California GOP candidate blames Obama health care bill for "skyrocketing" health costs

"Taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals" in California are "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."
Steve Poizner on Saturday, April 10th, 2010 in a campaign commercial

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Steve Poizner is the state insurance commissioner of California and a Republican candidate for governor.

One ad, aired by Poizner beginning in April, argues that "like Schwarzenegger," Whitman "will continue taxpayer-funded benefits to illegals. A skyrocketing cost under Obamacare."

The federal bill expands Medicaid eligibility to all Americans earning up to 133 percent of the poverty line. "This will lead to more illegal immigrants enrolling, because California provides a version of Medicaid to illegal immigrants,"

But it's wrong to assume that illegal immigrants will qualify for full-blown Medicaid in California. In fact, the only entitlement they get from Medicaid is emergency care in hospitals, which is already mandatory under federal law and was not changed by the newly passed health care bill. These limited benefits are available to any illegal immigrant who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid were it not for their immigration status. (Illegal immigrants can also qualify for Medicaid benefits for long-term care, but it's not an entitlement -- coverage is provided only to the extent that legislators and the governor agree to fund the program, and there's no federal match.)

Right now, emergency care for illegal immigrants in California is paid by the state and local government. To the extent that more illegal immigrants will now qualify for California's version of Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal) and use emergency hospital services, the only difference will be a shift of payment responsibility from one state or local account to another. (Whether the federal government will continue to pick up part of the cost for treating illegal immigrants using Medi-Cal -- as the federal government does today -- is unclear, given the new bill's language.)

The new federal law specifically prevents illegal immigrants from benefitting, and most of the additional indirect costs that might be expected from expanding the Medicaid rolls are already being paid in California by different state or local government accounts. For these reasons, the phrase "a skyrocketing cost under Obamacare" is a gross exaggeration.

So Steve Poizner --- Are you Kidding?

Michael Savage says Kagan is a Marxist

Elena Kagan is "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."
Michael Savage on Monday, May 10th, 2010 in his website

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, http://politifact.com/ Click here for Full Story.

Michael Savage is a conservative radio commentator, and host of  "The Michael Savage Show," which is syndicated in over 300 U.S. markets. He is also the author of 25 books, including four New York Times bestsellers.

"Now the empty skirts in the media are saying that she doesn't have much of a 'paper trail' that would reveal her views on issues," said conservative radio commentator Michael Savage, "but her senior thesis at Princeton was entitled, 'To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.' She's a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

The question is not whether Kagan wrote the paper. It's available to anyone who's willing to pay the Princeton University Library $54.60 to read it.

The question is whether the thesis reveals Kagan to be "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."

Insight into why Kagan selected that topic is in the acknowledgements at the start of the paper, where she wrote, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

The rest of the paper is an examination of why the socialist party never took off. Kagan focused on the socialist party in New York City as a microcosm of the national movement, and sought to answer the central question, "What caused the strange death of socialism in New York City?"

And, she concludes, "The socialists' failure to maintain their momentum grew from their failure ever to achieve internal harmony."

Yet there's nothing in her record that suggests she's a Marxist, as Savage claimed. Yes, she wrote a paper about socialism in college. But she never said in the thesis that she subscribed to the political ideas of socialism. In fact, she mostly adopts the dispassionate tone of a historian. And there's certainly nothing in the public record to suggest she has since become one. Writing a history thesis about socialism doesn't amount to endorsing it.

So once again, we have a political commentator attacking someone as a "Marxist" with absolutely no evidence to back it up. That's not just false, it's irresponsibly.


So Michael Savage --- Are you Kidding?

Schultz claims that Landrieu got $1.8 million in BP PAC and employee contributions

"Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."
Ed Schultz on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 in a broadcast of the Ed Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Ed Schultz is the host of the Ed Show on MSNBC

Here's what Ed Schultz, the liberal host of MSNBC's Ed Show, had to say about her share of the money:

"Americans are getting a real education on what the color of oil is," Schultz said on the May 5, 2010, episode of his show. "It's green. It's real green. It's big money and influence. Just so you know what's coming down, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."

Checking that figure against data from OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks campaign contributions. Between 2000 and 2009, BP employees and the company's political action committee contributed $25,200 to Landrieu. And since Landrieu was elected to Congress in 1996, BP employees and the company's political action committee have given her a total of $28,200. (So far, Landrieu hasn't received any money from the company's workers or PAC in 2010, so we excluded that year from our analysis.)

Schultz issued his own correction on May 12.

"In recent days we have been reporting on this program on two different occasions that Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana had taken $1.8 million from BP," he said. "I want to come off the top tonight and correct that number. It is $752,000... I want all of you to know our apologies from me, Ed Schultz, on this. I don‘t like getting my numbers wrong."

But Schultz did get the numbers wrong - again.

Landrieu has received $752,744 from all the oil and gas industry's political action committees and employees -- not just BP -- during her entire career. Schultz initially said that Landrieu had received $1.8 million from BP in the last decade, so his "correction" is wrong.

Schultz repeatedly claimed that Landrieu had made $1.8 million from BP employees and PAC in campaign contributions over the last decade. We found that she's only made $25,200 from them in that period of time. That's a huge difference. Schultz eventually issued a correction, saying that Landrieu's only gotten $752,000. But Landrieu has received about that much during her entire career from the entire oil and gas industry, not just BP's political action committee and employees.

So Ed Schultz --- Are you Kidding?

Landrieu says Louisiana doesn't get "one single penny" from offshore drilling

Louisiana gets "not one single penny" from Gulf Coast offshore oil revenues.
Mary Landrieu on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Mary Landrieu is a Democratic U.S. Senator from Louisiana.

Landrieu, who has often been an advocate for the energy industry in the Senate, told the liberal talk show host,Ed Schultz, "I can promise you, no one's going to let the industry skid. We're going to make BP pay. And, I might say, and you know because you've heard me say this before, when will America realize that the Gulf Coast states need revenue-sharing? Do you know how much money the federal treasury gets from this industry every year? An average of $5 billion. Do you know how much money Louisiana gets? Not one single penny."

It's a bit complicated, but the truth is the state makes millions. Here's the breakdown:

• For the first 3 miles out from the shoreline, Louisiana -- like other states -- gets to keep 100 percent of any royalties produced by oil and gas drilling. In the most recent year available, 2008, this amounted to $275 million.

• Between 3 and 6 miles from the shoreline -- a federally owned band formally known as the 8(g) area -- the federal government sends 27 percent of the royalties to Louisiana. The reasoning is that federal drilling in this area sucks out some of the oil from deposits that span the 3-mile dividing line between state and federal ownership, so these payments are meant to compensate for the lost revenue to states. In 2009, they totaled $22 million and they're estimated to be $32 million this year.

• Beyond 6 miles from the shoreline is considered federal territory. For new drilling projects, states get a 37.5 percent share directly to their treasuries and an additional 12.5 percent for state land and water conservation fund projects. The 37.5 percent figure alone amounted to $6.3 million for Louisiana's treasury in 2009, with additional estimated amounts of $558,000 in 2010 and $476,000 in 2011.

The grand total that Louisiana receives in a typical year is difficult to compute because of big variations in oil prices and other factors, but it's safe in saying it's in the tens of millions of dollars every year, and depending on how you slice the numbers, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Either way, it's not accurate to say that Louisiana received "not one single penny," as Landrieu did.


So Mary Landrieu --- Are you Kidding?

Reid claims O'Connor had no previous judicial experience

On Sandra Day O'Connor: "I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience" before she joined the Supreme Court.
Harry Reid on Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 in a speech on the Senate floor

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Harry Reid is the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate and a Democrat from Nevada

"One of my favorite Supreme Court Justices in recent years has been Sandra Day O’Connor, not because she’s a Republican, but because she was a good judge. I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience," Reid said on May 11, 2010.

O'Connor, who retired from the court 2005, also had a variety of jobs, serving as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California, and as an Arizona state senator.

In 1975, O'Connor was elected a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, according to her biography on the U.S. Supreme Court Web site. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

So, O'Connor had six years of judicial experience before she was nominated for a seat on the highest court.

So Harry Reid --- Are you Kidding?

Sanders says U.S. doubles every other country in per capita health spending

"We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth."
Bernie Sanders on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 in an appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bernie Sanders is a Senator from Vermont who is an independent but who caucuses with Democrats.

On the Aug. 19, 2009, Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Sanders responded to a question about corporate interests' role in the health care reform debate by saying, "We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth. And there is a reason why the insurance companies, year after year, make huge profits and pay their CEOs tens and tens of millions of dollars in compensation salaries. And the reason for that is that these guys exert enormous influence over the political process in Washington."

Using statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that represents 30 wealthier, industrialized countries, most of them in Europe and North America. In 2007, the OECD said that the United States spent $7,290 per capita on health care, ranking it first among the 30 countries studied. Five other nations spent more than $3,645 per capita, the point at which the United States no longer doubles their spending. The highest is the Netherlands at $4,417. The other four were Austria, Canada, Norway and Switzerland.

Sanders would have been on completely firm ground had he simply said, "We spend more per capita on health care than any other nation on Earth." But instead he said "twice as much."

So Bernie Sanders --- Are you Kidding?

Brewer says Arizona immigration law rewrite 'lays to rest' worries about racial profiling

Late changes to the Arizona immigration law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling."
Jan Brewer on Friday, April 30th, 2010 in a news release

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Jan Brewer, a Republican, is the governor of Arizona.

The new version of the law says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

The prior version had said that an official "may not solely consider race" in such circumstances.

The change appears to limit the scope of the law. The previous wording left open the possibility that race could be used as a factor -- just not the sole factor -- in deciding to stop someone.

The Arizona law, even in its revised version, sets up a clash of constitutional principles that could be fought over in the courts for years to come. Indeed, the law almost demands court involvement by expressly authorizing police to consider race “to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution" -- something that is far from nailed down.

For defendants who feel they were stopped unfairly due to racial profiling, it may be virtually impossible to show, at least for many months if not several years" that the police made their decision illegally on racial or ethnic grounds.

The late changes do bolster Brewer's contention that the law prohibits racial profiling. But our legal experts say that it is far from the done deal that she suggests. There are simply too many legal loose ends to be settled in court to be able to say that the late changes to the law will "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling," as Brewer put it.


So Jan Brewer --- Are you Kidding?

Hayworth says he's forced John McCain to drop amnesty for illegal immigrants

"Up until two weeks ago, John McCain was a leading proponent of amnesty. Now with me challenging him, suddenly he has changed."
J.D. Hayworth on Wednesday, April 28th, 2010 in an interview on the Fox Business Network

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

J.D. Hayworth is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and host of a conservative talk radio show. He is running for the Senate against Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary.

Back in 2007, McCain made waves by pushing an immigration reform bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally. Such a plan has been unpopular with many Republicans, who frequently criticize it for providing "amnesty" to illegal aliens.

McCain was long against the idea of sending National Guard troops to the border. In 2001, he told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly that it was a bad idea because troops are not trained for the job. He solidified his change of heart on March 26, 2009, when he posted a statement on his Web site that said, given violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, "I support sending National Guard troops to assist with securing our southern border and stemming the flow of violence spilling over into the United States."

He reiterated that stance during a field hearing in Phoenix on Monday, April 20, 2009. And exactly a year later, McCain joined with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl to introduce a 10-point plan to secure the border. The proposal includes sending 3,000 National Guard troops to the border, but says nothing about a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

McCain was once a vocal proponent of a pathway to citizenship. And for years, he rejected the idea of sending more National Guard troops to the border. But during the 2008 campaign, he started to shift his stance on the issue, saying that securing the border was his first priority. We found that he's maintained that stance since 2008, most recently with a new plan that would send 3,000 National Guard troops to the border. All the while, McCain has never fully backed away from further immigration reform.

There is nothing to substantiate Hayworth's claim that, "Up until two weeks ago, John McCain was a leading proponent of amnesty. Now with me challenging him, suddenly he has changed." And his campaign could point to no solid evidence to back him up. In fact, McCain started favoring border security over a pathway to citizenship years ago, long before Hayworth was a contender.

So J.D. Hayworth --- Are you Kidding?

Issa says oil royalties trail only taxes in generating revenue for the federal government

Royalties for oil and other energy sources are the "second-largest revenue source to the federal government after the IRS."
Darrell Issa on Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 in an interview with Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Darrell Issa is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.

In a May 4, 2010, interview with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., suggested that there may be a conflict of interest between the government's reliance on revenue from oil leases and its need to be a tough regulator. He focused on the Minerals Management Service, an office within the Interior Department that handles royalties, rents and other revenues from oil, natural gas and coal on federal land or in federal waters.

First, let's look at how much money MMS brings in.

For the most recent year -- 2009 -- MMS says it received $7.6 billion in combined royalties for oil, natural gas and coal, plus roughly $2.3 billion more in other revenues, for a total of $9.9 billion.

Here are a number of revenue sources collected by agencies other than IRS that seemed to qualify:

• Deposit of earnings from the Federal Reserve System (deposited by the Fed): $34.3 billion

• Alcohol and tobacco taxes (collected by the Treasury Deptartment's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau): $22.7 billion

• Customs duties (collected by Customs and Border Protection): $21.3 billion

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. insurance premiums and recoveries (collected by the FDIC): $20.5 billion

• Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund (collected by the Commerce Department): $16.7 billion

• Energy sales by the Tennessee Valley Authority (collected by TVA): $11.1 billion

This would rank MMS no higher than eighth among entities generating revenue for the government.



So Darrell Issa --- Are you Kidding?

Bloggers claim photo shows millions at "tea party" protest

Photo of "tea party" protests shows crowd sprawling from Capitol to Washington Monument
Bloggers on Saturday, September 12th, 2009 in conservative blogs

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

So supporters of September 12th “tea party” protests against President Barack Obama were quick to highlight their big turnout. To bolster countless claims on blogs and Facebook, many posted a photograph that showed a gargantuan crowd sprawling from Capitol Hill down the National Mall to the Washington Monument.

But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.

Estimates about the crowd spread quickly through the conservative blogosphere. Many writers, including author Michelle Malkin, pegged the number of people between 1 million and 2 million. Those reports were largely based on information from people in the crowd.

There’s another problem with the photograph: It doesn’t include the National Museum of the American Indian, a building located at the corner of Fourth Street and Independence Avenue that opened on Sept. 14, 2004. (Looking at the photograph, the building should be in the upper right hand corner of the National Mall, next to the Air and Space Museum.) That means the picture was taken before the museum opened exactly five years ago. So clearly the photo doesn’t show the “tea party” crowd from the Sept. 12 protest.

Also worth noting are the cranes in front of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. The last time cranes were in front was in the 1990s when the IMAX theater was being built.

It appears that the photo was actually taken in 1997 at a rally for Promise Keepers, a group for Christian men. According to the group’s Web site, nearly 1 million people attended the event. Photos of the Oct. 4, 1997, event that were posted on
various Web sites in 2003, 2008 and earlier this year show either the same picture or a similar photo that has identical tents and what appear to be TV screens in the same locations.

Conservative bloggers who originally posted the picture have backed down.

So Bloggers --- Are you Kidding?

Republican Mike Pence says Obama cut budget for illegal immigration effort

"This administration and this Congress have been systematically cutting funding to border security since the Democrats took control."
Mike Pence on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010 in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press'

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Mike Pence is a Republican Congressman from Indiana.

"Here's the numbers," Pence said. "Fiscal 2007, the last year Republicans wrote a budget, $1.2 billion for border security and fencing. By 2010 that was cut to $800 million ... I mean, the Democrats have cut three-quarters of a trillion out of this,
and the president wants to go to 50 percent of the level that Republicans spent on border security. We have got to take border security seriously."

Pence toggles between two statistics here, spending on border security and a subset of that, spending on border fencing.

The fact is, between 2007 and now, while spending on border fencing has gone down, overall spending on border security has increased.

Now for the REAL numbers.

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.

Pence said "this administration and this Congress have been systematically cutting funding to border security since the Democrats took control," that's wrong. Funding for fencing is down, but funding for border security is up. In fact, discretionary spending on border security is up 55 percent between 2007 and 2011, even with a small proposed cut in 2011.


So Mike Pence --- Are you Kidding?

Bill Maher says "Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years."

"Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years."
Bill Maher on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010 in an interview on ABC News' 'This Week'

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Bill Maher is a comedian and host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

Conservative columnist George Will challenged Maher about Brazil. "Could you just explain to me in what sense has Brazil got off oil?"

"I believe they did," Maher said. "I believe in the 70's they had a program to use sugarcane ethanol, and I believe that is what fuels their country."

"I think they still burn a lot of oil and have a lot of offshore (drilling)," Will said.

Brazil does produce a lot of sugarcane ethanol, as Maher said.

"Brazil is one of the largest producers of ethanol in the world and is the largest exporter of the fuel," according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But in 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world's countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day. In first place was the United States at 19.5 million barrels per day, followed by China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also produces a lot of oil through drilling near its coasts. In recent years, Brazil's state-controlled energy company Petrobras announced a major new find of oil in some of the deepest waters where exploration is conducted, some 7,000 feet below in the Atlantic Ocean.

Maher was likely remembering Brazil's aggresive efforts to promote ethanol, But Maher said, "Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years." Actually, Brazil still consumes a great deal of oil. It's also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration.

So Bill Maher --- Are you Kidding?

Maddow says Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency

"President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency."
Rachel Maddow on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 in "The Rachel Maddow" show

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

Maddow hosts MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," as well as a radio show of the same name on Air America.

Conservative critics and some independent pundits have said that President Obama is guilty of freezing out a legitimate news network because he doesn't like its coverage.

If that's the case, then President George W. Bush did it, too, said liberal talk show host Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. She said the Bush administration frequently excluded liberal columnists and talk show hosts from meetings Bush held with conservative media.

"Would it surprise you to learn that President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency? Not one in eight years?" she said.

There were at least three interviews that Bush gave the New York Times .

• On June 5, 2001, New York Times reporter Frank Bruni had what he described as Bush's first "one-on-one interview" since Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties and threw control of the Senate to the Democrats. "We're looking at a different landscape, but still on the same continent," Bush said. "The same votes. The members haven't changed."

• On Aug 26, 2004, Bush gave a half-hour interview to the New York Times as he campaigned through New Mexico. Bush told the newspaper that he did not believe Sen. John Kerry lied about his war record, as some groups alleged during the campaign.

• On Jan. 27, 2005, a week after he started his second term, Bush spoke with New York Times reporters for 40 minutes, discussing troop levels in Iraq and domestic issues such as gay adoption, abortion and Social Security.

Checking Maddow's statement that President Bush "never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency." That's not the case.

The Rachel Maddow Show was going off a Los Angeles Times blog post that was based on Stolberg's comments. The blog post was incorrectly headlined, "Nine years later the N.Y. Times still awaits its Bush interview."


So Rachel Maddow --- Are you Kidding?

Rush Limbaugh says Alaska's Prince William Sound is now pristine

Alaska's Prince William Sound "is pristine now."
Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 in his radio program

Condensed story from 2009 Pulitzer prize winner, Politifact.com Click here for Full Story.

With 200,000 gallons of oil a day spewing from an exploded oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, forming a slick the size of West Virginia and threatening the coastline of Louisiana, radio pundit Rush Limbaugh said there's no need to panic, that "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural."

And to prove his point, Limbaugh pointed to the restoration of Alaska's Prince William Sound, which was devastated by an oil spill from the Exxon Valdez 21 years ago. "They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth," Limbaugh said on his April 29, 2010, radio show. "The place is pristine now."

The Trustee Council, formed by the Alaska government to oversee the restoration of the injured ecosystem, concluded the oil is decreasing at a rate of 0 to 4 percent a year, and "at this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely."

Despite outward appearance, 21 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, Prince William Sound is not pristine. You may not be able to see it, but scientists and anyone willing to turn over rocks with a shovel attest to the fact that thousands of gallons of oil remain buried in some beaches, and the oil continues to adversely affect the environment.


So Rush Limbaugh --- Are you Kidding?