained in Chapter 29 of that great document of English law, the Magna Carta. That provision, written in 1225, states: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him), but by lawful judgment of his own peers, or by the law of the land.”
Subsequent generations — including the authors of the Bill of Rights — came to regard this provision as one of the principal legal guarantees of liberty under the common law. This belief came on the basis that the clause not only provided for a formal trial for any alleged wrongdoer instead of arbitrary judgment and summary execution, but also on the basis that it provided for trial by jury. They felt the phrase ” . . . but by lawful judgment of his peers” ensured a fair trial and provided a safeguard against unwarranted interference with the rights and liberties of the subject.
Congress, in discussing policy regarding jury service, said: “It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is also the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when called for that purpose.”
That statement of policy was an attempt by Congress, in its own words, to “provide the best method for obtaining jury lists that represent a cross-section of the relevant community for establishing an effective bulwark against impermissible forms of discrimination and arbitrariness.”
The reasons which prompted Congress to insist on random selection of jurors from a source of names which is representative of a fair cross-section of the local community appear no less compelling when viewed on the state level. The juror selection process of each state must result in a list of prospective jurors that represents a fair cross-section of the community.
The federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the arbitrary exclusion of a cognizable group or class of persons from the list by which jurors — federal or state -are to be selected is constitutionally wrong. The requirement that juries be selected from a fair cross-section of the community may be seen as the restatement, in the form of a positive command, of the prohibition against arbitrary exclusions. That is, absent such arbitrary exclusions, it can be expected that all the different groups which make up a community will be represented on the list of eligible jurors.
The arbitrary exclusion of a particular class of people from the list of persons eligible for jury duty is impermissible precisely because such exclusion fails to provide a fair possibility that the jury will represent a cross-section of the community.
It is, of course, impossible in a society as diverse as ours to provide representation for every group or every idea on each jury, or even on each panel of prospective jurors. Because of the small size of these bodies, the possibility of purely accidental exclusions under a completely fair juror selection process is very real. For this reason, the belief that juries should be truly representative of the community has been translated into the more practical requirement that the list from which jurors are selected must be representative of a fair cross-section of the community.
This requirement is further justified by the effect such a provision has on the administration of justice. For most people, jury service is one of the few contacts which the citizen has with the judicial system. It provides the opportunity to dispel some of the mystery which sometimes surrounds courtrooms, judges and lawyers. Through jury service, members of the community can themselves see and participate in a trial and thereby assure themselves and everyone in the community who knows them of the fairness of the system in which they participated.
It should also be noted that the possibility of accomplishing one of the primary functions of the criminal process — the rehabilitation of the convicted criminal may also be increased or decreased by the proper constitution of juries.
A defendant convicted by a jury from which members of his particular class or group have been excluded has some cause to believe that the jury was stacked against him. To this defendant, his conviction does not represent the censure of his actions by the community; rather, it is merely another manifestation of the prejudice of society against his particular group. A jury that is really representative of the community reduces the probability the trial itself will discourage rehabilitation, and may cause the defendant to face the fact that all of society has condemned his actions.
It is, of course, very clear that any exclusion of persons from the list of those eligible for jury duty on account of race is unconstitutional. Congress has specifically forbidden such exclusions and the practice has often been condemned by the courts. It has been recognized that similar constitutional issues of a serious nature are raised by the exclusion of young adults, women or ethnic groups.
Random selection of citizens is called for in choosing jurors for federal juries, but Missouri is different. The state statute provides, “Every juror, grand or petit, shall be a citizen of the state, a resident of the county or of a city not within a county for which the jury may be impaneled; sober and intelligent, of good reputation, over twenty-one years of age and otherwise qualified.” The words ” . . . sober and intelligent, of good reputation . . . ” seem to allow for some discretion by those selecting jurors.
“Variety” is the best way to describe the jury selection process in Missouri circuit courts. Some circuits use the “key man” method of selecting names. This is where key men of various occupations are chosen, and they select jury lists themselves. Other circuits use random selection, while personal knowledge and other subjective evaluations are used in other areas. In some circuits, the general population, such as voters, are considered eligible to serve as jurors, while in others up to 40 percent of the population has been found unqualified for some reason.
Whatever the selection process — and the process is continually refined — the Sixth Amendment guarantees that it be done in a manner fair to the accused. Even in Missouri, with differing selection processes, the choosing of a jury is handled in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment’s goal: the obtaining of an impartial jury representing a cross-section of the community.
Copyright © 2006 The Missouri Bar
——
The Missouri Bar steps around the central issue here. How does a guy who gets off the bus in a town in southern Illinois at a town like Mt, Vernon, a town known then as a Sundown Town, get a jury of his peers from his own community when he is wrongully charged with an attempted murder? We know that this happened to Grover Thompson in 1981 and that he was wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for life and indeed died in prison. After his death some inmate confessed to having committed the crime. Google Grover Thompson for the story.
Thank you Idealist for raising this topic and I hope that the topic gets a full comment page. As one who has represented minorities in all whiite rural counties in Missouri I know what its like to be up shit creek without a paddle.
Abortion regulated, or relegated “to the shadows”? (see paragraph one, above).
Swarthmore mom
I’m doing well, just getting older than dirt. I found a true moderate site that I like a lot. Plenty of ideas from all sides of the political spectrum but almost every post is on politics which gets boring after a while.
I moved back to Michigan and was pleasantly surprised at how much better the economy is here compared to what I thought it was. If Michigan can pull it out, the rest of us can, too.
Keep up the good fight. buckeye
buckeye, Gave up a long time ago. The same people around here that were voting for Obama a year ago are still voting for him. I just state my opinion. It seems to pretty much an anti-Obama crowd around here. Some are Paul supporters. Some are for other republicans. Others are still waiting for the third party messiah. The rest I guess will vote for a 1 or 2 percenter even if Santorum is the nominee. We had the ” Is Ron Paul a true progressive” argument a while back. How are you?
Hi Swarthmore mom
How go the wars? Have you convinced anyone that Obama is better than a return to 1973 yet? 🙂
Oops, make that date 1862.
idealist:
“As journalist David Locke said: “No man on earth hated blood as Lincoln did.”
*******************
He did indeed as most men who came through that war did. But like Jefferson, he also understood the need for it too. Following the disaster at Fredricksburg in 1863, Lincoln exonerated Gen. Burnside who led the fatal assault against Longstreet at the stonewall, but is said by historian Shelby Foote to have lamented his inability to find a field general who “could face the arithmetic.” Chilling words, indeed.
Santorum is, in a word, an “idiot”.
Which explains why he is so popular with 30% of Americans.
I know for sure that I do not want someone like Saintorum making any decisions on my behalf.
Actually these statistics do not seem completely made up.
The ‘10%’ figure, for example appears to come from our own Central Bureau of Statistics, in particular studies like http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2007/2007-2217-wm.htm . This is a pretty reliable source (raw numbers linked on the bottom of that page).
The Netherlands use a pretty strict definition of ‘euthenasia’, which accounted for 2297 deaths in 2005 (1,6%). However, it does not seem entirely unreasonable to also count the data points for “no treatment or stopping treatment with death as an explicit purpose” (10261), “intentionally assisting with suicide on the patients request” (113) and “life-terminated actions without request” (551), which does add up to 9,6% of deaths in 2005 – based on official, government-provided statistics.
So do I agree with Santorum’s claims? Most certainly not. He seems correct that, strictly speaking, relatively many doctors take decisions that shorten the lives of patients. However, in more than half of the cases, these decisions do not have any effect – the patient does not actually die sooner than he/she would naturally have. And even in the cases where the death did come sooner, it’s a matter of hours or days rather than weeks.
And is this such a terrible thing? Is it more humane to let someone suffer through his last few days, even if he’s said his goodbyes, is ready to go and would appreciate this last, albeit fatal, dose of pain killers? I guess I’m brainwashed by the pro-euthenasia lobby, because I really don’t find this a clear-cut outrage.
As a Dutch-American living in the US but holding citizenship in both countries – THANK YOU for posting this and for your commentary. I have been furious with Mr. Santorum ever since I saw this video for the first time last week. It’s one thing if Santorum wants to disagree with the practice of tightly controlled euthanasia in The Netherlands, but he has NO RIGHT to spread outright lies about an entire nation. It would be funny (because really? 10 PERCENT of all deaths?) if it weren’t so terrifying to have someone running for the US presidency say such idiotic stuff, and influencing people along the way.
Santorum has estabished his brand. He’s taken the money. And he’s not alone.
Words fail me. I’ve lost touch since many years. No clichés left to exploit.
God bless America. And us others too.
dang it Bobby
Santorum press secretary invents new oxymoron, “theological secularism”
Elaine the answer is yes, Santorum is a hypocrite.
Santorum press secretary invents new oxymoron, “theological secularism”
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Is Rick Santorum A Hypocrite On Medical Malpractice?
by Judy Molland
February 20, 2012
http://www.care2.com/causes/is-rick-santorum-a-hypocrite-on-medical-malpractice.html
Excerpt:
As former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum continues to surge in the race for Republican presidential nominee, it has emerged that his call for a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice suits isn’t a policy that his family actually follows.
Care2′s Kristina Chew suggested here that Santorum just might be a phony, and now here’s more proof.
Karen Santorum Sues Chiropractor For $500,000
Back in 1999, his wife Karen sued her chiropractor for $500,000 for allegedly injuring her back. Santorum testified in the case, telling the jury that the injury caused his wife pain and impaired her ability to campaign for him.
From ABC news:
The problem started when Karen Santorum visited chiropractor Dr. David Dolberg to treat her sore back shortly after she lost her newborn son Gabriel. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Dolberg made the problem worse by causing a herniated disk. Eventually Santorum had surgery to fix the problem.
The jury awarded Mrs. Santorum $350,000 (although the award was later reduced to $175,000) .
At the time, Democrat James Carville called Santorum “a world class hypocrite” because while his wife sued for $500,000, he had co-sponsored a bill limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 in non-economic damages.
As Wife Sues For $500,000, Santorum Pushes For $250,000 Limit
By the time of the lawsuit, then-Senator Santorum had taken up the cause of tort reform, twice sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills limiting the non-economic awards for pain and suffering that a plaintiff could seek to $250,000.
When asked about the apparent contradiction after the verdict, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on December 11, 1999, “The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife.”
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/is-rick-santorum-a-hypocrite-on-medical-malpractice.html#ixzz1mxnaCqg6
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/211643-poll-shows-santorum-holding-large-lead-over-gop-field-in-texas The primary isn’t until May.
Rick Santorum’s Mortal Sin in the Terri Schiavo Case
By Charles P. Pierce
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-santorum-terri-schiavo-6633360
Excerpt;
The invaluable Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Daily News has produced a compendium of the many ways Rick Santorum, Papist nutter and presidential candidate of the Single Entendre Party, has been (and is) both crazy and a big fat hypocrite, and these are in addition to the ways he demonstrated it last night at the nursing home. Read it all, as the kidz say on the Intertoobz.
But I call your attention to this little item contained therein:
In 2005, Santorum made headlines — not all positive — for visiting the deathbed of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a national right-to-die controversy. What my Philadelphia Daily News colleague John Baer later exposed was that the real reason he was in the Tampa, Fla., area was to collect money at a $250,000 fundraiser organized by executives of Outback Steakhouses, a company that shared Santorum’s passion for a low minimum wage for waitresses and other rank-and-file workers. Santorum’s efforts were also aided by his unusual mode of travel: Wal-Mart’s corporate jet. And he canceled a public meeting on Social Security reform “out of respect for the Schiavo family” even as the closed fundraisers went on.
As it happens, in a book which, by the way, ahem, er, ah, makes a swell Valentine’s Day gift, I included a chapter on the Schiavo case from the perspective of the good people who worked at the Woodside Hospice and lived through the completely unnecessary political donkeyshow brought down on the place by opportunistic Pecksniff assholes like Rick Santorum. There was the elementary school down the block that had to be closed because of bomb threats. There was the Haitian cook who got called a “Nazi” and a “murderer” on her way to work. There was the volunteer — a woman whom both George H.W. Bush and his son, Jeb, had commended for her work at the hospice — who had to stop coming because of the whackaloons who had laid siege to the place. There was the brave and strong Annie Santa Maria, who had to try and keep that good place running through all the foul madness that had been visited upon it and the people who do such great work there, every fking day, and who once was unable to break up a near fistfight between priests in her lobby because she had to stay by a fax machine to wait for a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo that was being faxed from Washington by opportunistic Pecksniff yahoos very similar to Rick Santorum. These people wanted Terri to testify, despite the fact that she pretty much had no brain left to speak of.
The Schiavo case was a Moment, and the conservative movement in this country was revealed for the deceitful, arrogant, anti-humanity enterprise that it always has been. (I remember Barney Frank once telling me, with some amazement, that Democrats were telling their Republican colleagues that the party was going over a cliff on this case. It didn’t help.) I don’t even care that Santorum went down there on the Wal-Mart corporate jet to raise money from a bunch of steakhouse fatcats. I don’t even care that, just as Barney warned the Republicans, his involvement in the Schiavo circus may have been the first real factor contributing to his eventual loss to the spectral Bob Casey, Jr.
(To be thorough, we should note here that Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, and someone who was getting serious death threats while Santorum was out grandstanding, also blasted Casey for using the case against Santorum in their campaign.)
Now, though, Santorum claims that all he wanted was for judges to look at the case “fairly.”
“What I cared about with Terri Schiavo was that a judge looked at the case fairly and they did. And they made their decision,” Santorum said.
The senator is, unsurprisingly, as full of shit on this as the Christmas goose.
*****
The Rick Santorum that America doesn’t know
By Will Bunch
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-Santorum-that-America-doesnt-know.html
Excerpt:
You’ve probably heard all the good ones about GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum by now. The one about his “Google problem.” The one about the “man-on-dog sex” (prompting the greatest journalistic response ever, when the reporter told Santorum that he was “sort of freaking me out.”) The one about how the Catholic Church’s priest sex abuse scandal was caused by Boston liberalism, or the one about how President Obama should be anti-abortion because he’s black and abortion is like slavery. And so on and so forth.
That’s the Rick Santorum that America has come to know over the last 15 years or so – an unapologetic and almost goofy culture warrior whose obsessions – like thinking that gay sex is a gateway drug to bestiality – make him a hero to social conservatives and often a laughing stock to most everyone else. Santorum’s rise in the 2012 presidential race has people talking about whether his views on social issues – talk of annulling gay marriages, seemingly questioning the right to even birth control — make him too extreme to be president – and that’s an important topic to discuss.
But I also think Santorum’s weird sexual bluster can obscure who he really is, and what truly matters about his suddenly surging campaign. As a Philadelphia-based political reporter, I arrived in town just seven months after Santorum became my state’s junior senator. I followed his 12 years on the Washington political stage closely, and I think people obsessing on the “man-on-dog” stuff are missing the bigger picture. For one thing, the self-styled “family values” expert has a surprisingly ambiguous record with his own personal ethics. Also, Santorum’s legislative record shows that his real workaday agenda was not so much waging culture wars as protecting the interests of the 1 Percent, the millionaires and billionaires who funded the modern Republican Party. You could say that Rick Santorum is just another politician. But that would be giving him too much credit.
Here’s a Pennsylvanian’s brief guide to the Rick Santorum you don’t know:
1. This compassionate Christian conservative founded a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum’s political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity’s money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum’s finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum’s charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity – which didn’t register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law — was finally disbanded in 2007.
2. Likewise, a so-called “leadership PAC” created by Santorum that was supposed to fund other Republicans instead seemed to mostly pay for the lifestyle of Santorum and those around him. My investigation of the America’s Foundation PAC showed that only 18 percent of its money went to fund political candidates, less — and typically far less — than any other “leadership PACs.” What America’s Foundation did spend a lot on with what looked like everyday expenses, including 66 trips to the Starbucks in Santorum’s then hometown of Leesburg, Va., multiple fast-food outings and expenditures at Wal-Mart, Target and Giant supermarkets. Campaign finance experts said the PAC’s expenses – paid for by donations from wealthy businessmen and lobbyists – were “unconventional,” at best and arguably not legal. Santorum also funded his large Leesburg “McMansion” with a $500,000 mortgage from a private bank run by a major campaign donor, in a program that was only supposed to be open to high-wealth investment clients in the trust, which Santorum was not, and closed to the general public.
3. Santorum was never above mingling his cultural crusades with the everyday work of raising political cash. In 2005, Santorum made headlines – not all positive – for visiting the deathbed of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a national right-to-die controversy.What my Philadelphia Daily News colleague John Baer later exposed was that the real reason he was in the Tampa, Fla., area was to collect money at a $250,000 fundraiser organized by executives of Outback Steakhouses, a company that shared Santorum’s passion for a low minimum wage for waitresses and other rank-and-file workers. Santorum’s efforts were also aided by his unusual mode of travel: Wal-Mart’s corporate jet. And he canceled a public meeting on Social Security reform “out of respect for the Schiavo family” even as the closed fundraisers went on.
4. Santorum didn’t seem to be against government waste when it came to his family. During his years in the Senate, Santorum raised his family in northern Virginia and rarely if ever seemed to use the small house that he claimed as his legal residence, in a blue-collar Pittsburgh suburb called Penn Hills. So Pennsylvania voters were shocked when they found out the Penn Hills School District had paid out $72,000 for the home cyberschooling of five of Santorum’s kids, hundreds of miles away in a different state. The cash=strapped district was unsuccessful in its efforts to get any of its money back from Santorum.
5. Washington’s lobbyist culture — Santorum was soaking in it. The ex-Pennsylvania senator spent much of his final years in government trying to downplay and defend his involvement in the so-called “K Street Project,” an effort created by GOP uber-lobbyist and tax-cutting fanatic Grover Norquist and future felon and House majority whip Tom DeLay. By all accounts, Santorum was the Senate’s “point man” on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist — at least occasionally and perhaps frequently — to discuss the effort to sure that Republicans were landing well-paying jobs in lobbying firms that were seeking to then access and influence other Republicans.
6. Santorum had no problem with big government if it was supporting his campaign contributors in Big Pharma.It’s little wonder that Santorum ultimately supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly that has added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit and was drafted in such a way to best help pharmaceutical companies maximize profits from all the unbridled spending. When Santorum was defeated for a third term in 2006, an internal memo at the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline said his departure from Washington “creates a big hole that we need to fill.
7. The defender of family values was also slavish in his devotion to a large American corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart: In the wake of the report about Santorum’s travel in the Wal-Mart corporate jet, I counted the many ways that Santorum had done the bidding of the world’s largest retailer in the Senate, including battling to limit any increases in the minimum wage and seeking to make changes in overtime rules that woulld benefit the company and hurt its blue-collar workforce, tort reform to limit lawsuits against what is said to be the world’s most-sued company, and changes in charitable giving laws and of course eliminating the estate tax that would benefit the billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.
eniobob,
Thanks for the link to the Santorum article!