THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The CNN Ticker said that Sen Max Baucus, his aide Erin Shields and Sen Harry Reid and one of his aides were planning caps on health insurance under the Reform Healthcare Bill.
This appears to be an outright SCAM FOR THE INSURANCE BUYERS. That this scam is being proposed by two members of the US Senate is astounding. Most of the buyers of insurance under the reform bill are not experienced insurance people. When they purchase health insurance I am sure they are expecting full coverage for their medical problems. To try and substitute what amounts to “limited liability” in stead of full coverage is a scam. Is this the private insurance co’s way of replacing “recessions”?
Most of the buyers, certainly those being subsidized, will not have the knowledge or money to buy an additional insurance policy to cover the possible medical costs not covered by the cap policies. To say that the cap policies will cost less is misrepresentation and misleading. Of course they will cost less because they do not pay for the expensive care some will need.
Cap policies will do very little to reduce the 50 to 60 of total bankruptcies due to the inability to pay large medical bills. Of the medical bankruptcies about 2/3 have some medial insurance but not enough.
If this is the thinking of the private insurance co’s and their representatives in Congress I believe the US gov’t should step in with a single payer system and furnish the Reform Bill Healthcare policies.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTUTIONAL
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The public pronouncements and actions of certain religious groups have made the decision of whether society should allow abortions or prohibit abortions a moral or religious decision.
At present a large well organized and financed group have worked to have the US gov’t enact laws that will enforce the moral and religious decision that they favor.
This is clearly unconstitutional as it infringes on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution “Freedom of Religion”. It forces everyone including those that disagree or have other values to a belief or course of action they disapprove of.
The abortion decision seems to have no objective right or wrong basis. In the US certain religious groups are against abortion. In China abortions are mandatory—one child per family. In the US It seems to be a moral or religious policy decision. According to the Guttmacher Institute research,for the individual having an abortion personal circumstances are usually the deciding factors.
Even the deeper “respect for life” seems to have no objective right or wrong basis but depend on religious views. The Catholic Church is a strong believer in “respect for life”. However in other religions the highest accolade goes to the person who will die for his religion. Some civilizations have practiced human sacrifice or even cannibalism. Some countries are willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of people in their drive for conquest and domination.
The public pronouncements and actions of certain religious groups have made the decision of whether society should allow abortions or prohibit abortions a moral or religious decision.
At present a large well organized and financed group have worked to have the US gov’t enact laws that will enforce the moral and religious decision that they favor.
This is clearly unconstitutional as it infringes on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution “Freedom of Religion”. It forces everyone including those that disagree or have other values to a belief or course of action they disapprove of.
The abortion decision seems to have no objective right or wrong basis. In the US certain religious groups are against abortion. In China abortions are mandatory—one child per family. In the US It seems to be a moral or religious policy decision. According to the Guttmacher Institute research,for the individual having an abortion personal circumstances are usually the deciding factors.
Even the deeper “respect for life” seems to have no objective right or wrong basis but depend on religious views. The Catholic Church is a strong believer in “respect for life”. However in other religions the highest accolade goes to the person who will die for his religion. Some civilizations have practiced human sacrifice or even cannibalism. Some countries are willing to sacrifice thousands or even millions of people in their drive for conquest and domination.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
LETTER TO REP. MARK kIRK
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS! Dear Rep. Kirk—I believe that your attitude and campaign against placing Guantanamo detainees on US soil is misleading and unworthy of a US Rep. and candidate for the US Senate.
1) You call them terrorists. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? Many of these detainees have been held 7 years without even a hearing. None of them have been convicted of any misdeeds or crimes. My guesstimates are that outside of a dozen or so they are not terrorists. The proper place for them would be POW’S. During WWII we had thousands of German POW’S at many locations in the US with very little trouble.
2) You are using scare tactics to peddle fear. Our maximum security prisons I believe are fully capable of handling such a small number of detainees the majority of whom should either be designated POW’S or sent home. At present the detainees are not allowed visitors. Thus your worries about detainee families and other visitors causing troubles in the location near the prison is groundless. I am surprised that you were unaware of the visitor policy.
3) I am hopeful you will reconsider your mistaken policy about the detainees and devote your efforts to positive policies that will benefit the nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Diogenes
1) You call them terrorists. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE TERRORISTS? Many of these detainees have been held 7 years without even a hearing. None of them have been convicted of any misdeeds or crimes. My guesstimates are that outside of a dozen or so they are not terrorists. The proper place for them would be POW’S. During WWII we had thousands of German POW’S at many locations in the US with very little trouble.
2) You are using scare tactics to peddle fear. Our maximum security prisons I believe are fully capable of handling such a small number of detainees the majority of whom should either be designated POW’S or sent home. At present the detainees are not allowed visitors. Thus your worries about detainee families and other visitors causing troubles in the location near the prison is groundless. I am surprised that you were unaware of the visitor policy.
3) I am hopeful you will reconsider your mistaken policy about the detainees and devote your efforts to positive policies that will benefit the nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Diogenes
Thursday, November 12, 2009
WHAT DOES REP CAO'S VOTE TELL US?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS? "I had to make a decision, and I felt that last night's decision (Health Reform bill) was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Rep Cao, 42, said of his vote late Saturday. Rep Cao represents a low income district in New Orleans.
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
The Obama administration and Republican leaders, such as Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, lobbied Cao throughout Saturday. He made his decision as the voting came to a close and cast his "yes" vote as the Democrats passed the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass. The final tally was 220-215.
The first Vietnamese American in Congress, Cao fled Vietnam with two siblings when he was 8, according to his House website. Cao said he did not make any deals with President Obama in exchange for his vote. Cao has pushed for more aid to New Orleans to help the city recover after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has supported Obama's actions to help Louisiana rebuild.
What does it tell us WHEN IT’S NEWS THAT A CONGRESSMAN VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE BY VOTING FOR A BILL THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP THE PEOPLE IN HIS DISTRICT DESPITE THE WISHES OF HIS PARTY? What does it tell us about a party that wants a congressman to vote against a bill that he feels will help the people in his district? What does it tell us about a Congress that is so absorbed in party warfare that it has forgotten the reason for its existence, namely to help the citizens? What does it tell us about a country whose citizens are so self centered they can only see their own selfish interests and never care or look at what’s best for the whole country?
In this particular case, though the idea applies to both parties, an examination state by state reveals that in states that that have the highest % of uninsured,their representatives are the strongest objectors to the health reform bill The Health Reform bill will make possible the purchase of insurance with gov’t help if necessary. These states are southern, mountain and Tx ,Ok, Ks. Statistics show that uninsured people are less healthy because they wait too long to seek medical help to avoid the cost. When they do seek medical help it is often in high cost emergency rooms. Harvard researchers published an article in the American Journal of Public Health. They said 45.000 people die each year as a result of not havinginsurance.
So why don't the representatives in these states vote for the Health Reform bill?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Repulicans use Healthcare to score s coup!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
The Republican party has an opportunity seize this moment and establish themselves as the leading party. As the discussions on healthcare reform continue it has become apparent that the public wants healthcare reform that will cover almost everyone and they want it at the lowest cost possible.
Republicans have come up with several good ideas, selling insurance across state lines, giving individuals the same tax breaks as those who get insurance thru their employers, tort reform to lessen Doctors insurance costs etc. These idea will help but are not sufficient for almost universal coverage at the lowest cost possible.
How to save BIG MONEY on healthcare REFORM!
Despite all the smoke and mirrors the best opinion shows that the public option saves money not costs money. The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Massachusetts experience using Heritage Foundation ideas with exchanges has covered over 97% of the people but at high cost. Yearly insurance plans run from $800 to $1,000 per month. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the money saving of public option plans by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan. The polls show 60% of the public want a gov’t option.
There is another important step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan. The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks and costs of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer. The PNHP single payer information is available at Tel 312-782-6006, info@pnhp.org.
I suggest that you introduce a single payer healthcare reform bill with a gov’t plan. Many liberal democrats will go along with you and you may take control of the healthcare reform debate and give the public what it wants.
The Republican party has an opportunity seize this moment and establish themselves as the leading party. As the discussions on healthcare reform continue it has become apparent that the public wants healthcare reform that will cover almost everyone and they want it at the lowest cost possible.
Republicans have come up with several good ideas, selling insurance across state lines, giving individuals the same tax breaks as those who get insurance thru their employers, tort reform to lessen Doctors insurance costs etc. These idea will help but are not sufficient for almost universal coverage at the lowest cost possible.
How to save BIG MONEY on healthcare REFORM!
Despite all the smoke and mirrors the best opinion shows that the public option saves money not costs money. The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Massachusetts experience using Heritage Foundation ideas with exchanges has covered over 97% of the people but at high cost. Yearly insurance plans run from $800 to $1,000 per month. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the money saving of public option plans by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan. The polls show 60% of the public want a gov’t option.
There is another important step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan. The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks and costs of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer. The PNHP single payer information is available at Tel 312-782-6006, info@pnhp.org.
I suggest that you introduce a single payer healthcare reform bill with a gov’t plan. Many liberal democrats will go along with you and you may take control of the healthcare reform debate and give the public what it wants.
Monday, October 26, 2009
HOW to SAVE MONEY on HEALTHCARE REFORM
GET THE FACS BEHIND THE NEWS! The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300 billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan.
There is another IMPORTANT step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan.
The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer.
If you are genuinely interested in healthcare reform at the lowest cost please check into single payer facts. The PNHP information is available
Tel 312-782-6006 info@pnhp.org
There is another IMPORTANT step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.
According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan.
The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer.
If you are genuinely interested in healthcare reform at the lowest cost please check into single payer facts. The PNHP information is available
Tel 312-782-6006 info@pnhp.org
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Is the US losing its COMPETITIVE EDGE?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovatioon Foundation, a nonpartisan reserch group,showed that the US economy's competitive position has rapidly declined the last 10 years
The report covered 40 countries and used 16 indcators to judge innovation and competitiveness. The report adjusted for the size of the economy and population of coutries The report ranked the US 6th for innovation and competitiveness. The report considered such areas as scientific researchers and spending on research, venture capital investment, and educational achievment. The report placed the American Economy last in advancement for the last 10 years
This report paralles the finding Of Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard a noted expert in competitiveness and very active in the OECD. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08, 2009 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication
Thirdly the National Academies considered the nation's leadiing science advisory group by many has also found that the US lead in science and technology was declining while other nations were advancing. China, Finland, Singapore, and Taiwan have policies that are designed to spur innovation thru an inerdisciplanary approach that includes abroad spectrum of different fields.
President Obama has said that future prosperity will depend on the United States becoming an “innovation economy.” The economic recovery package includes spending for areas favored by innovation policy advocates. Areas such as higher research and development spending. and funds for high-technology fields like electronic health records. However the US does not have a coordinated innovation program.
Many see these studies as a awake up call.
More results, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan led); and fourth in science and technology researchers (again, Sweden was first). Singapore ws the most innovative and competitive. Singapore started a national innovation strategy years ago. Singapore investing heavily and recruited leading scientists and technologists from around the world.
The study specifically recommendeds federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, these range from research tax incentives to work force development tax credits. Public investments and regulatory incentives can accelerate the use of information technology in health care, energy systems, transportation, government and education.
The report covered 40 countries and used 16 indcators to judge innovation and competitiveness. The report adjusted for the size of the economy and population of coutries The report ranked the US 6th for innovation and competitiveness. The report considered such areas as scientific researchers and spending on research, venture capital investment, and educational achievment. The report placed the American Economy last in advancement for the last 10 years
This report paralles the finding Of Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard a noted expert in competitiveness and very active in the OECD. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08, 2009 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication
Thirdly the National Academies considered the nation's leadiing science advisory group by many has also found that the US lead in science and technology was declining while other nations were advancing. China, Finland, Singapore, and Taiwan have policies that are designed to spur innovation thru an inerdisciplanary approach that includes abroad spectrum of different fields.
President Obama has said that future prosperity will depend on the United States becoming an “innovation economy.” The economic recovery package includes spending for areas favored by innovation policy advocates. Areas such as higher research and development spending. and funds for high-technology fields like electronic health records. However the US does not have a coordinated innovation program.
Many see these studies as a awake up call.
More results, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan led); and fourth in science and technology researchers (again, Sweden was first). Singapore ws the most innovative and competitive. Singapore started a national innovation strategy years ago. Singapore investing heavily and recruited leading scientists and technologists from around the world.
The study specifically recommendeds federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, these range from research tax incentives to work force development tax credits. Public investments and regulatory incentives can accelerate the use of information technology in health care, energy systems, transportation, government and education.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sen Baucus from the State of Insurance
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS The Baucus health plan now before the Senate appears to be a big help for the insurance industry,(how about the public?) by requiring almost everyone to buy insurance, and to buy it without any competition. In addition the Baucus plan has the gov’t(you and me) paying a subsidy(money) to help people pay for their insurance. Pretty nifty if you are in the insurance business.
The Baucus plan does not have a Public Option to compete with the private insurance co’s and provide low cost insurance to people of limited means. Sen Baucus said that he could not get 60 votes in the Senate with a public option. Of course you can’t get 60 votes if you don’t even try, or maybe don’t want to try. The polls show about 66% of the public want a gov’t option. Coop and exchanges with private insurance co’s do not answer the need for competition and low cost insurance. The Massachusetts connector prices for an average family is $800 to $1,000 per month.
Bill Moyers on his tv program Oct 9th pointed out that Liz Fowler one of Sen Baucus main advisors worked for the Wellpoint Co. She is now a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. Bill also mentioned that the healthcare industry has given $1.5 million to Sen Baucus. In addition Bill said they have given many millions to other influential people.
Sen Burris of IL is right when he says that he will not vote for a healthcare bill without a public option. One hopes 59 other Senators vote the same way.
The Baucus plan does not have a Public Option to compete with the private insurance co’s and provide low cost insurance to people of limited means. Sen Baucus said that he could not get 60 votes in the Senate with a public option. Of course you can’t get 60 votes if you don’t even try, or maybe don’t want to try. The polls show about 66% of the public want a gov’t option. Coop and exchanges with private insurance co’s do not answer the need for competition and low cost insurance. The Massachusetts connector prices for an average family is $800 to $1,000 per month.
Bill Moyers on his tv program Oct 9th pointed out that Liz Fowler one of Sen Baucus main advisors worked for the Wellpoint Co. She is now a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. Bill also mentioned that the healthcare industry has given $1.5 million to Sen Baucus. In addition Bill said they have given many millions to other influential people.
Sen Burris of IL is right when he says that he will not vote for a healthcare bill without a public option. One hopes 59 other Senators vote the same way.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
COOPS, EXCHANGES DON’T WORK A look at Massachusetts. GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Trudy Lieberman, a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review, has done a stellar job of reporting on the Massachusetts initiative
She found that the Connector( MA exchange) had failed to create affordable insurance OPTIONS for the people in Massachusetts. Using a hypothetical family from Pittsfield in western Mass, Lieberman went shopping on the Connector website. She found that coverage for a 44-year-old couple with an income of $66,150, slightly over the eligibility limit for a state insurance subsidy, “All but three of the fourteen Connector policies cost at least $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year—eighteen percent of their income.” The cheapest policy, at $820 a month, was no bargain. Yet according to the state’s own guidelines, a Pittsfield family with kids could only afford $364 in monthly premiums. Others point out that Mass has about 93% coverage at high cost. Costs have not been contained.
Like many ideas a health insurance exchange looks better on paper than in practice. When Massachusetts launched its health reform experiment in 2006, it relied heavily on Heritage Foundation policy prescriptions. Under then-Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts created a voluntary insurance exchange similar to the one Obama often promotes. Massachusetts outlines some basic requirements for plans that participate but it doesn’t set rates or reimbursement levels. And far from revolutionizing health care, the exchange—known in Massachusetts as the Connector—is demonstrating the limitations of relying solely on the market to solve the nation’s health care woes and rein in skyrocketing medical costs.
Prices vary by age. Lieberman found that if she changed the age of her Pittsfield family, the premiums jumped significantly. Lieberman reports that it’s not just consumers who are complaining. Insurance companies have failed to get the promised deluge of new customers, who’ve been deterred by the high prices.
In the reform bills currently pending in Congress, Democrats have modified the Connector model by introducing a public plan that would compete in the exchange to help keep costs down.
In WA State, which has one of the two regulated Co-Ops in the nation, Group Health Rates for me and my husband and daughter, which would include prescriptions, would be$614 a month or more, up to over $800 a month for a $500 deductible. At the $614/mo rate the deductible for the family would be $4,500.year. There is a 30% co- insurance after deductible, so I would be responsible for anything after the insurance paid 70%, plus the Rxs are paid at 30%-50% only. I would have to pay the balance. For my husband's asthma medication, which is non-generic, that would be over $100/month, every month, on top of the costs above. This plan does not include dental. I could get catastrophic coverage for a lot less for the family, but there would be no Rx coverage and really high deductibles.
She found that the Connector( MA exchange) had failed to create affordable insurance OPTIONS for the people in Massachusetts. Using a hypothetical family from Pittsfield in western Mass, Lieberman went shopping on the Connector website. She found that coverage for a 44-year-old couple with an income of $66,150, slightly over the eligibility limit for a state insurance subsidy, “All but three of the fourteen Connector policies cost at least $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year—eighteen percent of their income.” The cheapest policy, at $820 a month, was no bargain. Yet according to the state’s own guidelines, a Pittsfield family with kids could only afford $364 in monthly premiums. Others point out that Mass has about 93% coverage at high cost. Costs have not been contained.
Like many ideas a health insurance exchange looks better on paper than in practice. When Massachusetts launched its health reform experiment in 2006, it relied heavily on Heritage Foundation policy prescriptions. Under then-Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts created a voluntary insurance exchange similar to the one Obama often promotes. Massachusetts outlines some basic requirements for plans that participate but it doesn’t set rates or reimbursement levels. And far from revolutionizing health care, the exchange—known in Massachusetts as the Connector—is demonstrating the limitations of relying solely on the market to solve the nation’s health care woes and rein in skyrocketing medical costs.
Prices vary by age. Lieberman found that if she changed the age of her Pittsfield family, the premiums jumped significantly. Lieberman reports that it’s not just consumers who are complaining. Insurance companies have failed to get the promised deluge of new customers, who’ve been deterred by the high prices.
In the reform bills currently pending in Congress, Democrats have modified the Connector model by introducing a public plan that would compete in the exchange to help keep costs down.
In WA State, which has one of the two regulated Co-Ops in the nation, Group Health Rates for me and my husband and daughter, which would include prescriptions, would be$614 a month or more, up to over $800 a month for a $500 deductible. At the $614/mo rate the deductible for the family would be $4,500.year. There is a 30% co- insurance after deductible, so I would be responsible for anything after the insurance paid 70%, plus the Rxs are paid at 30%-50% only. I would have to pay the balance. For my husband's asthma medication, which is non-generic, that would be over $100/month, every month, on top of the costs above. This plan does not include dental. I could get catastrophic coverage for a lot less for the family, but there would be no Rx coverage and really high deductibles.
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Public Option that works!
Should there be a “public option” that competes with private insurance?
Answers might be found in San Francisco, where ambitious health care legislation went into effect early last year. San Francisco and Massachusetts now offer the only near-universal health care programs in the United States.
The early results are in. Today, almost all residents in the city have affordable access to a comprehensive health care delivery system through the Healthy San Francisco program. Covered services include the use of a so-called “medical home” that coordinates care at approved clinics and hospitals within San Francisco, with both public and private facilities. Although not formally insurance, the program is tantamount to a public option of comprehensive health insurance, with the caveat that services are covered only in the city of San Francisco. Enrollees with incomes under 300 percent of the federal poverty level have heavily subsidized access, and those with higher incomes may buy into the public program at rates substantially lower than what they would pay for an individual policy in the private-insurance market.
To pay for this, San Francisco put into effect an employer-health-spending requirement, akin to the “pay or play” employer insurance mandates being considered in Congress. Businesses with 100 or more employees must spend $1.85 an hour toward health care for each employee. Businesses with 20 to 99 employees pay $1.23 an hour, and businesses with 19 or fewer employees are exempt. These are much higher spending levels than mandated in Massachusetts, and more stringent than any of the plans currently under consideration in Congress. Businesses can meet the requirement by paying for private insurance, by paying into medical-reimbursement accounts or by paying into the city’s Healthy San Francisco public option.
There has been great demand for this plan. Thus far, around 45,000 adults have enrolled, compared to an estimated 60,000 who were previously uninsured. Among covered businesses, roughly 20 percent have chosen to use the city’s public option for at least some of their employees. But interestingly, in a recent survey of the city’s businesses, very few (less than 5 percent) of the employers who chose the public option are thinking about dropping existing (private market) insurance coverage. The public option has been used largely to cover previously uninsured workers and to supplement private-coverage options.
Through our experience working on health-care-reform efforts in California and Washington (one of us worked for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers), we have seen how concern over employer costs can be a sticking point in the health care debate, even in the absence of persuasive evidence that increased costs would seriously harm businesses. San Francisco’s example should put some of those fears to rest. Many businesses there had to raise their health spending substantially to meet the new requirements, but so far the plan has not hurt jobs.
As of December 2008, there was no indication that San Francisco’s employment grew more slowly after the enactment of the employer-spending requirement than did employment in surrounding areas in San Mateo and Alameda counties. If anything, employment trends were slightly better in San Francisco. This is true whether you consider overall employment or employment in sectors most affected by the employer mandate, like retail businesses and restaurants.
So how have employers adjusted to the higher costs, if not by cutting jobs? More than 25 percent of restaurants, for example, have instituted a “surcharge” — about 4 percent of the bill for most establishments — to pay for the additional costs. Local service businesses can add this surcharge (or raise prices) without risking their competitive position, since their competitors will be required to take similar measures. Furthermore, some of the costs may be passed on to employees in the form of smaller pay raises, which could help ward off the possibility of job losses. Over the longer term, if more widespread coverage allows people to choose jobs based on their skills and not out of fear of losing health insurance from one specific employer, increased productivity will help pay for some of the costs of the mandate.
The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model — in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage — has not led to the kind of job losses many fear. The public option has also passed the market test, while not crowding out private options. The positive changes in San Francisco provide a glimpse of what the future might look like if Washington passes substantial health reform this year.
William H. Dow, who was a senior economist for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
Answers might be found in San Francisco, where ambitious health care legislation went into effect early last year. San Francisco and Massachusetts now offer the only near-universal health care programs in the United States.
The early results are in. Today, almost all residents in the city have affordable access to a comprehensive health care delivery system through the Healthy San Francisco program. Covered services include the use of a so-called “medical home” that coordinates care at approved clinics and hospitals within San Francisco, with both public and private facilities. Although not formally insurance, the program is tantamount to a public option of comprehensive health insurance, with the caveat that services are covered only in the city of San Francisco. Enrollees with incomes under 300 percent of the federal poverty level have heavily subsidized access, and those with higher incomes may buy into the public program at rates substantially lower than what they would pay for an individual policy in the private-insurance market.
To pay for this, San Francisco put into effect an employer-health-spending requirement, akin to the “pay or play” employer insurance mandates being considered in Congress. Businesses with 100 or more employees must spend $1.85 an hour toward health care for each employee. Businesses with 20 to 99 employees pay $1.23 an hour, and businesses with 19 or fewer employees are exempt. These are much higher spending levels than mandated in Massachusetts, and more stringent than any of the plans currently under consideration in Congress. Businesses can meet the requirement by paying for private insurance, by paying into medical-reimbursement accounts or by paying into the city’s Healthy San Francisco public option.
There has been great demand for this plan. Thus far, around 45,000 adults have enrolled, compared to an estimated 60,000 who were previously uninsured. Among covered businesses, roughly 20 percent have chosen to use the city’s public option for at least some of their employees. But interestingly, in a recent survey of the city’s businesses, very few (less than 5 percent) of the employers who chose the public option are thinking about dropping existing (private market) insurance coverage. The public option has been used largely to cover previously uninsured workers and to supplement private-coverage options.
Through our experience working on health-care-reform efforts in California and Washington (one of us worked for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers), we have seen how concern over employer costs can be a sticking point in the health care debate, even in the absence of persuasive evidence that increased costs would seriously harm businesses. San Francisco’s example should put some of those fears to rest. Many businesses there had to raise their health spending substantially to meet the new requirements, but so far the plan has not hurt jobs.
As of December 2008, there was no indication that San Francisco’s employment grew more slowly after the enactment of the employer-spending requirement than did employment in surrounding areas in San Mateo and Alameda counties. If anything, employment trends were slightly better in San Francisco. This is true whether you consider overall employment or employment in sectors most affected by the employer mandate, like retail businesses and restaurants.
So how have employers adjusted to the higher costs, if not by cutting jobs? More than 25 percent of restaurants, for example, have instituted a “surcharge” — about 4 percent of the bill for most establishments — to pay for the additional costs. Local service businesses can add this surcharge (or raise prices) without risking their competitive position, since their competitors will be required to take similar measures. Furthermore, some of the costs may be passed on to employees in the form of smaller pay raises, which could help ward off the possibility of job losses. Over the longer term, if more widespread coverage allows people to choose jobs based on their skills and not out of fear of losing health insurance from one specific employer, increased productivity will help pay for some of the costs of the mandate.
The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model — in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage — has not led to the kind of job losses many fear. The public option has also passed the market test, while not crowding out private options. The positive changes in San Francisco provide a glimpse of what the future might look like if Washington passes substantial health reform this year.
William H. Dow, who was a senior economist for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Does a Public Option Insurance Plan
DOES A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE PLAN MERIT
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer(public option) Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1)Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2)Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3)Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4)People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5)Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer(public option) Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1)Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2)Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3)Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4)People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5)Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Public option would SAVE $224 to $400 billion
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS A look at insurance state by state shows that in most states one or two companies have about 80% of the healthcare insurance business. Pres Obrama mentioned that in Alabama one company has 90% of the business. In Maine Sen Snow's state Wellpoint has 71% of the insurance healthcare business etc.
We need a public option to give insurance buyers more choice and provide a low cost option FOR PEOPLE OF LIMITED MEANS.
The URBAN INSTITUTE Public Policy Institute estimated that a public option would save the taxpayers $224 to 400 Billion over a period of 10 years by lowering the the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured. More later
We need a public option to give insurance buyers more choice and provide a low cost option FOR PEOPLE OF LIMITED MEANS.
The URBAN INSTITUTE Public Policy Institute estimated that a public option would save the taxpayers $224 to 400 Billion over a period of 10 years by lowering the the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured. More later
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Senate Committee on Healthcare-Set up to Fail?
Was the Senate Finance Group on Healthcare--
SETUP TO FAIL?
Everyone is waiting for the healthcare plan to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee.
One has to wonder if the Senate Finance Committee on healthcare was deliberately set up to fail. Three republican senators, Charles Grassley from Iowa, Michael Enzi from Wyoming, Olympia Snow from Maine and three democratic senators, Max Baucus from Montana, Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, Kent Conrad from North Dakota compose the committee.
If you take a good look at the members you immediately notice that they all come from conservative rural states with small populations. All these states together don’t represent 10% of the population of the US. None of these states have large urban centers. This committee appears better suited to discuss farm, logging or water supply issues than healthcare.
What kind of a healthcare program that can be helpful to all the people of the US can we expect from the narrow selection of areas and viewpoints represented on this committee?
SETUP TO FAIL?
Everyone is waiting for the healthcare plan to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee.
One has to wonder if the Senate Finance Committee on healthcare was deliberately set up to fail. Three republican senators, Charles Grassley from Iowa, Michael Enzi from Wyoming, Olympia Snow from Maine and three democratic senators, Max Baucus from Montana, Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, Kent Conrad from North Dakota compose the committee.
If you take a good look at the members you immediately notice that they all come from conservative rural states with small populations. All these states together don’t represent 10% of the population of the US. None of these states have large urban centers. This committee appears better suited to discuss farm, logging or water supply issues than healthcare.
What kind of a healthcare program that can be helpful to all the people of the US can we expect from the narrow selection of areas and viewpoints represented on this committee?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Has bi-partisanship spoiled
The chances for a good healthcare program?
Was the strong insistence on bi-partisanship a bad mistake that doomed the Healthcare bills from achieving the denocratic objectives of the legislation? For example, a program such as a go’vt healthcare plan to compete with the insurance co’s and to give an insurance option to those with very limited resources to buy insurance.
The strong insistence on bi-partisanship seems strange since the Republicans had shown no interest in bi-partisanship. The Republicans fought hard against any Democratic initative such as the bailout bills, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sotomoyer, even the clunker auto program. Secondly the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee appeared to use their discussions to stall Healthcare momentum and get provisions they did not like eliminated, Perhaps they hoped to use the promise of bi-partisanship to talk about the bill so long that the momentum for it would be exhausted. Certainly Senator Grassley’s comments have been very unencouraging.
Did the Republicans see the emphasis on bi-partisanship by Pres Obrama as a sign of weakness and a person unsure of himself, or lacking in conviction, whose need of bi-partisanship could be exploited to limit the bill or even to kill it?
Historically major changes in our gov’t have come with aggressive leadership over the strenuous objections of those against. a) Would Thomas Jefferson have written the Declaration of Independence if he sat down with the British for a bi-partisan discussion? Would Abraham Lincoln have written the Emancipation proclamation if he approached the Confederates to seek a bi-partisan solution? Would FDR have committed to Social Security if he sought out the Republicans for a bi-partisan program? Would Lyndon Johnson have pushed thru Congress a Medicare bill if he asked the Republicans for bi-partisan help?
Come on guys! Let’s get with it. Let’s pass the best democratic bill we can.
The chances for a good healthcare program?
Was the strong insistence on bi-partisanship a bad mistake that doomed the Healthcare bills from achieving the denocratic objectives of the legislation? For example, a program such as a go’vt healthcare plan to compete with the insurance co’s and to give an insurance option to those with very limited resources to buy insurance.
The strong insistence on bi-partisanship seems strange since the Republicans had shown no interest in bi-partisanship. The Republicans fought hard against any Democratic initative such as the bailout bills, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sotomoyer, even the clunker auto program. Secondly the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee appeared to use their discussions to stall Healthcare momentum and get provisions they did not like eliminated, Perhaps they hoped to use the promise of bi-partisanship to talk about the bill so long that the momentum for it would be exhausted. Certainly Senator Grassley’s comments have been very unencouraging.
Did the Republicans see the emphasis on bi-partisanship by Pres Obrama as a sign of weakness and a person unsure of himself, or lacking in conviction, whose need of bi-partisanship could be exploited to limit the bill or even to kill it?
Historically major changes in our gov’t have come with aggressive leadership over the strenuous objections of those against. a) Would Thomas Jefferson have written the Declaration of Independence if he sat down with the British for a bi-partisan discussion? Would Abraham Lincoln have written the Emancipation proclamation if he approached the Confederates to seek a bi-partisan solution? Would FDR have committed to Social Security if he sought out the Republicans for a bi-partisan program? Would Lyndon Johnson have pushed thru Congress a Medicare bill if he asked the Republicans for bi-partisan help?
Come on guys! Let’s get with it. Let’s pass the best democratic bill we can.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
WHAT ABOUT MEDICARE FOR ALL?
DOES A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE PLAN MERIT
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1) Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2) Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3) Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4) People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5) Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
Would a single-payer Healthcare Plan similar to Medicare make sense for every one in the US? Remember MEDICARE is the best liked, most efficient, and least costly health plan we have.
Ms. Olive Johnson of Vancouver, Canada recently sent a letter to the Chicago Tribune entitled, “Gov’t-funded care”.
“I am writing from Canada because of my interest in the current debate about healthcare in the US. I think Americans would want to know how other countries handle healthcare coverage.
These are the facts about health care coverage in Canada.
1) Gov’t-funded health care is available to everyone. People are free to choose the doctor they want.
2) Individuals pay a modest amount for government-funded health-care(approximately $50 per month), which covers all of their doctor visits, hospital procedures(including surgeries) and laboratory tests.
3) Drugs for those over 65 are paid for, in part or in full, by the Gov’t. The amount paid is dependent on one’s income.
4) People younger than 65 may have their drugs paid for by their employers. Otherwise they can pay into a private insurance scheme to cover the cost of their drugs.
5) Contrary to rumors about long waiting lists in Canada most people are able to see a doctor without delay. The exception to this in rural areas where there are too few doctors. Medical specialists may also have waiting lists.
I can assure you that in Canada gov’t-funded health care is very popular. ALMOSTS ALL OF THOSE WHO DENIGRATE OUR PUBLIC HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO STAND TO PROFIT FROM ITS DEMISE. I URGE AMERICANS NOT TO BE FOOLED INTO ACCEPTING PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS BOTH MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT THAN GOV’T-FUNDED CARE.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Desperate Republicans Fight Healthcare with
Desperate Republicans Fight Healthcare
with lies and meeting disruptions Part 1
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Recently Republican House minority leader John Boehner said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt Gingrich republican leader said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt also added, (clearly there are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia). Unfortunately Newt did not name names or organizations. Also UNFORTUNATELY THIS APPEARS TO BE THE REPUBLICAN party line, Also UNFORTUNATELY IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
The reform healthcare plans provides a voluntary option to discuss end of life options, such as living wills. If a patient chooses to discuss this with a doctor the reform plan will pay for the doctor’s time. Many of these issues should be discussed before a person is seriously ill. But a large number of people for a variety of reasons do not. The number of people including well to do educated people who do not even have a will is surprising.
Other republican false claims are: Medicare payments will be cut ,less freedom to choose your own Dr., lose health coverage, ration healthcare, gov’t takeover, etc Part 2 Disruptions.
with lies and meeting disruptions Part 1
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Recently Republican House minority leader John Boehner said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt Gingrich republican leader said that Reform Healthcare plans recommended euthanasia. Newt also added, (clearly there are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia). Unfortunately Newt did not name names or organizations. Also UNFORTUNATELY THIS APPEARS TO BE THE REPUBLICAN party line, Also UNFORTUNATELY IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
The reform healthcare plans provides a voluntary option to discuss end of life options, such as living wills. If a patient chooses to discuss this with a doctor the reform plan will pay for the doctor’s time. Many of these issues should be discussed before a person is seriously ill. But a large number of people for a variety of reasons do not. The number of people including well to do educated people who do not even have a will is surprising.
Other republican false claims are: Medicare payments will be cut ,less freedom to choose your own Dr., lose health coverage, ration healthcare, gov’t takeover, etc Part 2 Disruptions.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Defense Budget is NOT the NEW WPA
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Many members of the House of Representatives seem to be very confused. They think that the defense budget is the new WPA. As you probably know The WPA was FDR’s employment program during the “Great Depression”.
WPA was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and constructing all types of different projects. It effected almost every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations.
However most of the people in the US realize that the Defense Budget is to provide the armed services with the equipment, personnel, and intelligence to carry out their missions to protect our country.
The recent action of the House in providing moey for large scale military equipment that the military experts say we do not need is clearly not in the public interest. The money spent on not needed items hinders our military. It could better be spent on needed equipment, or in other parts of gov’, or not spent at all (we have a large deficit. Granted that supplier companies are spread across the country partially to gain political support. If these industries or area’s need help the help should come from other legislative or private efforts not at the expense of the Defense Budget.
This is another glaring example that is happening too often. Legislation by the Congress is not in the best interests of the people. This is a problem that goes back along way. James Madison in essay 10 of the Federalist wrote aboutthe evils of ‘FACTION”. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. What to do? More to come
WPA was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and constructing all types of different projects. It effected almost every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations.
However most of the people in the US realize that the Defense Budget is to provide the armed services with the equipment, personnel, and intelligence to carry out their missions to protect our country.
The recent action of the House in providing moey for large scale military equipment that the military experts say we do not need is clearly not in the public interest. The money spent on not needed items hinders our military. It could better be spent on needed equipment, or in other parts of gov’, or not spent at all (we have a large deficit. Granted that supplier companies are spread across the country partially to gain political support. If these industries or area’s need help the help should come from other legislative or private efforts not at the expense of the Defense Budget.
This is another glaring example that is happening too often. Legislation by the Congress is not in the best interests of the people. This is a problem that goes back along way. James Madison in essay 10 of the Federalist wrote aboutthe evils of ‘FACTION”. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. What to do? More to come
Monday, July 27, 2009
What is the FUTURE outlook for the Court?
The World turned upside down. GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS. The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt.
The founding fathers learned from the British, as they phrased it, “mixed government is best”. All pure forms of gov’t such as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy historically led to evil gov’ts. By mixing these pure forms so that the three counter balanced each other a stable and healthy system was established. In a recent speech recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor stated that the framers created three separate and equal branches of gov’t because they knew that preserving liberty requires that no single branch or person can amass unchecked power.
This is the foundation of our gov’t. The framers of our constitution being experienced people knew we could not rely on good intentions, oaths of office, promises etc. We needed an organized gov’t approach to check on the different branches. This makes good sense since no person or branch is above making mistakes or overreaching their constitutional boundaries.
The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is abandoning its oversight responsibilities thru a doctrine of Judicial Restraint. The result is to strengthen the Presidency or Legislature at the expense of the Judiciary and the rights of its citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is doing this thru the use of standing and a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
More to come.
The founding fathers learned from the British, as they phrased it, “mixed government is best”. All pure forms of gov’t such as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy historically led to evil gov’ts. By mixing these pure forms so that the three counter balanced each other a stable and healthy system was established. In a recent speech recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor stated that the framers created three separate and equal branches of gov’t because they knew that preserving liberty requires that no single branch or person can amass unchecked power.
This is the foundation of our gov’t. The framers of our constitution being experienced people knew we could not rely on good intentions, oaths of office, promises etc. We needed an organized gov’t approach to check on the different branches. This makes good sense since no person or branch is above making mistakes or overreaching their constitutional boundaries.
The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is abandoning its oversight responsibilities thru a doctrine of Judicial Restraint. The result is to strengthen the Presidency or Legislature at the expense of the Judiciary and the rights of its citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is doing this thru the use of standing and a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
More to come.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another Court's Narrow Interpretation
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law, and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason of fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 10th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law, and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason of fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 10th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Supreme Ct Narrow Interpretations
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very narrow, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
This Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms. Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
With the election of Pres. Obrama and a new Congress legislation was passed to rstore the 180 day period to begin from the date of the last dicriminatory payment.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very narrow, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
This Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms. Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
With the election of Pres. Obrama and a new Congress legislation was passed to rstore the 180 day period to begin from the date of the last dicriminatory payment.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Supreme Court Standing Effects Part 2
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Often led by Justice Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff
asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be effected.
During the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally, except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff
asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be effected.
During the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally, except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Supreme Court on Standing
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would transform the courts into an ombudsmen of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.” In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of any John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense This is what he Supreme Court is supposed to do.
“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather, it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.
One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.
When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”. More om standing.
.
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense This is what he Supreme Court is supposed to do.
“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather, it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.
One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.
When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”. More om standing.
.
Friday, June 26, 2009
WHERE IS THE SUPREME COURT JUNE 2009?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice is a good time to have a look at the Court. To see what its approach to the role of the Supreme Court has been and the direction the Court decisions seems to be taking.
At present the majority of the Court has a very conservative outlook. The Justice retiring is a member of the minority. Therefore it will be interesting to see if and how the new member of the Court will effect its thinking and direction.
Since 1968 there have only three democratic Presidents, Carter-4 yrs., Clinton—8 yrs., Obrama—1 yr. The other 29 years have. been Republican. Republicans generally nominate conservatives to the court. At the present time the conservatives—Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Kennedy is a swing vote he is usually conservative but on civil liberties he has voted with the minority. The minority group is Stevens, Bryer, Ginsberg and Souter, the Justice who is leaving the Court.
The election of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals .including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
Chief Justice Roberts believes that the Court should not legislate from the bench and should exercise ‘judicial restraint’. Judicial restraint means the Court should be very careful not to overrule legislatative and executive decisions, or decisions reached in the free marketplace. One of the main methods of doing this is called “standing”. Next blog more on “standing”
The nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice is a good time to have a look at the Court. To see what its approach to the role of the Supreme Court has been and the direction the Court decisions seems to be taking.
At present the majority of the Court has a very conservative outlook. The Justice retiring is a member of the minority. Therefore it will be interesting to see if and how the new member of the Court will effect its thinking and direction.
Since 1968 there have only three democratic Presidents, Carter-4 yrs., Clinton—8 yrs., Obrama—1 yr. The other 29 years have. been Republican. Republicans generally nominate conservatives to the court. At the present time the conservatives—Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Kennedy is a swing vote he is usually conservative but on civil liberties he has voted with the minority. The minority group is Stevens, Bryer, Ginsberg and Souter, the Justice who is leaving the Court.
The election of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals .including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
Chief Justice Roberts believes that the Court should not legislate from the bench and should exercise ‘judicial restraint’. Judicial restraint means the Court should be very careful not to overrule legislatative and executive decisions, or decisions reached in the free marketplace. One of the main methods of doing this is called “standing”. Next blog more on “standing”
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is poor police effort permitting gang violence?
Get the Facts behind the news
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestling with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another blog.
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestling with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another blog.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Is poor police effort permitting gang violence?
Get the Facts behind the news
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestling with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another post.
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestling with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another post.
Monday, June 8, 2009
SAVE US FROM CONGRESSIONAL&EXEC ACTIVISTS
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS. Ex-Pres George Bush. Chief Justice Roberts, and many congressional republican leaders are always talking against Judicial activism(legislating from the bench).
Maybe they should look in the mirror. If they do they will see much greater activism from the Congress and the Executive branches than the Judicial. They are legislating in areas usually considered outside the political realm. Politics, business, and economics are different fields. Congress and the executive are entering and making decisions in business and economic areas that they are not qualified for. CROSS YOUR FINGERS. Suggestion--perhaps placing the “peoples” organizations in some form of independent authority would be best.
Let’s see a few examples.
Should the executive be owning and financing large co’s,ie General Moters, AIG Insurance etc? Does the gov’t have the expertise to do this or if the gov’t only lends money than the same people who managed to get these companies into their present troubles are left to get them out of their troubles.
Should the Congress be deciding how many and which auto dealers should be kept? Does this mean that Congress will also decide what manufacturing facilities are kept and where new ones are built. The basis of their decisions resting on political clout similar to closing military bases? If so the outlook for the “people’s business” is very dim. We can end up like the “old communists” situation, where large organizations with many workers are managed politically so they are economically inefficient and can not compete in the marketplace. These inefficient large organizations will require constant capital which will be given to them and justified due to the large number of workers employed.
Speaking of closing military bases, why not have a military establishment suited to present military conditions. Most of the Indians are no longer physically on the war path. Obsolete bases should be closed and cold war weaponry discontinued. Good luck to Secretary Gates.
Lastly abortions should be left to Doctors and patients not to gov’t legislative bodies. Perhaps Supreme Court designate Ms. Sotomayor is right. More later.
Maybe they should look in the mirror. If they do they will see much greater activism from the Congress and the Executive branches than the Judicial. They are legislating in areas usually considered outside the political realm. Politics, business, and economics are different fields. Congress and the executive are entering and making decisions in business and economic areas that they are not qualified for. CROSS YOUR FINGERS. Suggestion--perhaps placing the “peoples” organizations in some form of independent authority would be best.
Let’s see a few examples.
Should the executive be owning and financing large co’s,ie General Moters, AIG Insurance etc? Does the gov’t have the expertise to do this or if the gov’t only lends money than the same people who managed to get these companies into their present troubles are left to get them out of their troubles.
Should the Congress be deciding how many and which auto dealers should be kept? Does this mean that Congress will also decide what manufacturing facilities are kept and where new ones are built. The basis of their decisions resting on political clout similar to closing military bases? If so the outlook for the “people’s business” is very dim. We can end up like the “old communists” situation, where large organizations with many workers are managed politically so they are economically inefficient and can not compete in the marketplace. These inefficient large organizations will require constant capital which will be given to them and justified due to the large number of workers employed.
Speaking of closing military bases, why not have a military establishment suited to present military conditions. Most of the Indians are no longer physically on the war path. Obsolete bases should be closed and cold war weaponry discontinued. Good luck to Secretary Gates.
Lastly abortions should be left to Doctors and patients not to gov’t legislative bodies. Perhaps Supreme Court designate Ms. Sotomayor is right. More later.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
WHAT IS THE RECORD ON DICK CHENEY?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS. Dick Cheney is constantly in the news defending Bush Administration policies. He is vigorously defending the use of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the use of harsh, some call it torture, interrogations. He has stated that these interrogations have resulted in obtaining vital information that “has saved thousands of lives”.
What is Dick Cheney’s history? After various gov’t jobs Dick Cheney was elected from the state of Wyoming to the US House of Representatives in 1977. H served five terms till he was appointed Secretary of Defense in 1989. What was Dick Cheney’s record in the US House of Representatives?
Education—He always opposed funding for Head Start. He voted against creating the Dept of Education.
Civil Liberties—He opposed a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.. He maintained that Mandela’s group was a terrorist organization and that Mandela was a terrorist, perhaps a peek into the future.
Women—He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for woman. He opposed federal funding for abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Guns—He opposed gun control limits. In 1985 he was one of 21 members of Congress to vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets. In 1988 he was one of three reps to vote against plastic guns that could slip thru airport security. In 1988 he voted to scrap a proposed 7 day waiting period on handgun purchses.
Environment—Cheney opposed refunding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards. He voted against legislation to require oil, chemical, and other industries from making public records of emission known to cause cancer, birth defects and other diseases.
Military—Dick Cheney consistently voted to raise military spending. He supported the Nicaraguan rebels even after the moratorium on funding.
Budget—Dick Cheney supported legislation to balance the national budget.
Social Services—He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for Seniors.
To come -- a business career and VP years
What is Dick Cheney’s history? After various gov’t jobs Dick Cheney was elected from the state of Wyoming to the US House of Representatives in 1977. H served five terms till he was appointed Secretary of Defense in 1989. What was Dick Cheney’s record in the US House of Representatives?
Education—He always opposed funding for Head Start. He voted against creating the Dept of Education.
Civil Liberties—He opposed a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.. He maintained that Mandela’s group was a terrorist organization and that Mandela was a terrorist, perhaps a peek into the future.
Women—He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for woman. He opposed federal funding for abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Guns—He opposed gun control limits. In 1985 he was one of 21 members of Congress to vote against a ban on armor piercing bullets. In 1988 he was one of three reps to vote against plastic guns that could slip thru airport security. In 1988 he voted to scrap a proposed 7 day waiting period on handgun purchses.
Environment—Cheney opposed refunding the Clean Water Act. He voted to postpone sanctions on air polluters that failed to meet pollution standards. He voted against legislation to require oil, chemical, and other industries from making public records of emission known to cause cancer, birth defects and other diseases.
Military—Dick Cheney consistently voted to raise military spending. He supported the Nicaraguan rebels even after the moratorium on funding.
Budget—Dick Cheney supported legislation to balance the national budget.
Social Services—He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for Seniors.
To come -- a business career and VP years
Sunday, May 24, 2009
What's wrong with a POW solution?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
In World War II thousands of German troops were kept in POW camps in several parts of the US for the duration of the war. They were given the protection of the Geneva Convention and they were not tortured. Why can’t the same thing be done with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from the Iraqi, Afghanistan, Pakistan middle eastern theatre?
If prison location is a problem two suggestions would be to reopen Alcatraz or put them on an isolated island in the pacific but give them the Geneva protections without torture. This location problem has been blown way out of proportion. I am sure it was never the gov’t’s intention to just turn them loose. We should also note that a high percentage of these people maybe innocent, they have NEVER had an impartial judicial hearing. Some have been held for six and seven years at Guantanamo Bay. Diogenes believes it was a tragic mistake to take prisoners captured on the battlefield and give them an “enemy combataned” status so they could be tortured. It is hard to believe that a President of the US would locate the prisoners in a location he thought would be free from the US Judicial System so that he could do things that he knew were illegal.
It is important to close Guantanamo for many good reasons as many experts and the majority of the public knows. Details another blog.
It is even more important to NOT HAVE A PREVENTIVE DETENTION PROGRAM. PREVENTIVE DETENTION IS THE PATH TO DICTATORSHIP. ONCE YOU START BY PASSING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THERE IS NO TELLING WHERE YOU WILL END. . . probably dictatorship.
No matter how well intentioned or how many groups have to okay preventive detention over a period of time preventive detention would be used to silence political enemies rather than to prevent terrorism. If Dick Cheney.
or people of similar opinion, are deciding who should be held in preventive detention it would be disastrous for democracy.
In World War II thousands of German troops were kept in POW camps in several parts of the US for the duration of the war. They were given the protection of the Geneva Convention and they were not tortured. Why can’t the same thing be done with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from the Iraqi, Afghanistan, Pakistan middle eastern theatre?
If prison location is a problem two suggestions would be to reopen Alcatraz or put them on an isolated island in the pacific but give them the Geneva protections without torture. This location problem has been blown way out of proportion. I am sure it was never the gov’t’s intention to just turn them loose. We should also note that a high percentage of these people maybe innocent, they have NEVER had an impartial judicial hearing. Some have been held for six and seven years at Guantanamo Bay. Diogenes believes it was a tragic mistake to take prisoners captured on the battlefield and give them an “enemy combataned” status so they could be tortured. It is hard to believe that a President of the US would locate the prisoners in a location he thought would be free from the US Judicial System so that he could do things that he knew were illegal.
It is important to close Guantanamo for many good reasons as many experts and the majority of the public knows. Details another blog.
It is even more important to NOT HAVE A PREVENTIVE DETENTION PROGRAM. PREVENTIVE DETENTION IS THE PATH TO DICTATORSHIP. ONCE YOU START BY PASSING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THERE IS NO TELLING WHERE YOU WILL END. . . probably dictatorship.
No matter how well intentioned or how many groups have to okay preventive detention over a period of time preventive detention would be used to silence political enemies rather than to prevent terrorism. If Dick Cheney.
or people of similar opinion, are deciding who should be held in preventive detention it would be disastrous for democracy.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
WHY DID THE BUSH ADMIN WANT WAR?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Even before 9/11 the Bush Administration had decide to go to war with Iraq. Paul O’Neil Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury reported in his booK “The Price of Loyalty” that the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting soon after the admin took office in 2001. Why this action by the Bush Admim?
The action of the Bush Admin in seeking war merits a close look. There is an important untold story that needs to be investigated and brought to public light
In 1998 a group of neo-conservatives, Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wilfowitz, etc wrote Pres Clinton a letter stating that Iraq had nuclear weapons and advising a preventive war in stead of a policy of containment. The writers did not state when and how they obtained this information. In Oct 97 the IAEA UN group reported that Iraq was clear of nuclear weapons. For the next several years till the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 this conflict remained. The Bush people despite several briefings from the CIA, State Dept, Energy Dept, Security Council and others refused to accept the other depts conclusions and insisted that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons and was working with alQueda. In fact the neo-cons grew so angry and frustrated with the other gov’t research depts information that contradicted the neo-cons beliefs, that Donald Rumsfeld in Sept 2001 setup his own research dept in the Pentagon. The dept was called called the “Office of Special Plans.
In August, 2002 the Downing Street secret memo(later leaked) in which the head of British intelligence informed Prime Minister Blair” that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Patrick Lange of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Gary Thielman of the State Intelligence Group later confirmed this opinion. Interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly,it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors reports when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war. What was the purpose behind this?
Aluminum, tubes, disclosing a CIA agent and other strange behavior next blog.
Even before 9/11 the Bush Administration had decide to go to war with Iraq. Paul O’Neil Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury reported in his booK “The Price of Loyalty” that the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting soon after the admin took office in 2001. Why this action by the Bush Admim?
The action of the Bush Admin in seeking war merits a close look. There is an important untold story that needs to be investigated and brought to public light
In 1998 a group of neo-conservatives, Chenney, Rumsfeld, Wilfowitz, etc wrote Pres Clinton a letter stating that Iraq had nuclear weapons and advising a preventive war in stead of a policy of containment. The writers did not state when and how they obtained this information. In Oct 97 the IAEA UN group reported that Iraq was clear of nuclear weapons. For the next several years till the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 this conflict remained. The Bush people despite several briefings from the CIA, State Dept, Energy Dept, Security Council and others refused to accept the other depts conclusions and insisted that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons and was working with alQueda. In fact the neo-cons grew so angry and frustrated with the other gov’t research depts information that contradicted the neo-cons beliefs, that Donald Rumsfeld in Sept 2001 setup his own research dept in the Pentagon. The dept was called called the “Office of Special Plans.
In August, 2002 the Downing Street secret memo(later leaked) in which the head of British intelligence informed Prime Minister Blair” that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Patrick Lange of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Gary Thielman of the State Intelligence Group later confirmed this opinion. Interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly,it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors reports when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war. What was the purpose behind this?
Aluminum, tubes, disclosing a CIA agent and other strange behavior next blog.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS No.2
By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.
Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks
We now have evidence for an explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo
that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.
Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks
We now have evidence for an explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo
that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
Monday, April 20, 2009
WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS No.1
An important part of our effort to improve the present economic situation depends on building confidence in govt and industry. The public cannot have confidence in a gov’t that looks the other way whenever wrong doing is discovered, no matter what the reasons for the neglect. This is particularly true when the guilty parties indicates they knew they ware doing wrong.
Recently the Dept of Justice released torture memos. The Pres released a statement
that the torturers would not be prosecuted because the Dept of Justice had okayed
the procedures. WRONG ANSWER. These people have committed a crime they should stand trial. The statement added that you are looking to the future and don’t want to dredge up the past. WRONG ANSWER. The writers of these memo’s should also be brought to Justice.
At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi generals tried this “only following orders” ploy. The Nuremberg Court rejected this ploy and so should we. This is one of the poorest discredited excuses for avoiding justice. It is also important to point out that the rash of destroyed files and videos probably indicates the torturers knew they were doing illegal acts and were trying to destroy incriminating evidence. How can we respect a gov’t that protects law breakers?
The second statement about focusing on the future is true. All our efforts should not be focused on the mistakes of the past. However some effort has to be made to bring criminals to justice. This is a bizarre and complete co-out. I don’t recall FDR or Winston Churchill telling this to Hitler, or the FBI saying this to Al Capone or John Dillinger.
The President’s statement on April 20th. that he understands the hard choices people in the agency had to make as an excuse for not prosecuting tortures is the worst. Does this mean that torture is okay if the struggle is difficult? This is beneath a good Pres and good leader.
Furthermore these crimes strike at the very foundation of our democratic society, the
Bill of Rights and should not be taken lightly. This together with your complete indifference to prosecuting the greedy and shady business people who brought on our economic problems,the readiness to overlook illegal surveillance by the CIA that is still going on under your administration and your deference to the National Rifle Association clearly anti- public policies indicate a lawless administration that is failing to protect and further the interest of the public. The public can have no confidence in the Obrama Administration.
An important part of our effort to improve the present economic situation depends on building confidence in govt and industry. The public cannot have confidence in a gov’t that looks the other way whenever wrong doing is discovered, no matter what the reasons for the neglect. This is particularly true when the guilty parties indicates they knew they ware doing wrong.
Recently the Dept of Justice released torture memos. The Pres released a statement
that the torturers would not be prosecuted because the Dept of Justice had okayed
the procedures. WRONG ANSWER. These people have committed a crime they should stand trial. The statement added that you are looking to the future and don’t want to dredge up the past. WRONG ANSWER. The writers of these memo’s should also be brought to Justice.
At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi generals tried this “only following orders” ploy. The Nuremberg Court rejected this ploy and so should we. This is one of the poorest discredited excuses for avoiding justice. It is also important to point out that the rash of destroyed files and videos probably indicates the torturers knew they were doing illegal acts and were trying to destroy incriminating evidence. How can we respect a gov’t that protects law breakers?
The second statement about focusing on the future is true. All our efforts should not be focused on the mistakes of the past. However some effort has to be made to bring criminals to justice. This is a bizarre and complete co-out. I don’t recall FDR or Winston Churchill telling this to Hitler, or the FBI saying this to Al Capone or John Dillinger.
The President’s statement on April 20th. that he understands the hard choices people in the agency had to make as an excuse for not prosecuting tortures is the worst. Does this mean that torture is okay if the struggle is difficult? This is beneath a good Pres and good leader.
Furthermore these crimes strike at the very foundation of our democratic society, the
Bill of Rights and should not be taken lightly. This together with your complete indifference to prosecuting the greedy and shady business people who brought on our economic problems,the readiness to overlook illegal surveillance by the CIA that is still going on under your administration and your deference to the National Rifle Association clearly anti- public policies indicate a lawless administration that is failing to protect and further the interest of the public. The public can have no confidence in the Obrama Administration.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Leadership and Moral Responsbility
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Guest comment by David Gibbs, prominent Boston Attorney--Mr. Gibbs is commenting specifically about the "bailout bonuses". His observations also have a far wider applicability for our private and public leadership.
"Every contract has a covenant of good faith and fair dealings. Diretors, officers and those in a position of trust owe a fiduciary duty of the highest level. I believe those doctrines and others would be a basis for a refusal to pay the bonuses or to litigate their return. Oliver Wendell Homes often wrote that a party may choose whether to perform a contract or pay the damages. Prof Fried is simply wrong when he states that damages are not a substitute for performance. Finally Pres Truman nationalzed the steel industry after World War II duing a labor dispute.
If all else fails Congress should consider reinstituting the draft. If the executives and traders who lost billions and now collect bonses of millions were drafted they could not cause further loses and serve their country rather than themselves.
We must remember that those in service and their families are the true heroes and patriots who deserve bonuses, our thanks and prayers.
Guest comment by David Gibbs, prominent Boston Attorney--Mr. Gibbs is commenting specifically about the "bailout bonuses". His observations also have a far wider applicability for our private and public leadership.
"Every contract has a covenant of good faith and fair dealings. Diretors, officers and those in a position of trust owe a fiduciary duty of the highest level. I believe those doctrines and others would be a basis for a refusal to pay the bonuses or to litigate their return. Oliver Wendell Homes often wrote that a party may choose whether to perform a contract or pay the damages. Prof Fried is simply wrong when he states that damages are not a substitute for performance. Finally Pres Truman nationalzed the steel industry after World War II duing a labor dispute.
If all else fails Congress should consider reinstituting the draft. If the executives and traders who lost billions and now collect bonses of millions were drafted they could not cause further loses and serve their country rather than themselves.
We must remember that those in service and their families are the true heroes and patriots who deserve bonuses, our thanks and prayers.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
TO FIX OUR MORTGAGE SYSTEM
Get the facts behind the news
Our current mortgage system has broken down in large part because of a structural defect that should be corrected to help our economy avoid similar problems in the future.
At the present time mortgage originators do not retain any part of the credit risk. Therefore they are motivated to maximize their fee income by closing as many mortgages as possible. Once the mortgage is sold it is usually without recourse. The originator if
unscrupulous has no interest in the welfare of the mortgagor than
to close the sale and get the commission. The interest of the
mortgagor is not identical to the interests of the property owner. Even
if the originator has credit risk originators who wrote sub prime and no
down payment mortgages have very little capital. Probably some
form of insurance would have to be written to cover this credit risk.
There are mortgage systems where the originator is either responsible
or shares the credit risk. One of these is the Danish system. In the Danish systemrvice companies retains the credit risk. Theyhave to replace the mortgages that are in default. In contrast to our reliance on government sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Danish is an open system in which all mortgage participate on equal terms and it operates without government guarantees. Yet Danish mortgage bonds are traditionally very highly rated; often they yield less than government bonds.Their distinguishing feature is that they are identical to and interchangeable with the underlying mortgages. House owners can redeem their mortgages at any time by purchasing the equivalent mortgage bond in the market and xchanging it for the mortgage. Since bond prices and house prices normally move in the same direction, this feature--called the principle of balance--reduces the chances of householders having negative equity in their houses.
The mortgage originators are strictly regulated, and their interests are closely aligned with those of the bondholders. They pass on only the interest rate risk to bondholders, retaining the credit risk. That is why the bonds are so highly rated.
When Mexico wanted to securitize mortgages in order to promote house ownership, it opted, for the Danish system.
Our current mortgage system has broken down in large part because of a structural defect that should be corrected to help our economy avoid similar problems in the future.
At the present time mortgage originators do not retain any part of the credit risk. Therefore they are motivated to maximize their fee income by closing as many mortgages as possible. Once the mortgage is sold it is usually without recourse. The originator if
unscrupulous has no interest in the welfare of the mortgagor than
to close the sale and get the commission. The interest of the
mortgagor is not identical to the interests of the property owner. Even
if the originator has credit risk originators who wrote sub prime and no
down payment mortgages have very little capital. Probably some
form of insurance would have to be written to cover this credit risk.
There are mortgage systems where the originator is either responsible
or shares the credit risk. One of these is the Danish system. In the Danish systemrvice companies retains the credit risk. Theyhave to replace the mortgages that are in default. In contrast to our reliance on government sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Danish is an open system in which all mortgage participate on equal terms and it operates without government guarantees. Yet Danish mortgage bonds are traditionally very highly rated; often they yield less than government bonds.Their distinguishing feature is that they are identical to and interchangeable with the underlying mortgages. House owners can redeem their mortgages at any time by purchasing the equivalent mortgage bond in the market and xchanging it for the mortgage. Since bond prices and house prices normally move in the same direction, this feature--called the principle of balance--reduces the chances of householders having negative equity in their houses.
The mortgage originators are strictly regulated, and their interests are closely aligned with those of the bondholders. They pass on only the interest rate risk to bondholders, retaining the credit risk. That is why the bonds are so highly rated.
When Mexico wanted to securitize mortgages in order to promote house ownership, it opted, for the Danish system.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
HOW DOES THE US ECONOMY RATE TODAY?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
In judging measures to help our economy we should look at the effect on the “forest” and not get completely lost in the woods. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication.
Over all the US ranked first. However many will be shocked to see how low the US economy is rated on several important economic categories.
For instance US workers want to be paid high wages. High wages are usually paid to highly skilled well educated workers with good experience. This is one of the reasons Prof Michael Porter (Harvard School of Business) and others including Pres Obrama believes our educational system must be upgraded. Data from OECD reports show the US IS 12TH out of 144 nations IN THE NO. OF COLLEGE GRADS 25 TO 34. We have not made any progress in this vital area in 30 years. We have to compete with the best skilled workers of other countries and regions of the world. It is in our national interest to make it possible for intelligent people who desire to do so can get an education and become skilled people,
Fallowing are some figures from the Global Competitive Report
2008-2009.as to where the US rates as a free market economy.
US
Out of 144 countries
1) Openness to Capital Flows 20
2) Low Trade Barriers 21
3) Absence of Distortion from 35
Taxes and Subsidiaries
We will continue to examine in greater detail where the US ranks on several important t categories.
In judging measures to help our economy we should look at the effect on the “forest” and not get completely lost in the woods. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication.
Over all the US ranked first. However many will be shocked to see how low the US economy is rated on several important economic categories.
For instance US workers want to be paid high wages. High wages are usually paid to highly skilled well educated workers with good experience. This is one of the reasons Prof Michael Porter (Harvard School of Business) and others including Pres Obrama believes our educational system must be upgraded. Data from OECD reports show the US IS 12TH out of 144 nations IN THE NO. OF COLLEGE GRADS 25 TO 34. We have not made any progress in this vital area in 30 years. We have to compete with the best skilled workers of other countries and regions of the world. It is in our national interest to make it possible for intelligent people who desire to do so can get an education and become skilled people,
Fallowing are some figures from the Global Competitive Report
2008-2009.as to where the US rates as a free market economy.
US
Out of 144 countries
1) Openness to Capital Flows 20
2) Low Trade Barriers 21
3) Absence of Distortion from 35
Taxes and Subsidiaries
We will continue to examine in greater detail where the US ranks on several important t categories.
Friday, March 20, 2009
What is the US Economic Position? I
Is what has driven our economic success starting to erode?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
While our immediate goal is to halt the present economic recession, we must be careful to be sure that the measures that are taken will lay a foundation for economic growth and prosperity.
Diogenes believes most people do not realize how far our economy slipped in relation to the other nations and economies we compete with. Noted Harvard School of Business Professor Michael Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does the new Stimulus Bill help solve these problems?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
While our immediate goal is to halt the present economic recession, we must be careful to be sure that the measures that are taken will lay a foundation for economic growth and prosperity.
Diogenes believes most people do not realize how far our economy slipped in relation to the other nations and economies we compete with. Noted Harvard School of Business Professor Michael Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does the new Stimulus Bill help solve these problems?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Irresponsible Journalism--Dick Cheney
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Chicago Tribune headline read “Cheney: Obrama puts US at risk”. The Tribune and CNN and others seem to headline any criticism of Obrama whether, it be a former VP or an unknown senator or representative, like it is the definitive opinion on the subject. The headlines fail to mention that the public was exposed to Obrama’s opinions and republican opinions and choose Obrama’s. Obrama won the presidential election. Basically Obrama is following his campaign platform.
Constantly repeating rejected republicans programs appears to be beating a dead horse. One of the reasons the Republicans lost is they kept repeating the same old programs that most of the public felt have failed. In the case of Cheney he has a very low approval rating with the public. His program has been soundly rejected. With his latest speech one might think he has hardening of the arteries. It’s almost word for word the same thing over and over. It never changes. In the last presidential campaign his own party’s candidate did not want him to campaign.
Cheney and Senator Claghorn deserves to be heard but not treated as gospel in headlines on the front page. This is UNHELPFUL AND IRRESPONSIBLE NEWS REPORTING.
Chicago Tribune headline read “Cheney: Obrama puts US at risk”. The Tribune and CNN and others seem to headline any criticism of Obrama whether, it be a former VP or an unknown senator or representative, like it is the definitive opinion on the subject. The headlines fail to mention that the public was exposed to Obrama’s opinions and republican opinions and choose Obrama’s. Obrama won the presidential election. Basically Obrama is following his campaign platform.
Constantly repeating rejected republicans programs appears to be beating a dead horse. One of the reasons the Republicans lost is they kept repeating the same old programs that most of the public felt have failed. In the case of Cheney he has a very low approval rating with the public. His program has been soundly rejected. With his latest speech one might think he has hardening of the arteries. It’s almost word for word the same thing over and over. It never changes. In the last presidential campaign his own party’s candidate did not want him to campaign.
Cheney and Senator Claghorn deserves to be heard but not treated as gospel in headlines on the front page. This is UNHELPFUL AND IRRESPONSIBLE NEWS REPORTING.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Danish Mortgage System
Our current mortgage system has broken down because the originators of mortgages have not retained any part of the credit risk. They are motivated to maximize their fee income. As agents, their interests
are not identical with the interests of the ultimate owners.
In the Danish system, the service companies retain the credit
risk--they have to replace the mortgages that are in default.
In contrast to our reliance on government sponsored
enterprises (GSEs)--namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--
the Danish is an open system in which all mortgage originators
participate on equal terms, and it operates without government
guarantees. Yet Danish mortgage bonds are traditionally very
highly rated; often they yield less than government bonds.
This could not be replicated in the United States at present
because of the demoralized state of the market, but it may be
achieved later. Danish mortgage bonds are highly standardized, and their distinguishing feature is that they are identical to and interchangeable with the underlying mortgages.
House owners can redeem their mortgages at any time by purchasing t
the equivalent mortgage bond in the market and exchanging it
for the mortgage. Since bond prices and house prices normally
move in the same direction, this feature--called the
principle of balance--reduces the chances of householders
having negative equity in their houses.
The mortgage originators are strictly regulated, and their interests are closely aligned with those of the bondholders. They pass on only the interest rate risk to bondholders, retaining the credit risk. That is why the bonds are so highly rated. The U.S.Treasury has supported this plan in certain situations.
are not identical with the interests of the ultimate owners.
In the Danish system, the service companies retain the credit
risk--they have to replace the mortgages that are in default.
In contrast to our reliance on government sponsored
enterprises (GSEs)--namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--
the Danish is an open system in which all mortgage originators
participate on equal terms, and it operates without government
guarantees. Yet Danish mortgage bonds are traditionally very
highly rated; often they yield less than government bonds.
This could not be replicated in the United States at present
because of the demoralized state of the market, but it may be
achieved later. Danish mortgage bonds are highly standardized, and their distinguishing feature is that they are identical to and interchangeable with the underlying mortgages.
House owners can redeem their mortgages at any time by purchasing t
the equivalent mortgage bond in the market and exchanging it
for the mortgage. Since bond prices and house prices normally
move in the same direction, this feature--called the
principle of balance--reduces the chances of householders
having negative equity in their houses.
The mortgage originators are strictly regulated, and their interests are closely aligned with those of the bondholders. They pass on only the interest rate risk to bondholders, retaining the credit risk. That is why the bonds are so highly rated. The U.S.Treasury has supported this plan in certain situations.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Can the police stop gang violence?
Get the Facts behind the news
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestle with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces next
Thursday, February 19, 2009
CAN WE LEARN FROM JAPAN'S ECONOMIC STMULUS
The facts Behind the NEWS
From 1991 thru 2008 Japan had a gov’t stimulus program. The US economy is not identical to the Japanese but there are similarities. The US is roughly twice as large an economy as Japan. Experts in Japan and the US believe Japan spent too much money on infrastructure and not enough on education and social services which create more jobs per $ spent than infrastructure. JAPANESE STATISTICS: every yen spent on infrastructure added 1.37 yen, 1.6 yen for social services like care for the elderly, pension payments, 1.74 for schools and education. However money spent on infrastructure does put people to work and thus may help prevent a depression or total collapse. These figures are from The Japanese Institute of Local Government, a non-profit policy research group.
The stimulus worked best from 1991 to 1995 when Japan spent two trillion dollars for a 3% rise in Japanese GNP. An equivalent effort for the US would be four trillion dollars, Our present stimulus plan is only $780 billion.
The experts believed in a quick massive stimulus with a follow-up at a lower level for some time, till recovery takes root. Japanese experts thought that the stimulus was cut back in 1995 to a lower level too soon. Some experts thought that this is what happened to FDR in the US causing the 1937 recession. To be effective the stimulus must be kept going for some time. The Japanese stimulus was started up again but at a lower level than the original start. The second stimulus start showed little effect though it was continued for 10 years.
Japan’s economy did grow from 2003 to 2007. Japanese experts think that what helped the Japanese economy the most was the gradual rebuilding of private balance sheets and banks liquidity, and increased exports to China and the US. Japan experts strongly recommended projects that would be helpful fora number of years. They emphasized transparent decisions based on economics not politics.
From 1991 thru 2008 Japan had a gov’t stimulus program. The US economy is not identical to the Japanese but there are similarities. The US is roughly twice as large an economy as Japan. Experts in Japan and the US believe Japan spent too much money on infrastructure and not enough on education and social services which create more jobs per $ spent than infrastructure. JAPANESE STATISTICS: every yen spent on infrastructure added 1.37 yen, 1.6 yen for social services like care for the elderly, pension payments, 1.74 for schools and education. However money spent on infrastructure does put people to work and thus may help prevent a depression or total collapse. These figures are from The Japanese Institute of Local Government, a non-profit policy research group.
The stimulus worked best from 1991 to 1995 when Japan spent two trillion dollars for a 3% rise in Japanese GNP. An equivalent effort for the US would be four trillion dollars, Our present stimulus plan is only $780 billion.
The experts believed in a quick massive stimulus with a follow-up at a lower level for some time, till recovery takes root. Japanese experts thought that the stimulus was cut back in 1995 to a lower level too soon. Some experts thought that this is what happened to FDR in the US causing the 1937 recession. To be effective the stimulus must be kept going for some time. The Japanese stimulus was started up again but at a lower level than the original start. The second stimulus start showed little effect though it was continued for 10 years.
Japan’s economy did grow from 2003 to 2007. Japanese experts think that what helped the Japanese economy the most was the gradual rebuilding of private balance sheets and banks liquidity, and increased exports to China and the US. Japan experts strongly recommended projects that would be helpful fora number of years. They emphasized transparent decisions based on economics not politics.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
WHY A NEW ECONOMIC POLICY
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress
to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan.
A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic policy or strategy. Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard School Professor Porter is a strong advocate of the need to develop an Economic Strategy.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Is what has driven our success starting to erode?
.
Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US“ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of these economic areas.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12in educational attainment for 25 to 34 year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does our new Stimulus Bill help these weaknesses?
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress
to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “Instead the gov’t seemed to go from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan.
A reason for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic policy or strategy. Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard School Professor Porter is a strong advocate of the need to develop an Economic Strategy.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Is what has driven our success starting to erode?
.
Prof Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US“ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of these economic areas.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12in educational attainment for 25 to 34 year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
Does our new Stimulus Bill help these weaknesses?
Friday, February 6, 2009
WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY III
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.“ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. .
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there. “
Why does Prof Porter, Harvard School of Business Professor, believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc. frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run effects.
The US needs an economic strategy. More later.
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.“ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. .
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there. “
Why does Prof Porter, Harvard School of Business Professor, believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc. frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run effects.
The US needs an economic strategy. More later.
why does Prof Porter believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc . frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system. The effects on the whole could be bad, good, negligible.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc . frequently take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
To Achieve Prosperity and growth
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the economic advantages of the US are eroding and why the development of an economic strategy is critical.
Prof Porter states” a series of policy failures and have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some MORE of the economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
What political problems does our present depression present?
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the economic advantages of the US are eroding and why the development of an economic strategy is critical.
Prof Porter states” a series of policy failures and have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some MORE of the economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energy conservation.
6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”
7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.
8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.
9) Is good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?
It requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,
What political problems does our present depression present?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
What economic challeges for Prosperity, Growth
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the economic advantages of the US are eroding and why the development of a economic strategy is critical.
Prof Porter states” a series of policy failures and have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of the economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by employers, but has failed to do so.
More problem areas on our next blog. Please note so far no mention of “Kick Starts”, economic stimulus’s, or bank liquidity. For Prof Porter’s views of our economic advantages please see Blog, “Why an Economic Strategy.
Where does the US really stand? Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths. 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies. 2) US Entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world. 3) The US has the world’s best institutions of higher learning. 4)The US has been the cuntry with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. 5)The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. This decentralization maybe the US greatest competitive strength. 6) The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation. This especially true of risk capital. 7)The US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the economic advantages of the US are eroding and why the development of a economic strategy is critical.
Prof Porter states” a series of policy failures and have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”. Let’s have a look at some of the economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by employers, but has failed to do so.
More problem areas on our next blog. Please note so far no mention of “Kick Starts”, economic stimulus’s, or bank liquidity. For Prof Porter’s views of our economic advantages please see Blog, “Why an Economic Strategy.
Where does the US really stand? Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths. 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies. 2) US Entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world. 3) The US has the world’s best institutions of higher learning. 4)The US has been the cuntry with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. 5)The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. This decentralization maybe the US greatest competitive strength. 6) The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation. This especially true of risk capital. 7)The US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.
Monday, January 12, 2009
WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY II
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
With the many advantages of the US economic system, listed in ourlast blog, why does Prof Porter believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc.frequently ONLY take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
Prof Porter does not discuss the Who and Where the strategy would formulated, approved, and maintained. Assuming that we can not expect the general public to be informed and maintain continues interest in such a project the actual work would have to be carried out by a commission, gov’t agency, or respected public organization. It would be very important to have transparency and frequent opportunities for suggestions and discussions.
Next blog we discuss some economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
With the many advantages of the US economic system, listed in ourlast blog, why does Prof Porter believe what has driven our success is starting to erode?
There are probably several reasons. Two reasons that are part of the sme problem stand out.
1) As Prof Porter notes the American political system has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. The means that the effect of a decision, or the cumulative effect of several decisions from various parts of our economy or political system are not examined for their effect on the whole system.
2) Decisions made for the purpose of changing the economic system, such a tariffs, anti-trust laws, oversight provisions etc.frequently ONLY take into account the immediate industry or situation rather than considering the overall and long run situation.
This is why the US needs an economic strategy.
Prof Porter does not discuss the Who and Where the strategy would formulated, approved, and maintained. Assuming that we can not expect the general public to be informed and maintain continues interest in such a project the actual work would have to be carried out by a commission, gov’t agency, or respected public organization. It would be very important to have transparency and frequent opportunities for suggestions and discussions.
Next blog we discuss some economic areas that worry Prof Porter.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. The overall impression is one of confusion by a leadership(?) that does not know what it is doing.
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. As Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there.“
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the development of a economic strategy is critical.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. Each candidate during the election presented a set of disconnected policy proposals for their political appeal. Each “approached the economy with long held ideologies and policy positions, many of which no longer fit with today’s reality. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Where does the US really stand? Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths. 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies. 2) US Entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world. 3) The US has the world’s best institutions of higher learning. 4) The US has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. 5)The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. This decentralization maybe the US greatest competitive strength. 6) The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation. This especially true of risk capital. 7) The US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.
Prof Porter warns us that what has driven our success is starting to erode.
TO BE DISCUSSED IN OUR NEXT BLOG.
Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. “ Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. The overall impression is one of confusion by a leadership(?) that does not know what it is doing.
One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy. As Yogi Berra a modern day philosopher has observed. “If you don’t know where you are going you may not get there.“
Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the development of a economic strategy is critical.
Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. Each candidate during the election presented a set of disconnected policy proposals for their political appeal. Each “approached the economy with long held ideologies and policy positions, many of which no longer fit with today’s reality. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an ORGANIZED APPROACH TO POLICIES THAT PROMOTE LONG TERM GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS.
Where does the US really stand? Prof Porter says the US has prospered because of unique competitive strengths. 1) The US has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies. 2) US Entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation that is by far the best in the world. 3) The US has the world’s best institutions of higher learning. 4) The US has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. 5)The task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. This decentralization maybe the US greatest competitive strength. 6) The US benefits from the most efficient capital markets of any nation. This especially true of risk capital. 7) The US has remarkable dynamism and resilience to take losses and move on.
Prof Porter warns us that what has driven our success is starting to erode.
TO BE DISCUSSED IN OUR NEXT BLOG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)