diogenes

DEBT REDUCTION NOT OUR NO 1 PROBLEM

2011-10-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

DEBT REDUCTION IS NOT US PROBLEM!

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Both political parties have their economic priorities mixed up. The mere cutting back of large parts of the federal gov’t will not help the economy or increase employment. The reason is that the economic problems are not caused by the size of gov’t or by the size of the debt.

The size of the debt has to be watched but the debt now is not an imminent danger. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that public debt levels become dangerous when they reach 90% of GDP. At the present time(2010 figures) the US debt level is 63% of GDP according to the CIA World Factbook.

Recent figures for other countries are Japan, 192%, France 80%, Israel 75%, Canada 72%, UK 69%, India 60%, Saudi Arabia 20% China 18%.

Furthermore the gov’t is not having any trouble selling its financial bonds and other financial instruments. In fact during the recent stock meltdown capital from all over the world came to this country to buy our bonds as the safest investment they could find. There is also no indication that gov’t borrowing is crowding out the private sector. Money is plentiful. Interest rates are low. 10 yr Treasuries are selling for less than 2%. Mortgage rates have dropped below 4%. This is the lowest mortgage rates have been since the 1950’s.This is the exact opposite of what would happen if the deficit was seriously impacting the economy.

Our primary economic problem is a poor economy. In a recession DEMAND is the problem. We must create an environment that encourages innovation and demand SO THAT INVESTORS AND BUSINESSES SEE PROFIT OPPORTUNITIES,

Is REAGANOMICS destroying America from within?

2011-09-08T12:45:00.000-07:00

David Stockman, Budget Director for Pres. Reagan in a recent interview had 10 reasons
WHY A THE LARGEST BUST YET IS INEVIABLE unless America wakes up.
1. Politicians are addicts, can’t stop spending America’s future
Reagan’s big government policies “led to the utter failure of spending control.” Today America is “living way beyond our means,” and yet politicians are incapable of thinking past the next election. … money has become such a massive force in the electoral process” making politicians “slaves” to big money and special-interest lobbyists.
2. Cutting taxes: a cruel joke. “In pure philosophy, lower tax rates would be better.” But when we got a “Republican government in the Bush era … nothing was cut. Everything was ratified. In fact, they added to Medicare through the drug benefit.” Our “welfare state that seems immutable politically … you’re kidding yourself if you think cutting taxes today is really cutting taxes. We’re simply deferring massive tax increases into the future, unfairly and immorally putting huge debt burdens on future generations.” Tax-cutting is a “massive Christmas tree of special-interest tax benefits and loopholes … reducing the revenue” while the defense budget soared out of control.”

3. Social Security is a myth: Forget 2036, there’s no money today
“The combination of Medicare and Social Security” is “the heart of the budget, and the top one-third of that goes to retirees who have private assets, private pensions, other sources of income. They shouldn’t be dependent on the government … and there really is no trust fund there — that’s all fiscal mythology … that money wasn’t saved.it was spent on cotton subsidies and bribes to warlords in Afghanistan. The fact is, this is simply an intergenerational transfer program. … social insurance is a myth,” that bank is empty.
4. Reaganomics loves war: Military spending is off the table“Reagan was utterly uninterested in any detail of the defense budget, of any of the claims for dollars made by the Pentagon,”. “He gave them a blank check, without question, and that … ballooned spending just as we were massively reducing the revenue”.… Spending increases were so huge in defense that it became almost impossible to get anybody to … go after the food-stamp program or school lunches, when you’re just showering tens of billions of dollars on ammunition accounts and spare parts replacements and a massive expansion of the Navy.” Or wasting another “hundred billion dollars on wars of occupation in places that are the ends of the earth.”
5. Gross leadership failure: clueless ex-Goldman CEO at Treasury
“[Henry] Paulson frankly is the most incompetent, reckless secretary of the Treasury that we’ve had in modern history, if ever. He had no schooling in public policy, he had no schooling in the longer-term issues of fiscal management, or even what sound money is all about.” When “the crisis metastasized in” 2008 Paulson got “panicked calls from his buddies on Wall Street who were seeing their pyramids of debt coming crashing down.” And when Goldman Sachs’ stock cratered, Paulson really panicked. “There was no philosophy behind it; there was never an analysis done.” Driven by a clear conflict of interest, he wanted to protect the $600 million fortune he built at Goldman, while saving his Wall Street buddies from bankruptcy. So Paulson failed the American people.
6. Bank bailouts: Bad economics now accelerating America’s decline
Paulson’s panicky failure “was a profound moment in political history in September 2008, … Even the House Republicans knew in their better judgment that it was a terrible idea, and they voted initially against it.” In fact, “the only panic that occurred was in” Paulson’s panicky mind. “Big pyramids of debt on Wall Street were coming crashing down. Had we allowed nature to take its course, maybe Goldman Sachs stock would have gone down to $10. But that’s their problem and that’s the problem of speculators who owned the stock, not a systemic problem for the economy.” Instead, Paulson’s panic made matters worse.
7. In a “free market,” Wall Street banks must be free to fail
“The fundamental principle of free-market capitalism is that you have to be free to fail as well as succeed,” but “when you go in the opposite direction and socialize losses and privatize gains, you will destroy” our system of capitalism. Why? Because moral hazard encourages new “reckless risk taking, misallocation of capital.”
8. Today’s “crony capitalism” is destroying our faith in America
Wall Street is killing trust in the economy: “Once the broader public sees that the cronies of capitalism are bailed out by their friends in Washington or the Fed, why should they believe that the system we have is fair or is working in their interest? It’s just politicizing even further the economy and suffocating the only hope that we have for real prosperity.”
9. Derivatives speculation: Wall Street gambles in shady casinos
Gold was “at the heart of it a fixed exchange rate system” before 1971 obligating “each country to settle its accounts at the end of every year … Chronic payments deficits and you were going to… lose your monetary reserves.” But when we “went to pure fiat money … financial volatility and instability” created a “massive speculative casino … Today probably 99% of currency futures are for speculation and 1% might be for legitimate trade hedging. That’s the problem we have in the whole financial system today.”
10. Too-greedy-to-fail banks are creating another bigger meltdown
Before the crisis hit in 2007, “the top four banks in this country had $5 trillion of assets combined. After the whole crisis of too-big-to-fail and all of the bailouts, today the top four banks have $7 trillion of asset footings.” Simultaneously, fear has “been generated on Main Street, and the appropriate antipathy that’s developed towards the crony-capitalist policy of bailing out anybody that’s big and strong like GM and Goldman Sachs” has created a new “generation of workers that’s going to be turned into tax slaves … That will have to change … but it will only change when the crisis comes … it’s unavoidable.”
Yes unavoidable: American capitalism is so corrupted that change is impossible without a megameltdown, a historic paradigm shift with an inevitable collapse. Stockman knows well the political process is manipulated by a wealthy elite that cares nothing of the people, nothing of Main Street, nothing of the future of America. They care only for themselves.
Money has corrupted our political system. We’ve lost our moral compass. “The Triumph of Politics Over Economics” is a self-destructing ideology. Money has driven all politicians into a bizarre conspiracy that’s destroying America from within. And nothing can stop this overarching historical cycle …nothing but a thundering crisis will shock America awake. Do You believe Stockman is right?

DEBT REDUCTION IS NOT PROBLEM ONE

2011-08-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

DEBT REDUCTION IS NOT Problem ONE!

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

I believe that both political parties have their economic priorities mixed up. The mere cutting back of large parts of the federal gov’t will not help the economy or increase employment. The reason is that the economic problems are not caused by the size of gov’t or by the size of the debt.

The size of the debt has to be watched but the debt now is not an imminent danger. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that public debt levels become dangerous when they reach 90% of GDP. At the present time(2010 figures) the US debt level is 63% of GDP according to the CIA World Factboo

Recent figures for other countries are Japan, 192%, France 80%, Canada 72%, UK 69%, India 60%, Saudi Arabia 20% China 18%.

Furthermore the gov’t is not having any trouble selling its financial bonds and other financial instruments. In fact during the recent stock meltdown capital from all over the world came to this country to buy our bonds as the safest investment they could find. There is also no indication that gov’t borrowing is crowding out the private sector. Money is plentiful. Interest rates are low.

My reading of economics and prominent economists indicate that our primary economic problem is a poor economy. The problem in a recession is demand. We must create an environment that encourages innovation and demand.

MY suggestion is concentrate on improving the economy so that business improves and more people have jobs. Then healthy debt reduction that does not cut needed services can follow.

Republican demands WII NOT HELP THE ECONOMY

2011-07-11T17:49:00.000-07:00

Republican demands for the debt extension

WILL NOT HELP THE ECONOMY!
Get the facts behind the news!
The mere cutting back of large parts of the federal gov’t will not help the economy. The reason is that the economic problems are not caused by the size of gov’t or by the size of the debt. Dr. John Rutledge adviser to Pres. Ronald Reagan estimates the US total assets over $200 trillion compared to a debt of $14 trillion. There is no indication that gov’t borrowing is crowding out the private sector. Money is plentiful. Interest rates are low.

Low interest rates and large amounts of money in banks and large co’s do not necessarily add up to good economic times as we are finding out. This approach to stimulate the economy is like trying to push a wet noodle. A problem is these remedies are all supply side. The problem in a depression is the DEMAND SIDE. MAKING MONEY AVAILABLE AT LOW INTEREST RATES is helpful but not sufficient. The Republican program does nothing for the demand side. Lower tax rates for business will only have a small marginal effect on the economy. Note in the 1950’s. 60’s and into the 70’s the corporate Federal Income tax rate varied from 90% to 70%. TAX Rates ARE A FACTOR BUT DO NOT DETERMINE INVESTMENT. PROFIT OPPORTUNITIES DETERMINE INVESTMENT. The 40'S, 50'S AND 60'S were some of the best years this country ever had. In fact a case can be made out that high corporate tax rates stimulate investment more than low tax rates. WHAT CAN WE DO TO STIMULATE DEMAND? We must create an environment that encourages innovation and demand. Then the public can have confidence in the economy.

To understand the Republican position we have to go back to the basic Republican position. The foundation of Republican economic policy is that RICH PEOPLE SHOULD NOT PAY TAXES. This dressed and camouflaged many different ways, But this is the basis of Republican thinking.

This Republican position is not really an economic policy. It is not based on economics. THE REPUBLICAN POSITION IS REALLY A POLITICAL STATEMENT MASQUERADING AS AN ECONOMIC POLICY.

This is not surprising as it is being presented by politicians who appear to have political knowledge but very little knowledge of economics.

However there is a problem. Politics and economics while effecting each other are two different spheres of activity. The Republican position maybe very good politics but it very poor economics. More later.

NOW is the Time to help Libya!

2011-03-13T07:52:00.000-07:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS. Efforts to help Libya are not sufficient to rid the country of Maommar Gadhafi. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Panel that the Gadhafi regime will probably prevail due to superior fire power and logistics. Much more needs to be done. Embargo’s, freezes, travel bans, speeches take time, months and years to be effective. The rebels need help NOW. They may all be dead or captured before these measures take effect

The first priority is sending military supplies and equipment IMMEEDIATLY! Other measures might be missiles such as were used in Bosnia, air strikes, etc.

The administration is strangely timid and hesitant, maybe in a state of denial. Its foreign policies seem to be based on several faulty assumptions. Let’s consider.

1) We are being asked to help. This is different than our invasion of Iraq and our second invasion of Afghanistan, and Viet Nam.
2) Ground forces are not needed. A large number of Libyans are ready to fight. In fact they are fighting and dying while the world is talking.
3) The Obrama administration foreign poicy is based on the faulty assumption that we can not do anything unless everyone agrees. This approach leaves the US and the world leaderless. It is a recipe for doing nothing for Libya and anybody or anything. By the time you get the UN, NATO, the Arab League, the African group, Australia, and the city council of St. Louis to agree the Libyans will certainly be captured of killed.
4)In 1950 if Pres. Harry Truman had followed this advice S. Korea would now be part of N. Korea. Pres. Truman saw a need for action. He acted and invited the other nations to join us, which they did. This is leadership.
5) It is important to note the Arab League of 22 nations has asked the UN to take action against Maommar Gadhafi.
6) What are the implications for the US if we continue on our present path of speeches and long range actions? The world, good and bad, will see the US as a nation not interested in furthering democracy and helping others no matter what the justice of their situation.
7) What are the implications for the UN if we continue on our present path? The world will see the UN as an organization that can not maintain the peace and solve the worlds problems. This will be another large step in making the UN another League of Nations, where people give fine speeches and nothing happens.

IS AN UNREGULATED ECONOMY BEST?

2010-10-24T18:08:00.000-07:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!

In the 1880's to 1920's the US was a nation of individual farmers and shopkeepers. Since that time the nation has changed. The US has become a group of large social and business organizations. People work for large co's, join large organizations. This necessitates a realignment of gov'ts role. The individual is frequently powerless against these large organizations. This is why people join labor unions, buy from coops--Costco, political parties etc.

Now one of the main purposes of gov't is to protect the public against the excessive greed, and power seeking of these large organizations. Some examples--the raliroads in the 1880's, the sub-prime mortgagor people in the 2000-2008, the pharmaceutical co's, the banks and wall street, 2000-2008, teachers unions etc Lastly we need protection against the protectors

The tea party financed primarily by Rupert Murdoch, Beck is on his payroll, and the Koch brothers and others do not want to be regulated Can we leave our future in the hands of these large organization and very wealthy people?. This was the George Bush program of gov’t without oversight, or unregulated. Judging by the results the answer is NO.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!

2010-10-10T19:22:00.000-07:00

WHY DOESN’T PRES OBRAMA USE THESE Three GREAT REASONS TO ADVANCE HIS PROGRAM?

1) On Tax cuts for the rich the Pres again has let the republicans set the terms of the debate. The debate should not be primarily on the SIZE OF THE DEFICIT. The debate should be on measures to help the economy grow. As it stands now everyone is expecting the Pres to cave and agree to tax cuts for the very rich. There will some whiney excuse about the mean republicans who held the tax cuts hostage unless given to the rich. WHY NOT TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND! AFTER THE ELECTION THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES THAT HE WILL VETO ANY TAX LEGISLATION THAT HAS A TAX CUT FOR THE VERY RICH.
If the republicans want a tax cut they agree to leave the rich out. This would probably be the outcome as the Republicans seem much more strong on tax cuts than the democrats.. John Boehner let the cat out of the bag IF THEY DON’T AGREE THE TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Take a clue from Bill Clinton in 1993, this might be the best outcome.

2 In 1948 Harry Truman campaigned against the ”do nothing Congress” Why can’t Pres Obrama use this type of approach against the do nothing Republicans now? There is an old saying, “Are you part trying to help or are you part of the problem?” There are many approaches that should show the Republicans are part of the problem.

3 Show the public that the gov't is their friend and protector not their enemy.
The social security provides us with money in later years, Security and Exchange Commission guards against financial fraud, the FDIC protects against loss of assets if a bank goes under, the FBI protects us against criminals and terrorists, the US Dept of the Interior protects our land resources and helps supply our energy. We benefit when these dept's perform their duties. One of the reasons the country is in trouble now is the Bush administration did not fund these dept's and appoint people interested in helping the public.

4 All of these approaches seem more powerful than saying however bad the democrats are the republicans are worse. The “worse” approach seem noticeable lacking in motivation and generating enthusiasm.

USA TODAY!

2010-10-04T18:01:00.000-07:00

THE USA TODAY- ONCE A LEADER NOW AN ALSO RAN

The USA Today is not all sunny. There are a shadowy dark spaces. The USA was once a glamorous Queen first in many important aspect of living a good life. Now the USA is slowly disintegrating, and decaying do to neglect. NEWSWEEK RECENTLY LISTED THE 100 BEST COUNTRIES INN THE WORLD. WE USED TO BE 1ST. NOW WE ARE 11TH,NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10. The moral decline of the US is reflected in the small bore thinking of our elected representatives and the impractical distortions of some of our leaders.

Since the public and its leader seem to be consumed and distracted by the diverse opinions and political divisions in this country many important needs are neglected. We have created a civilization that was once beautiful but is now a damaged and crumbling world.

Without a great deal of care the modern world with its large unsolved problems has been placed on top of our fine elegant world of the past, and now violated is likely ready for destruction.

A Tale of Two Presidents!

2010-09-27T13:18:00.000-07:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!

In 1992 during an economic downturn Bill Clinton was elected president. During the campaign Bill had promised a tax cut for the middle class if elected. However in Feb 1993 when Bill addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He presented a plan to reduce the deficit rather than a middle class tax cut. This plan would raise taxes on higher income brackets and included a surtax for incomes over $250,000. For incomes less than $30,000 there was no change. It eliminated income taxes on 15 million of the lowest income families.

The purpose Bill said was that a smaller Federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates. It is said Robert Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury persuaded Bill to take the debt reduction route rather than the middle class tax cut.
The result was the longest period of economic expansion in American History. After 8 yrs of Presidency Bill left office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000 George Bush was elected President. George inherited a balanced Federal budget with a large surplus.

George believed in a smaller role for gov’t and depended on unregulated market forces to govern the economy. In 2001 and 2003 Bush obtained Congressional approval for large tax cuts. The 2001 tax cut was $1.35 trillion. These tax cuts decreased all tax rates, decreased the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit, and eliminated the “marriage penalty. Economists figure the tax cuts from 2001 to 2007 resulted in an increase of $3 trillion in Federal debt,(constant 2000 $) Since 2007 the debt has increased substantially. Together the tax cuts and war(Iraq, Afghanistan) have accounted for 84% of the debt increase according to Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler. Over this period excluding home equity extraction the US economy grew 1% during the Bush years as figured by Niall Ferguson. George left office in 2008 amidst the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929 with an approval rating of 28%.
How have these two different approaches effected Job GROWTH?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
21.3 Million new jobs --940,000 jobs lost
How about economic growth?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
4% growth per yr 1% growth per yr
PERHAPS THE BEST ECONOMIC PLAN IS TO JUDICIOUSLY RAISE TAXES.! Not cut taxes.

CUTTING TAXES A NON-STARTER

2010-09-18T15:45:00.000-07:00

CUTTING TAXES THE BEDROCK OF THE NEW CONSERVATISM IS A NON-STARTER. Get the fact behind the news

Economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that EXTENDING TAX CUTS WOULD BE THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPUR THE ECONOMY and reduce unemployment. The report added that TAX CUTS FOR HIGH EARNERS WOULD HAVE THE SMALLEST “bang for the buck” WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY THAN SPEND IT. The office gave HIGHER MARKS TO A PROPOSAL now embraced by President Obama, THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO WRITE OFF 100%OF THEIR INVESTMENT COSTS, NEITHER of those options, though, would do as much TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY as offering DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED and SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS or REDUCING the PAYROLL TAXES OF WORKERS,the study found. OTHER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED WERE AID TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.

So while THE DECISION on WHETHER TO EXTEND the TAX CUTS will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, ECONOMISTS AND TAX EXPERTS SAY IT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE MUCH IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH. “Firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.” When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.
Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medical Prescription drug benefit, UNFUNDED, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from from the tax cuts themselves.

The Obama administration figures that nearly a third of the cost of the tax cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Essentially arguing "that we add $700 billion to the deficit in return for $35 billion in what has been found to be the least effective means of stimulus,” said Jason Furman, a deputy assistant to the president overseeing economic policy.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would preserve the tax cuts for families that earn less than $250,000 a year (or individuals who make less than $200,000) at a cost of $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.

THE THOUGHT THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES OR TAX CUTS ALONE CAN TURN AROUND THE ECONOMY IS WISHFUL THINKING said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”

Who is Financing the Tea Party?

2010-09-11T19:36:00.000-07:00

How many people at the rally knew who is bankrolling TEA Party activities? GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS.

RUPERT MURDOCK owner of Fox News and Publisher of the Wall St. Journal is one of the principal bank rollers. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are on his payroll. Fox news gives the Tea Party plenty of free publicity and news exposure. Koch(see Below) matched the proceeds from a Fox Tea party promotion.

The other principal bank rollers are two brothers, less well known, Charles and Edward Koch. These two brothers have a combined wealth exceeded only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Their original wealth came from the oil business. They have branched out into several other businesses .

These two men have along history of financial support for far right political causes. Their interest is low or no taxes, no corporate regulation, no effective labor unions, and no help for the poor, unemployed, ill or elderly. When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 his platform wanted to abolish Social Security, federal regulatory agencies, and welfare, the CIA, the FBI and the public school system. The Koch's founded "Americans for Prosperity" Foundation which works closely with the Tea Party since the Tea Party started

Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.

Another major sponsor for the Tea party is Dick Armey"s "Freedom Works" group which received $12 mil from the Koch family foundation. From 1998 to 2008 the Koch foundation gave at least $196 mil a large share of which went to conservative causes and groups. In addition Koch industries spent $50 mil for lobbying activities, and $4.8 mil in campaign contributions thru political action committees. Among energy co's Koch Industries spent more than Exxon, Mobile and Chevron.

Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.

Pres.Eisenhower on Social Safety Net

2010-09-09T09:35:00.000-07:00

The Facts Behind the News

A statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) concerning America's Social Safety Net.

The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows" :

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.

Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

2010-07-28T15:19:00.000-07:00

AUTO SALES AND ADVERTISING

TOPS IN Consumer Complaints for 2009 and 2008

So why were autos exempted from the new Consumer Protection Agency?

It is very troubling to see another example of Congress obviously legislating not in the public interest but for the benefit of the Special Interests, in this case the auto dealers. One has to wonder what type of people are these Congressional people?

If there was ever a consumer group that needed protection from their suppliers, it is auto buyers who need protection from their suppliers, the auto dealers.

The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report was conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and the North American Consumer Protection Investigators and is their 15th report on top consumer complaints. The latest results are based on a survey of 33 state, county, and city agencies from 18 states on the most common complaints received from January 2009 through December 2009.

Top Types of Consumer Complaints for 2009
1. Auto: Misrepresentations in advertising or sales of new and used cars; lemons; faulty repairs; leasing and towing disputes. Also No. 1 in 2008.
2. Credit/Debt: Billing and fee disputes; mortgage-related fraud; credit repair; debt relief services; predatory lending; illegal or abusive debt collection tactics. Up from No. 3 in 2008.
3. Home Improvement/Construction: Shoddy work; failure to start or complete the job. Down from No. 2 in 2008.
4. Utilities: Service problems or billing disputes with phone, cable, satellite, Internet, electric and gas services. Also No. 4 in 2008.
5. Retail Sales: False advertising and other deceptive practices; defective merchandise; problems with rebates, coupons, gift cards and gift certificates; failure to deliver. Also No. 5 in 2008.
6. Services: Misrepresentations; shoddy work; failure to have required licenses; failure to perform. Also No. 6 in 2008.
7. Internet Sales: Misrepresentations or other deceptive practice; failure to deliver online purchases. Up from No. 9 in 2008.
8. Household Goods: Misrepresentations; failure to deliver; faulty repairs in connection with furniture or appliances. Down from No. 7 in 2008.
9. (tie) Landlord/Tenant: Unhealthy or unsafe conditions; failure to make repairs or provide promised amenities; deposit and rent disputes; illegal eviction tactics; Down from No. 8 in 2008. Home Solicitations:Misrepresentations or failure to deliver in door-to-door, telemarketing or mail solicitations; do-not-call violations. Also No. 9 in 2008.
10. Health Products/Services: misleading claims; unlicensed practitioners; failure to deliver. Also No. 10 in 2008.
Source: The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report

WILL A HANDGUN MAKE YOUR HOME SAFER?

2010-07-12T11:55:00.000-07:00

WILL HAVING A HANDGUN AT HOME—

MAKE YOUR FAMILY SAFER?

THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Ellen S. Alberding President of the Joyce Foundation points out, in the July 9th issue of the New York Times, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in 2007 in the US more than 2,000 children were killed and another 12,370 were injured by gunfire.

According to the Journal of Trauma “guns in the home are 11 times more likely to be used in suicide attempts and four times more likely to be involved in accidents than used in self defense".

The article goes on to say there is little evidence of any public health or safety benefits of privately owned guns. Keeping a gun at home puts your children at risk. During the last few days the papers have given a lot of publicity to two instances of homeowners shooting and killing home invaders. Much less attention was given to an 8 yr old shot by her13 yr old brother, or a wife shot and killed by her husband, or a 16 yr old who killed himself with his father’s gun.

Many gun owners believe they can keep guns away from children. In a recent survey of parents and children at a family health clinic in rural Alabama, 39% of the parents thought the children did not know the location of household guns, 22% thought their children had never handled a household gun. The children’s reports told a different story. The result were the same even when the guns were locked up and the parents had discussed gun safety.

Having guns in the household can make a tragic difference when teenagers get emotionally depressed or angry. Access to guns means increased suicide risk. The Harvard School of Public Healthsays most often young suicide victims use a gun belonging to a family member usually a parent. A gunshot is quick and irreversible. 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal compared with 2% of drug overdoses and 3% of cutting.

Women are particularly at risk in household with guns. The Illinois Coalition against Domestic Violence, states that 300,000 women and children are subject to violence in their homes each year in the State of Illinois. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a gun.

Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health< “where there are more guns, there is more death, more homicide, and more gun accidents". BE CAREFUL! The life you save maybe your own.

REPUBLICANS USE HOOVER'S 1929 FISAL POLICY

2010-07-09T12:38:00.000-07:00

REPUBLICANS ADOPT HOOVER’S 1929 FISCAL POLICY!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1929 Pres. Herbert Hoover was said to believe that the US had over speculated and fiscal austerity, cutting spending, would increase business confidence and bring back good times. It is amazing that the Republican Party in 2010 has resurrected, almost word for word, the failed policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929.

Even before start of the recession in 2007, the United States job market had already been performing weakly, relative both to the 1990s and to the rest of the industrialized world.

Alan Krueger, Treasury Dept Chief Economist in his testimony at the hearing, said that from 1900 to2000 the US economy added 21.7 million jobs. The economy lost 944,000 from December 1999 to December 2009, The fraction of the working-age population that reported being employed peaked at 64.7 percent in March 2000, and fell to 58.6 percent in March 2010, its lowest level since the two recessions of 1980-82, he said.

Small businesses, which shed large numbers of workers during the recession, have been particularly slow to resume hiring.

While Mr. Krueger’s remarks at the hearing were not widely reported, their implications were clear: raising taxes can support both deficit reduction and job growth. He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 “did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated.”
Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.

SUPREME COURT GUN RULING

2010-06-30T17:55:00.000-07:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!

The Supreme Court decision on gun bans is a sign that anarchy exists in many urban centers. The police depts. can not control violence and crime. Every morning when I read the Chicago Tribune there are articles about people shot and killed and dead bodies found. Where a citizen has to carry a gun to protect himself civilization has broken down. Yet this is the situation that exists in many urban centers in the US.

Having each citizen carry a gun is not the solution. It is an invitation to more shooting and killings often over what seems like trivial matters.

Many believe that the Police should do more. Maybe these people are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. The real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
When we do that then this source of the demand for guns will gradually disappear.

RESTRUCTURE-REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH

2010-06-08T17:50:00.000-07:00

REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH—RESTRUCTURE! The facts behind the news.

In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.

During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.

2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.

This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?

1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.

Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.

2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.

The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .

WHY AUTO DEALERS NEED OVERSIGHT

2010-06-07T13:25:00.000-07:00

WHY AUTO DEALERS—

NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!

A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.

1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.

2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.

3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.

4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.

5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.

6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.

7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.

NO! To Shameful HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CAPS!

2009-12-14T13:18:00.000-08:00

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.

ABORTION RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTUTIONAL

2009-12-09T15:09:00.000-08:00

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.

LETTER TO REP. MARK kIRK

2009-11-18T17:46:00.000-08:00

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

WHAT DOES REP CAO'S VOTE TELL US?

2009-11-12T11:08:00.000-08:00

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?

Repulicans use Healthcare to score s coup!

2009-10-28T18:43:00.000-07:00

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.

HOW to SAVE MONEY on HEALTHCARE REFORM

2009-10-26T13:13:00.000-07:00

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

Is the US losing its COMPETITIVE EDGE?

2009-10-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Sen Baucus from the State of Insurance

2009-10-11T13:39:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

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.

A Public Option that works!

2009-09-21T14:27:00.000-07:00

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

Does a Public Option Insurance Plan

2009-09-17T18:48:00.000-07:00

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.

The Public option would SAVE $224 to $400 billion

2009-09-13T12:23:00.000-07:00

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

The Senate Committee on Healthcare-Set up to Fail?

2009-08-31T15:26:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

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.

WHAT ABOUT MEDICARE FOR ALL?

2009-08-23T12:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Desperate Republicans Fight Healthcare with

2009-08-13T18:43:00.000-07:00

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.

The Defense Budget is NOT the NEW WPA

2009-08-03T13:33:00.000-07:00

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

What is the FUTURE outlook for the Court?

2009-07-27T18:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Another Court's Narrow Interpretation

2009-07-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Supreme Ct Narrow Interpretations

2009-07-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

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 Supreme Court Standing Effects Part 2

2009-07-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

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 Supreme Court on Standing

2009-07-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

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.

.

WHERE IS THE SUPREME COURT JUNE 2009?

2009-06-26T13:05:00.000-07:00

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”

Is poor police effort permitting gang violence?

2009-06-24T12:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Is poor police effort permitting gang violence?

2009-06-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

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.

SAVE US FROM CONGRESSIONAL&EXEC ACTIVISTS

2009-06-08T09:19:00.000-07:00

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.

WHAT IS THE RECORD ON DICK CHENEY?

2009-06-03T17:17:00.000-07:00

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's wrong with a POW solution?

2009-05-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

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.

WHY DID THE BUSH ADMIN WANT WAR?

2009-05-13T19:08:00.000-07:00

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.

WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG

2009-05-03T19:07:00.000-07:00

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.

WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG

2009-04-20T18:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Leadership and Moral Responsbility

2009-04-17T10:57:00.000-07:00

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.

TO FIX OUR MORTGAGE SYSTEM

2009-04-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

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.

HOW DOES THE US ECONOMY RATE TODAY?

2009-04-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

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.

What is the US Economic Position? I

2009-03-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

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?

Irresponsible Journalism--Dick Cheney

2009-03-16T09:51:00.000-07:00

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.

The Danish Mortgage System

2009-03-04T12:52:00.000-08:00

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.

Can the police stop gang violence?

2009-02-27T08:56:00.000-08:00

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

CAN WE LEARN FROM JAPAN'S ECONOMIC STMULUS

2009-02-19T17:38:00.000-08:00

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.

WHY A NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

2009-02-15T17:00:00.000-08:00

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?

WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY III

2009-02-06T13:15:00.000-08:00

2009-02-06T13:10:00.000-08:00

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.

To Achieve Prosperity and growth

2009-01-27T09:04:00.000-08:00

What economic challeges for Prosperity, Growth

2009-01-18T14:20:00.000-08:00

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.

WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY II

2009-01-12T18:29:00.000-08:00

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.

WHY AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY

2009-01-10T09:06:00.000-08:00

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.

WHERE is the Pied Pipeer of Wall St. TAKING US?

2008-12-21T15:25:00.000-08:00

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 despite the billions it already spent in that effort”. "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 leadershp(?) 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 or for that matter a strategy for many other important areas.

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 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

Professor Porter has measured the US economic effort against other countries. The US is not in the top 10 as a free market economic in many important aspects. MORE ON THIS.

HELP for troubled Mortgage Holders?

2008-12-20T16:56:00.000-08:00

THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The $700 Bil bailout, according to Treasury Secretary Paulson, will not be used to help troubled mortgage holders. Sec. Paulson has admitted he has the authority to use the money for troubled homes but has refused to do so.

Federal Reserve Chairman Berneke has said he is working on a plan to subsidize 30 yr mortgages. However his plan will only help new owners. The plan is not meant for old or present owners.

The FDIC plan for modification of mortgages by extending the life of the mortgage and reducing payments to 31% of monthly income comes closest to helping troubled homes. Even this plan only covers about 20 % of the number of troubled mortgages expected to go to foreclosure in the next few years, The FDIC expects 1/3 of the helped homes to default on the modified mortgages.

It looks to Diogenes like most of the troubled mortgage holders have been left to hang in the wind. The longer the discussions go on without any help the worse the situation will get. The large increase in unemployment rates will only accelerate the downward spiral.

Diogenes believes the President, the Congress. and the public have not faced up to the economic problems. This is a chronic problem of the Bush administration with the help of a docile spineless democratic leadership.. The face up statement can be made for terrorism, education. global warming, etc.

What PLAN if any is the pied piper of Vall St. following?

FDA more DRUG troubles

2008-12-15T19:26:00.000-08:00

STILL MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The list of troubled medicines goes on. After 19 sudden deaths and 26 reports of other problems such as strokes and fast heart rates The American Heart Association has recommended that children given Ritulin, Adderal and Concertin for attention deficit disorder be screened. The Heart Association now recommends a through exam with an electrocardiogram and family history. About2.5 million children and 1.5 million adults take medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

On Friday, April 25,”In fury and despair people harmed by Lasik eye surgery told federal advisors of severe eye pain and blurred vision. The advisors recommended that the gov’t worn more clearly about the risks of the hugely popular operation”. About 700,000 Americans yearly undergo this operation. Most people do benefit according to the Chicago Tribune article. However about 25% are not good candidates. One percent report serious difficulties. The FDA is promising a major study to better understand who has had bad outcomes.

What are the reasons FDA is failing us? More

FDIC Proposes a Mortgage Plan

2008-12-14T17:34:00.000-08:00

Get the facts behind the NEWS

Sheila Bair head of The (FDIC) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has been championing a plan. Ms. Bair says the plan could help 2.2 million home owners with troubled mortgages keep their homes. MS. Bair is a republican appointed by Pres. Bush two years ago after serving many years at FDIC.

The plan is to modify the troubled mortgages by extending the time of the loan and reducing the interest rates so that payments do not exceed 31 % of monthly income. Under this plan the US Gov’t would guarantee the mainly risky( low down payments and/or weak credit) loans . Under this plan the taxpayers would absorb 1/2 the loss on modified loans if the borrower defaults on the modified loan. She says this should encourage mortgage houses to modify their troubled mortgages. In addition the mortgage house would be paid $1,000 for each modified loan. This p[an has been put into effect for 65,000 Indy-Mac homeownera and is part of the Citigroup bailout

Ms. Bair stated the FDIC expects 1/3(750,000) of the modified loans to default. This plan would save 1,500,000 homes from foreclosure at a cost to the US gov’t of $24 bil. Moody ’s Economy.com expects 10 mi.l foreclosures over the next 5 years.

The Treasury and the White House are fighting this plan Critics estimate the plan would cost $70 bil, Treasury Asst Secretary Neel Kashkart said "the $700 bil bailout plan was to make investments with the hope of getting the money back". He called the FDIC plan a gov’t spending program with no chance of repayment. No doubt there were homeowners who deliberately overbought. However most(personal opinion) homeowners bought in good faith. Many of these people were enticed by gov’t programs offering easy terms and were not protected by any gov’t oversight, federal or local. Many of these homeowners had little experience in real estate or home ownership. Diogenes believes the gov’t bears much of the responsibility for the foreclosure situation.---- more suggested solutions next

Ben Bernake suggests HELP FOR MORGAGE HOLDERS

2008-12-09T18:53:00.000-08:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Ben S. Bernake, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Thursday that the soaring number of foreclosures threatened the economy. He then proposed some ideas — government-engineered loan modifications, and more taxpayer money to help people refinance.

At the Treasury Department, meanwhile, top officials continued to work on a plan to bolster the housing market by subsidizing 30-year home mortgages with rates as low as 4.5 percent — a level that home buyers have not seen since the early 1960s.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system — propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

The new focus on helping individuals could create a bitter split between those who want to buy homes and those who already own them.
The cheap mortgages would be available only for people buying houses, not the roughly 50 million families that already have mortgages and would want to refinance at a lower rate. As a result, the plan offers no direct relief to the millions of people who face foreclosure because they took out exotic mortgages that they could not afford. Nor would the plan offer any benefit to people who have stayed current on their mortgages and would simply be interested in taking advantage of a lower. rate,

How does this plan compare to the FDIC plan. See next blog.

Can $800 billion get us out of the DEPRRESSION?

2008-12-06T15:16:00.000-08:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS PART 4

Financial plans to get us out of a “depression” are coming fast and furious. Secretary of the Treasury Paulson with the help of the Federal Reserve Bank has announced an $800 billion fiscal stimulus. This stimulus is different than previous financial helps.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system — propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

This financial imitative gets closer to the consumer possibly to answer those who believe help should be for main street, where the problems begin and not wall street where main street problems can end up.

This Paulson plan has twor parts. (A)To lower interest rates on loans for home buyers the gov’t announced it will buy up to $100 billion in mortgages held by Freddie Mac and Fannie May. It will buy up to $500 billion of mortgages securities held by the two housing giants plus Ginnie May.

What this means for home owners and the housing markets is uncertain. This may reduce interest rates but not slow the growing rate of foreclosures accordng to the economic experts.

At the same time the gov’t, announced through the TALF (Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility) a $200 billion program. This program will loan money at attractive ratea to private investors who buy securities backed by auto and student loans, credit cards and small business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration. The plan will also guarantee the loans if underlying securities default.

The prograqm should lower rates for auto loans for those with confidence to buy an auto Good credit card risks have not been effected. Poor credit card risks have been cut back. The effect this program will have on increasing credit to poor credit risks is unknown. Student loans are another area where the effect of the program is unknown due to conflicting opinions. More on the latest developments.
.

MORE VIOXX AND THE FDA

2008-11-26T08:53:00.000-08:00

-MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Dr. Eric Topal, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in a column posted the week of April 8th on the New England Journal of Medicine’s web site called for a congressional review of the “catastrophic” events”. “The senior executives at Merck and the leadership of the FDA share responsibility for not having taken action and not recognizing they are accountable for the public health.” Dr. Topal has also stated, “The FDA didn’t do anything. They were passive here.” Remember Dr. Graham linked Vioxx to 27,000 deaths.

There are other interesting aspects of the Vioxx case. Dr.David Graham the. Lead scientist mentioned in Blog 2, told the Senate Finance Committee investigators that the FDA tried to BLOCK publication of his findings, according to Senator Grassly chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “Dr. Graham described an environment where he was ‘ostracized’, ‘subject to veiled threats’ and”intimidation’. Dr Graham showed Senator Grasslay e-mails that appear to support Dr. Graham contention that his superiors suggested watering down the conclusions.

It APEARS THAT THE SUPERIORS AT THE FDA WERE MORE INTERESTING IN PROTECTING THE MERCK CO THAN INPROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

More on Merck and other troubled drugs in Blog 5

Why can’t the police stop gang violence?

2008-11-26T07:25:00.000-08:00

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 another blog,

NAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY?

2008-11-21T17:24:00.000-08:00

can we make a RECESSION PAINLESS? PART 3
GET the FACTS behind the NEWS

The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.

However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses. If financially well of,with the approval of Treasury Secretry Paulson, they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .

Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices. The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.

WASHINGTON Nov. 19 — The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., on Tuesday rejected pleas to use money from the $700 billion bailout program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or to stave off bankruptcy by Detroit’s Big Three automakers.

Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts.“We have seen that capital purchases are clearly powerful in terms of impact for dollar of investment,” he said in his prepared testimony.

FEDERAL FINANCIAL HELP IS NOT GETTING TO MAIN STREET.
Next, what are others doing to help.

The Real Ortho Eva Story

2008-11-15T13:03:00.000-08:00

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The Ortho Evra case is the latest in a series of failures to protect he public against the serious health hazards of powerful medicines. This situation has caused experts and others to question the Food and Drug’s commitment, and the present Federal Administration’ s commitment to protect and preserve the nation’s health.

It was six years after the companies’ own researchers found that the Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, even before Ortho had been approved by the FDA, At last six years later the public was notified.. In the six-year interval, the larger amount of estrogen increased the risk of blood clot’s and strokes. The Food and Drug Agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug according to an article in the April 6. 2008
New York Times.

In addition it appears that the Ortho people deliberately camouflaged the increased estrogen by reducing the actual figures by 40% .This correction was mentioned only once in a 435 page report to the FDA and then in a complex mathematical formula according to an April 14, 2008 New York Times article..

3,000 Women and their families have sued Johnson and Johnson claiming that ORTHO EVRA patches caused heart attacks, strokes, and in some cases death.

How could this happen? Why didn’t the FDA catch this error and do something about it?

In Blog 2,3,4 and 5 we discuss several other hazardous mistakes. by the FDA. In Blog 6 we have a brief look at the FDA and its support from the Federal gov’t. Blog 7 explains how the Johnson Co, makers of Ortho, are trying to avoid any legal and financial responsibility for the deaths and illnesses caused by the larger estrogen dosage.

The World Turned Upside DOWN

2008-11-15T11:47:00.000-08:00

Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACT 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 a very stern, “mean”, 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.

The 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.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

MAIN SREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY

2008-11-10T07:17:00.000-08:00

can we make
A RECESSION PAINLESS? Part 2

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to $420 billion Federal deficit budget.

Diogenes is concerned that the measures taken so far are essentially blank checks to the same managements that appear incompetent and failed their company and the public. AIG Insurance was a large well financed insurance company. Management has changed recently. Maybe it should change again. AIG was originally given $85 billion and requested an additional$37.5 billion. General Motors received $25 billion and has now requested an additional $25 billion. GM is a company that was at the top of its field. GM has been going downhill for 40 years. Diogenes believes the Congress should demand new management and demand all models of GM have hybrid engines within three to four years.

This system of subsidizing inefficient companies only leads to trouble further on. It is a system used by communist China before they decided to modernize. One day in the near future you turn around and you have a whole range of inefficient companies that can not compete in the marketplace on their own but require constant subsidies.

Next we will discuss the validity of the gov't(public) making good on everyone’s loses.

MAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY

2008-11-06T14:51:00.000-08:00

can we make A RECESSION PAINLESS ? Part 1

The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.

However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .

Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices.
The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.. Financial help is not rapidly getting to main street.

Perhaps some of this tightening was needed. But, we must be careful not to repeat one of the great mistakes of the 1929 Great Depression. According to Milton Friedman, in reacting to the speculation at that time, we tightened credit too much and stifled the economy.

Is the Bill of Rights in danger?

2008-11-03T18:53:00.000-08:00

Where is the conservative
Supreme Court taking us?

IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.

In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.

Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.

The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.

When you vote

2008-10-27T18:43:00.000-07:00

BE AN INFORMED VOTER

Rep. Deborah Price, a republican from Ohio, was elected to the US House of Representatives four times. She is not running in 08. She said she has family obligations and finds it not as interesting as a member of the minority.

Her comments on politics were very interesting. She has little hope of a shift in campaign tactics unless there is a public backlash. The last campaign convinced her that negative ads work.

“I don’t think anything will change until Americans revolt and get it into their heads they need to be informed voters instead of just listening to the paid political ads.”

We hope our blog will help you to be a more informed voter.

When you vote

2008-10-25T19:56:00.000-07:00

A Painless Recession

2008-10-21T17:58:00.000-07:00

How to make a
A RECESSION PAINLESS
The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. These expenditures are in addition to $417 BILLION bugdet deficit. These types of efforts may help keep the the economy at maintenance levels but by themselves will not cause an expansion.

I believe the stated purpose of these moves was to increase financial liquidity so that large banks could lend to small banks, and small banks could lend to main street. However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire troubled banks or their assets at bargain prices. Thus at least delaying getting money to main street. Perhaps another example that the “trickle down” republican theory does not work well. Or perhaps main street help was used to sell the public, but the real reason was to help the big banks. This would not be out of keeping with previous Bush administration moves.

Our next message will discuss whether the gov’t can make a recession painless and if it can should it?

The Act lists new Federal crimes

2008-10-17T12:28:00.000-07:00

The Act also lists several new federal crimes. Two of the more important ones are “domestic terrorism” and “material support”.

“Domestic terrorism” extends beyond acts of violence to include any “ acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws- - - if such acts - -appears to be intended- - to influence the policy of a gov’t by intimidation or coercion” and are conducted primarily within the” U. S. (Room for protest or disagreement?)(Martin Luther King protests for instance.)

Lending material support, “to any terrorist organization designated as such by federal officials, who have complete discretion in deciding which groups have “terrorist” aims. “Material support” is broadly defined to include any, ”physical asset,” “personnel”, “training” or “expert advice or assistance.” This provision does not require proof that a person charged with this crime intended to further any terrorist activities.

try for peace not war

2008-10-10T18:09:00.000-07:00

Why aren’t Bush and McCain

trying harder to STOP THE WAR?

One of the reasons is the Bush-McCain policy of not talking to countries or groups that they consider enemies or terrorists. The Bush-McCain policy is to only talk to countries after they have agreed to Bush-McCain demands. This position rules out any negotiations. The other party has to surrender before Bush-McCain will talk to them. RESULT STALEMATE. No progress toward peace. The purpose of negotiations is to bridge differences or workout an arrangement suitable for both sides.

Thus is in stark contrast to previous republican administration efforts. In the 1991Iraq War Secretary of State James Baker, for Bush Sr., made 32 trips to Syria. This is one of the countries Bush-McCain will not speak to. He finally achieved his purpose of getting Syria to come into the war on our side.

In 1952 General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and latter two term President, decided to run for President. At that time the US was fighting a war in North Korea. General Eisenhower said that if he was elected he would go to N.Korea to see if he could stop the fighting.

He issued a statement, “If a journey to Korea and a study of our military and political problems there CAN SAVE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER and BRING PEACE OF MIND TO ONE FAMILY—I must make the journey to Korea". Eisenhower was elected and he did go to Korea. There was no prior negotiations or agreements arranged. He was unable to stop the fighting.

But the important thought, which I think won him the election, was that here was a candidate that would speak to anyone, travel anywhere, make every possible effort to save American lives.

We should ask Senator McCain why he and George Bush are unwilling to make the same effort that Dwight Eisenhower made?

Fortunately for us Barack Obrama has the same dedication to peace that Dwight Eisenhower had.

More later.

2 Views on the Patriot Act

2008-10-07T13:24:00.000-07:00

In looking at the Patriot Act we should keep in mind not only what the Act authorizes but what are the possibilities for abuse particularly if there is no oversight.

The Dept of Justice(DOJ) say “the ACT equips federal law enforcement with the tools they need to mount an effective coordinated campaign against our nation’s terrorist enemies.”

The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) claims that the ACT “vastly expands the gov’t’s authority to spy on its own citizens “ “while reducing checks and balances on these powers like judicial oversight, public accountability and the ability to challenge gov’t searches in court.

Obrama Leadership

2008-10-05T11:52:00.000-07:00

OBRAMA SUGGESTIONS

These suggestions are offered to more fully capitalize on your strengths.

1)I think you want to be recognized as a LEADER WITH VISION. A leader who is in front of the curve to see opportunities to be taken and dangers to be avoided or deflected rather than one who is always “locking the barn door”,

One of the best ways to do this is to cite your warnings on vital issues. This is much more effective if you do this as a package rather than interspersed with discussions on issues.

a) Your warning on Iraq. A brief quotation from your speech. Then hit hard what you said would happen—HAPPENED.

b) Your warning on sub-prime mortgages.. A brief quotation. Then
hit hard what you said would happened—HAPPENED.

c) Your warning on global warming. A brief quotation. Then hit hard
what you said would happened is happening.

d) Another example is fine but not necessary.

Always tie McCain to Geo Bush. i.e. They are trying to give you a hard time about your willingness to meet with foreign dictators. You have a wonderful ally whose name you have never mentioned and I can’t understand why. His name is Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in WW II and two term republican president. This is a name respected even in republican circles

When gen-Pres Eisenhower was running for President in 1952 the US was fighting a war in N. Korea. Gen Eisenhower said that if elected he would go to N. Korea to try and stop the fighting. I only remember the first few words of his statement but it began “If I can save the life of one American” and it continued with the thought his effort would be worth while. This line is a showstopper.

Gen Eisenhower was elected and he did go to Korea. There was no prior negotiations or agreements arranged. He was unable to stop the fighting.

But the important thought, which I think won him the election, was that here was a candidate that would speak to anyone, travel anywhere, make every possible effort to save American lives. They say lightning never strikes twice but it might be worth a try.

Then ask Senator McCain why he and George Bush are unwilling to make the same effort that Dwight Eisenhower made?

More later.

To restore confidence Bush. Cheney should resign

2008-10-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN OUR ECONOMY

PRES. GEORGE BUSH AND VP DICK cHENEY SHOULD RESIGN

The quickest and only way to improve economic confidence is for Congress to form a committee to ask Prs Bush and Vice-Pres Cheney to resign for the good of the country.

The appointment by the Attorney General of of a special investigator to investigate the firing of seven district attorneys will probably be the first of many to investigate the wrong doings of the Bush administration.

The public senses that and has lost all confidence. A change of leadership is the only way out.

In addition it is a necessity that any arrangement made should take the PROGRAM AND ANY MONIES COLLECTED OUT OF THE TREASURY TO A NEW ENTITY.

Lastly remember Pres.Bush has a history of exaggerating dangers and trying to rush through laws that the public and many legislators later regretted. BE CAREFUL. Take your time. INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY.

WHAT HAS THE PATRIOT ACT DONE?

2008-09-26T12:11:00.000-07:00

4th Amendment and the Patriot Act Part I

USA PATRIOT ACT (USAPA) introduced changes which significantly increase the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US. These new powers included criminal as well terrorism activities. The ACT did not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Probable cause and judicial review were frequently replaced by certification by law enforcement officials. In this process a law official appears before the court and certifies that the requested procedure is for a criminal or terrorism investigation. The Court has to approve it. There is no judicial opinion involved. Other methods used to avoid judicial review are the allowable use of subpoenas and search warrants.

What we should be AWARE of?

2008-09-19T09:41:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog 5A
Supreme Court taking us?

What should we be aware of?

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..

THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE COIN. Any increase in judicial restraint increases the power of the executive, namely the President. The more the Court restrains the weaker the oversight and the greater the executive power, and vice versa..

Our system of gov’t was called a system of checks and balances. It was based on a English idea that “mixed govt is best”. Each of the branches of gov’t, legislative, executive. and judicial would keep informed and check on the other two.

The quotations from Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts above would indicate that if the conservatives continue to get their way the Supreme Court practically gives up the Court’s oversight role as a counter balance to the other two branches of gov’t.

On certain issues such as greater transparency in govt, trying to maintain some checks and balances, guarding against executive overreach, and civil liberties the “liberals” and more liberal conservatives can come together .to make a majority.

This is particularly important because the congressional republicans in recent terms has shown no interest in an oversight role of the executive branch. They have acted like a cheering section for whatever the executive wanted. Diogenes believes the Congress has neglected and abandoned its constitutional duties.

Probable Supremer Court Oitlook

2008-09-12T13:33:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative B log 4C
Supreme Court taking us?

What is the probable Court outlook ?

Court history shows that the periods of conservatism far outnumber progressive periods. The makeup of the present court will result in many years of conservative outlook. At the present there are no conservative Judges ready to retire. The next Judge to retire will probably be liberal Justice Stevens now 87 but still in good health. If a democrat is President the court could maintain its present make up. If a Republican is President the court would probably move further to the right.

What does this mean for us the public?

It 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.

The question maybe what rights maybe lost. This also may be an unduly pessimistic outlook. In this age turnabouts sometime come quickly and surprisingly fast.

The Court limits public access

2008-09-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog 4B
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The court led by Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts 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 affected.

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 for Wall Steet 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,

who gets thru the courthouse door?

2008-08-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog 4A
Supreme Court taking us?

Why is the Court limiting public access?

In a July 2, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal writer Jess Bivins noted, "The Supreme Court delivered this term a series of decisions conservatives have long yearned for”.Decisions then listed.

“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”.

.

the World turned upsideedown

2008-08-26T09:05:00.001-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Th 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 for 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 1 0th 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 World turned UPSIDE-down

2008-08-26T09:05:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down. II

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 for 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 1 0th 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 World turned Up-side Down

2008-08-21T12:48:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.

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 stern, “mean”, 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.

The 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.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

The World turned upside down

2008-08-21T12:33:00.000-07:00

Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.

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 stern, “mean”, 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.

The 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.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

Is the Court doing away with civil liberties?

2008-08-01T14:11:00.000-07:00

IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.

In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”,unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE
LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.

Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.

However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.

The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Rightsby passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.

The Rehnquist L egacy

2008-08-01T13:37:00.000-07:00

Where is the consevative Supreme COURT TAKING US?

By 1788 James Madison realized that the public desire for a Bill of Right could not be ignored.. As a result 10 Amendments to the constitution called the” Bill of Rights” were ratified in 1791. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights from violation by the Federal Government.

William Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1986 . An examination of Rehnquist’’s voting record over 30 years brings out some very surprising information.

An analysis of Chief Justice Rehnquist.s decisions show 1) in cases between individuals and the government, Rehnquist almost always voted for the gov’t against the individual, the opposite of the purpose of the Bill of rights. 2)In cases of the state VS the federal gov.t Rehnquist usually favored the state. (3) In cases where the Federal gov.t wanted to exercise Rehnquist voted against exercise.

According to Anan analysis by Geoffrey Stone law Professor at the University of Chicago. showed that Justice Renqquist in 30 years participated 259 case decisions concerning Freedom of Speech or Press; First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist supported the First Amendment claim 20% of the time. An average of all the Justices Rehnquist served with supported the claim 53 % of the time.

63 unanimous decisions were removed from the 269 cases. Unanimous cases do not describe the Justices. individual views. With these cases deleted Rehnquist rejected 92% of the free speech first amendment claims.
Rehnquist rejected 100% of the free press claims. In 30 years Rehnquist never found once for the free press claims. Rehnquist was by far the least likely Justice to support the first amendment.

Industry Appointents,Why FDA failing

2008-07-29T15:14:00.000-07:00

Bush Administration Policy Why is Food and Drug FAILING Blog 8 of 8
to protect the public’s health

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug so inept?

Most Bush appointments come from the industry that is being regulated or inspected. Critics question the objectivity of these people. This source of appointments may well set up a conflict of interest for the appointee.

Bush administration thinking is that government oversight is bad. In many areas that effect the public the Bush policy is to let the industry police and/ or inspect itself. Those areas that have government regulation are so under funded and under manned that they can not accomplish their mission. The personnel that is in charge is a believer in this approach. In the case of consumer protection of toys the person in charge tried to reject additional funds and personnel to help the agency’s do its supposed job.

Conflictsof interest, Why FDA failing

2008-07-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

INDUSTRY APPOINTMENTS-CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug Admi so inept?

Fourth, most Bush appointments come from the industry that is being regulated or inspected. Critics question the objectivity of these people. This source of appointments may well set up a conflict of interest for the appointee.

Lastly the companies that have had troubled products are trying to avoid legal and financial responsibility. They claim that because the FDA approved their product they are protected against any claims. Formerly the courts did not favor this approach. However recently the Supreme Court gave this protection to some medical devices. A case is coming up soon before the Supreme Court that may determine if FDA approval will shield drug products as well. Considering the present condition of Food & Drug this seems like a very dubious proposition.

Lack of plant inspection-FDA fails

2008-07-29T13:59:00.000-07:00

A LARGE FOOD AND DRUG PROBLEM

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug so inept?

Another reason the FDA is failing is a lack of timely plant inspections. Most domestic firms are inspected every two years according to Rep. John Shimkus® Illinois. As more ingredients come from outside the US the picture is very different. There are 3,200 foreign drug sources according to gov’t auditors. Last year the FDA inspected 30 of these drug sources, less than 1%. At this rate it would take 100 years to inspect the whole 3200. Most of these sources have never been inspected. This fiscal year the FDA plans to inspect 50 foreign sources. At this rate of inspection it would take 60 years to inspect the whole list. This fiscal year about $10 mil has been allocated for foreign inspections.

Rep John L. Barton® Texas said ballpark estimates from Republican aides are that the FDA needs 500 more inspectors. The Cov’t Accountability Office said the cost of such by- yearly inspections would be about $70 mil annually. Whatever the actual cost or number of inspectors, we see an agency grossly undermanned and under funded.