Our Economy, Our Opportunity

OFA ===> "The best jobs report we’ve seen since 2007"

Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:06:55 EST

"The best jobs report we’ve seen since 2007" By Christopher Hass - Dec 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm EST Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

The Labor Department released its monthly employment survey today, and though the U.S. lost 11,000 jobs in November, that number was nearly 115,000 fewer than was forecast. The overall unemployment rate decreased, and the report found that nearly 160,000 fewer jobs had been lost over the last two months than had been previously thought. The New York Times called this "the strongest employment report since the recession began nearly two years ago."

Speaking at an event in Allentown, Pennsylvania today, President Obama explained:

This is good news, just in time for the season of hope. But I want to keep this in perspective. We still have a long way to go. I still consider one job lost one job too many. And as I said yesterday at a jobs conference in Washington, good trends don't pay the rent. We need to grow jobs and get America back to work as quickly as we can.
The journey from here will not be without setbacks or struggle. There will be more bumps in the road. But the direction is clear. When you think about how this year began, today’s report is a welcome sign that there are better days ahead.

What silicon valley is doing/can it work in manufacturing

Northside — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:53:22 EST

This I think is interesting....I'm wondering can we match the freelance of silicon valley/ the temp work industry, and fixed manufacturing cites across the countries. highly trained (make different things, do different things on-demand) manufacturing /labor personal linked to shipping capabilities that take orders from different businesses for different things. (much like call centers that do bill payment, surveys, applications 24-hours from different accounts all in one place). Depending on the cost of each labor job a company outsources to that labor site, and what the employees earn; there may be some stable manufacturing work for employees that meets the flexible 'just-in-time' inventory demands many companies want.

Check out this link- the idea kind of comes from this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34274889#34278606

exporting means making things here, and making things here leads to the kind of capitalistic bureaucracy that exists in most corporations and allows for more variety of jobs for more people. if we can save most or create some of those jobs here, we should. Those jobs justify other types of work and I think we should have as many as we can find.

End of Support for President Obama

My Vote Matters — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:58:37 EST

From this moment forward I am categorically removing my support for President Obama. The tripling of troops in Afghanistan under his watch has absolutely destroyed my faith in him as an independent thinker, diplomat, and logical man, a president who has the best interest of the citizens of America in mind.

washingtonpost.com:Obama Remarks on Math, Science and Technology Education

Eric — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:23:08 EST

Obama Remarks on Math, Science and Technology Education

CQ Transcripts Wire
Monday, November 23, 2009;

...

also want to note that this is only the beginning. We're going to challenge the private sector to partner with community colleges, for example, to help train the workers of today for the jobs of tomorrow, even as we make college more affordable, so that by 2010 America once again leads the world in producing college graduates.

OBAMA: Now, I have to say to the young people who are here, we can't let students off the hook. In the end, the success of this campaign depends on them. But I believe strongly that America's young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity, and given a little bit of a push.

We've got to work together to create these opportunities because our future depends on them.

And I just want to mention the importance not only for students but also of parents.

You know, I was in Asia, I think, many of you are aware, for a week. And I was having lunch with the president of South Korea, President Lee. And I was interested in the education policy -- they've grown enormously over the last 40 years -- and I asked them what are the biggest challenges in your education policy.

He said, you know, "The biggest challenge that I have is that my parents are too demanding."

(LAUGHTER)

He said, "Even if somebody is dirt poor, they are insisting that their kids are getting the best education." He said, "I've had to import thousands of foreign teachers because their all insisting that Korean children have to learn English in elementary school."

That was the biggest education challenge that he had was an insistence, a demand from parents for excellence in the schools.

And the same thing was true when I went to China. And I was talking to the mayor of Shanghai, and I asked him about -- how he was doing recruiting teachers, given that they've got 25 million people in this one city.

He said, "We don't have problems recruiting teachers because teaching is so revered and the pay scales for teachers are actually comparable to doctors and other professions."

That gives you a sense of what is happening around the world. There is a hunger for knowledge, an insistence on excellence, a reverence for science and math and technology and learning. That used to be what we were about. That's what we're going to be about again.

And I have to say that this doesn't get a lot of focus. Not once was I asked about education policy during my trip by the press, and oftentimes events like this get short shrift. They're not what's debated on cable.

But this is probably going to make more of a difference in determining how well we do as a country than just about anything else that we do here. ....

Re: a 'cleaner' Guiding logic for job creation/saving post- email has refenced tables

Northside — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:56:04 EST

The job creation problem exists in a time when we must realize that an increasing number of once ‘US jobs’ now compete in an international job market, often times dominated by the lowest wage, least amount of capital to expand operations, and yes to a certain degree tax advantage. I don’t think that will go away anytime soon. Businesses have to protect themselves, and the best protection on this front is to be an owner or high-up within management; when it comes to international job market competition. I’m using them to identify a guiding logic for what ‘long term’ job creation ideas should be used over others (I assume there will be lots of ideas to create jobs, in different ways). I only suggest that you be careful with the tax breaks for job creation ideas.

I watched some of Buffet and Gates on CNBC this week talking to Columbia U business students, and was reminded of how unsuccessful I am in many ways….(smile)…Also I was either reminded of something I’ve read or heard. He mentioned his investment philosophy a little then or before; saying long-term ‘competitive advantage’. I might be treading on someone else’s ideas, but that should be the goal of tax breaks for companies that want incentives (and yes maybe even foreign companies) to hire people in the US. A guiding logic, I think, should be that:

Tax breaks that lead to ‘competitive advantages’ for businesses; justify sustained international revenue growth for American companies AND/OR economic advantages for long term US-based jobs that compete in the current ‘international’ job market.

Example of a bad one is a blind tax break to some businesses just for hiring someone. So the government gives a company $5,000 to hire someone that costs them $20,000 to $50,000 a year in wages and benefits. That’s a good deal for the first month; depending on how they receive it. But after that if the work loads, or revenue generation, are not there to justify that person, it’s a strain on the company.

A tax break idea below that is really flawed, I believe makes the link from tax break-to-‘competitive advantage’-to- long term job creation/saving mechanism, in my opinion. Let’s assume that there is a job in another country where a worker will make $2000 less a year than he/she does in the US. Also let’s assume that if you can reduce that the US worker’s pay by that much, it is realistic that this job can stay or be created in the US. It’s a build on an even worse housing idea I had in an earlier post. Give a tax break to companies that do 2 things; 1) Give certain employees down payments for home purchases at a certain amount, and 2) that tax break for the company is conditioned on employees accepting a comparable reduction in wages after assumed normal annual raises are calculated. For the tax break is effective immediately for the company, the ‘down payment assistance benefit’ has to happen that same tax year and is treated as ‘before tax’ deductions from the individuals pay. It may close the competitive pay gap (somewhat in some cases) while offering the worker something in a benefit that can ‘soften’ the pay cut and in many cases improve them in the long-term. (WARNING; I AM NO PAYROLL EXPERT- THIS IS ROUGH BUT IT SHOULD SHOW THE LOGIC)

Tables with emails sent if anyone is interested, also I feel I must redeem myself for earlier mistakes.

Note: there are assumptions for health insurance premium increases comparable to the increases seen in the last decade (without good reforms) and including an annual pay increase of about 3%.

The Company can get a $10,000 tax break (can be higher or lower in comparison to the benefit the employee gets) for lowering a salary by $2,000/year permanently (for as long as they work there) and giving a $10,000 ( more or less) home purchase down payment assistance to that employee. The company’s reduction of pay stays in place as long as the employee works there, hopefully long after the ‘home down payment assistance’ is paid back in $2000 employee income reductions. The tax break gives the company more cash that tax year if assistance is given, and the wage reduction saves money. The employee gets a tax break to help ease the pain of the pay cut, because taxable income has come down for that person. Also, it can strengthen a workers commitment to that company; it is no longer just a place to get a pay check, it helps them get a home. The down payment assistance can help people get into better mortgages with better rates in many cases; which should lead to more disposable income and cash going into the economy in other areas. Below- example of percentage salary raises calculated from previous year’s income AFTER ‘home down payment assistance’ but before other pre-tax benefit reductions from gross income is made (instead of BEFORE all other reductions as above). Green boxes show year 3’s annual raise based on year 2’s post-reduction gross income (for lack of a better term).

Table with email copy that was sent to email address.

Note: The reduction should take place after ‘normal’ pay increases are calculated to; give the employee some form of raise for performance and keep 401k contributions from decreasing. Employee portion of health premiums are independent of the program and keep rising without good reforms.

Again I don’t think this is a workable idea, but I wanted to illustrate the link from tax break-to-‘competitive advantage’-to-long term job creation /saving mechanism that I feel should guide decisions on some job creation ideas based on tax breaks. Tax breaks just-for-the-sake-of tax breaks may not give a company, or an economy, a long term job that can compete in the international job market, on the basis of pay. I think this link should be the guiding logic. Yes, there may be other ways to increase trade and justify jobs through increased demand or supply of money from tax relief. But I like this guiding logic because it can help bring US wages closer in-line with international competitors; particularly for what is considered lower paying jobs in America that are the back bone of manufacturing and other industries. This non-workable idea shows how I think govt, businesses and employees can work together to make some American workers more competitive in an international market, while helping those American workers/consumers adjust to that pay cut, maybe with an improved financial position. It can help foreign based companies expand into America; which is something many would want to do. We have more spending power, per capita, than any single country close to our size. If our wages can compete, I think the tax break needs to be given to a plan that increases long term revenue growth or improves its margins in the long term, if possible. Maybe it can help in judging the merits of ideas that may come up

Also the other idea, giving average Americans the ability to invest the way ‘high net worth’ individuals do; has more to do with expanding normal people’s portfolio to include things we normally are not invited, or do not have capital, to invest in. I know that some limit it all to casino gambling, but I would argue that if you look closer at the best investors and hedge funds, they both invest in all kinds of things. A hedge fund can purchase metals from one country to sell to another, offer funding for reinsurance opportunities, one bought Chrysler, etc. High net worth people can become part owners in small business and real estate ventures as well as shorting stocks, and dealing with complex derivatives. I was thinking that if people can have access to those investments some how, it would expand portfolios beyond current public markets, and provide us with the type of investment diversification that only the ‘big boys’ really have. Again these are ‘guiding logics’ not ideas for specific policies. If I get some time I will try to demonstrate these theories with ideas that can be implemented. I don’t have the time and or research material right now; also they may not work…… (Smile). I’ll leave those ideas to those that have the time and resources to do it right…or until I do too. I don’t think diversification is dead just yet, It may be that it exists best with the ‘big boys’, and it may be nice if the average guy can invest in a small way like they do. An example of the logic here is deeper than the investment; and goes into liability questions, protections for those who don’t have ‘high net worth’ ability to protect their own interest, and ‘investee’ protections from new investors, etc. I only ask that you create the theory and idea with a close eye on; the effects on a business’ long term operational results and the longevity and strength of the jobs created here. The ideas for job creation are flawed, but the logic, I think, is sound and I believe links government tax incentive with ‘real economy’ job creation/savings, for the long term.

www.Bill-Waddell.com:The Hollow American Economy

Eric — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:17:02 EST

The Hollow American Economy

A Clarion Call For Leadership

By Bill Waddell ~ May, 2009

...converting the United States from an exporting, value and wealth creating nation, to one careening recklessly toward bankruptcy. The purpose is to dispel some of the rationalizations for this unhealthy transformation of our economy; and it is to put both data and common sense on the table so reasonable people can engage in the critical discussion of how best to get our economy back on track. ...

As the BLS said, “an increasing share of jobs was in high-paying jobs and required college training; but most jobs that were filled paid below-average wages and did not require a college education.” They are stating the obvious. There is a finite need for doctors, lawyers and professors....

Without people making things and creating value, there is no money for the financial sector to play with....

The number of jobs in true value creation activities is a much more accurate measure of the long term health of the country....

listen to what Main Street manufacturing is telling them... There is no manufacturing voice in our government at a time when we so desperately need one.
We need a full airing in America on this very critical matter. Champions must step forward to lead an effort to honestly explore how best to stop the continuing collapse of American manufacturing.Tell the globalization experts to stay at home. They have had their say. Instead ask people like Doc Hall from Indiana University who formed the Association for Manufacturing Excellence to explain the current state of manufacturing and how we got here. He is a walking encyclopedia of the last thirty years of successes and failures. Call in Brian Maskell to explain how government mandated accounting rules are eroding manufacturing, and how the privately held companies are doing accounting in a radically different way, and managing their companies much more effectively as a result. Have Jeffery Liker explain to you the real reasons for Toyota’s manufacturing tap dance over General Motors.
Very important questions must be asked and answered: If manufacturing cannot compete with American wage rates, energy and healthcare costs and taxes, how do Pella, Wahl, Toyota and Honda and many others do so well manufacturing in the USA?...
Our business heroes are the thousands of American men and women in who roll up their sleeves and compete toe to toe every day with the best in the world, and win – .... These people are committed to theircommunities and the people with whom they work. They – not the clever financiers – are our businessheroes; and they are the key to turning our economy around and getting us back on the track we were once on. But they cannot do so without the support of the country, and we are rapidly running out of time.
http://www.bill-waddell.com/images/CLARION_CALL_MASTER.pdf

Bruce Judson re a new service, The Cost Savings Guy

Eric — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:38:42 EST

Can The Free Market Save Small Businesses and Nonprofits? Bruce Judson

Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management; Author, "It Could Happen Here"

Posted: November 13, 2009 12:38 PM

...Earlier this week, we announced a new service, The Cost Savings Guy. For the past six months, I have been leading the development of this initiative, which I passionately believe has the potential to change the fortunes of the millions of small businesses and nonprofits that are struggling to stay afloat. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-judson/can-the-free-market-save_b_356998.html

William Dunkelberg:"They can borrow money. They have no customers, and that's the bummer."

Eric — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:27:03 EST

William Dunkelberg is a big name in small business
Philadelphia Inquirer
A week after his Couric interview, a frightening Dunkelberg chart on small-business job cuts appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. ...
www.philly.com/inquirer/hot_topics/20091111_William_Dunkelberg__the_voice_behind_the_numbers.html

Re: some changes to an idea for job creation or guiding logic (I think)

Northside — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:58:44 EST

I can’t schedule something in Nov. like I thought so I have some down time. I thought about the president’s press conference about job creation. Its tough. I think the biggest problem is not wages, but legitimate asset values here as oppose to the in these countries where jobs tend to go. I believe it’s the asset values of land, raw materials, etc that justify different wages in the US and abroad. If you lower wages here to compete internationally, a person could not make enough to live based on the cost of our assets and living in the states. In a market driven economy like ours, it is virtually impossible to make to lower the cost of assets. Much of why we have such high wages for some jobs is because of inflation over time, value added by improvements, innovation and transaction volume. If you try to make the US worker more valuable with technology (allowing each worker to produce more); than a company will apply that technology to a foreign work force to make them more valuable per person.

Since the president said he was serious about examining new models I will give this a shot. It has a lot of flaws that will make it difficult to work for all jobs, and difficult to rectify someone in this situation changing jobs or losing them. But I think the math can hold up if government allows for early tax breaks or grants, and participants are willing to commit long term.

Give some businesses the ability to purchase homes in some cases (based on higher income levels) or decent apartment-like housing in others at a decent price and maybe with a tax incentive or government help. The company then offers employees a lower wage as a benefit for the ability to live in a ‘company’ home or apartment-like environment for a much reduced rent, rent to own situation, or mortgage. If the price of the living arrangement, home is low enough and the reduction in wages is not too steep, it may be possible for an employer to offer lower wages than the normal market while the average worker in this program has enough disposable income to live on that lowered wage, or even come out better off. A two income family could make out very well.

To give some perspective, what if that $65 to $75/hour (with benefits) wage of American auto workers could be reduced much closer to foreign counterpart’s $45 roughly, but in exchange for that lower wage the American worker pay a mortgage/rent to their employer on a home the employer bought with tax breaks, government assistance with purchases etc. Instead of paying the bank or landlord for the mortgage/rent, you pay your employer in order to pay rent or buy off your house, in this program. If the employer gets to buy the house or rental property with enough incentives from state and local government, they may be able to make up the cost of the housing purchase with the savings in wages paid out. Assuming that benefits stay about the same per hour, the purchase of an average American home at about $200,000 can be made up in savings in wages in a short period of time, if wages can come down by about $10 to $15/hour. Especially if that company only pays about 50 cents or less on the dollar for the house upfront out of pocket when they first buy it to be mortgaged or rented to an employee. But remember that same person would not have the typical $1000 to $1200 mortgage payment. If the ‘employer’ rent or mortgage is considerable less, like $100 or $300 a month in this program only, the cut in pay may not be so bad. There needs to be a reduction in what the company has to pay out, but not at the risk of market price. So government aid steps in to help a business meet reasonable market prices. A program like this can not bring down the prices in a local market. Remember that the fixed payment in a mortgage for land in this idea, saves the company more overtime when wages rise. There may be situations where the employee could come out with far more in disposable income.

And there are a lot of flaws with the idea, but the principle I think is logical. That in order for some of our labor markets, particularly our physical labor and manufacturing, to compete with foreign countries, we will have to find ways to reduce the prices of assets and services people pay for that work those jobs. Housing seems possible to me if entry prices are low enough, and are financed over a long enough period of time. And that way has to work within a capitalist model of profit creation. Another step is to make what other countries want better and cheaper then whoever does it now. This is really hard since most marketing info can not really tell you what can be sold in many parts of the world from American in my opinion.

I know I don’t provide empirical support for a lot of my stuff, but I don’t have time. When I do I can put together a small spread sheet, but the calculations may not be that hard and others may have better research info than I do to check some numbers. After that the projection of saving should not be to hard to calculate. I will have to start studying for 2 of exams for early next year, since I can not take one this month. I’ll add more about this and some possible new ways for the middle class to be involved in investments usually reserved for the ‘high net worth’ club. I may get into some detail tonight if I get off work early or have some time, but by tomorrow I gotta get on the grind. Gibbs and Plouffe over the week. Hang in there Mr. President and bring home a good health care LAW.

Re: Banking and Aphfganistan thoughts

Northside — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:55:45 EDT

Banks see themselves as being ‘the financial system’. They will always see their preservation (as a whole) as more important than any one business or generation of businesses. One bank will probably see thousands of investors and business plans a year on average. They are the ‘money multiplier’ in some ways, and it ‘goes to their heads’ obviously. But we should not forget that there is a great deal of truth to their assumptions. Remember, please, that the relaxing of the mark-to-market rules only increased values on the books of a lot of companies with instruments that require it for measurement before recording. It gives banks time to wait out the large right downs and hits. Instruments tied to housing may still be tough to predict the values of, even if higher values are reported based on a model or assumptions of a better market. The foreclosures keep coming but what makes things worse are lower sales, and large inventories. The stabilized values on the books because of the relaxed mark-to-market rules will one day have to meet the low number of mortgages that receive cash. I hope there is something in place to protect banks, and us, from a point in time when the cash flows can not possibly justify the values based on a mark-to-model valuation. I might be wrong on these things and other things, but you may want to make sure that the accounting rule changes don’t force continuous write-downs in the future, even when financial regulation is enacted. These leads back to capital requirements, and why larger amounts of cash and equivalents in proportion to complex investments are needed.

Honestly, I was for the Iraq war in the beginning when I thought it would be managed well. I saw it as more Saddam’s fault for not giving full access of inspectors by Bush’s deadline. I’m not trying to defend the bush admin, but Hussein could have made a choice to avoid military action. Saddam never thought about his people and he played chicken with an overwhelming force. I also assumed that with Powell at State that a real plan for nation building would have existed and a new govt would be waiting when Hussein was removed. Estimates were right; we really did not lose too many soldiers fighting the Iraqi republican guard- many of them surrendered. I think we were basically about to storm the capital without losing one solider. But when it was just estimated I thought about the possible end result, even though I was suspicious about Chenney’s motives (Halliburton connections and all). I thought, what if a basically 100% Muslim, democratic and semi capitalist country could be created in Iraqi? What if, by example, the rest of the middle east that hates the west and America could see Muslim praying 5 times and day, women clothed in traditional garments, all being able to vote and have there day in court if they choose. You add in trade with the west where you can and an improved relationship with Israel; I thought that Iraq could change the whole region if the police action to get Hausain out and the democratic nation building was planned well. I knew it was a mistake when it took a few years, but it wasn’t until Powell did not return before I knew that it may have never been planned like I trusted to be. When a guy like that breaks rank, I think you have to really question the chain of command some what. If this admission and my desire to see more troops, but more importantly some positive results in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both make me a ‘neo-con’ or a ‘hawk’, then so be it. But if I am a hawk, I also know I can be wrong. I hope that more ‘dove’ ideas are considered and checked with military types to see if plausible. I think that in these ‘damned if you do or don’t’ situations, whatever you do is accepted better with the public if the president and military staff can agree or can both support compromises. But it is the president’s call, do what you think is best to keeps us safe, sir.

I like the attacks on fox. The left can’t go anywhere, the right only watches it and much of what is said will begin to scare or bother the center. Also, I’m personally tired of good ideas like end of life counseling, at a time of record numbers of senior citizens, having to be taken off of the table because of political attacks to kill a bill. Even worse, that idea can be credited to a republican. Too much politics, not enough level headed, real world conservative policy making and defending, from what it’s worth coming from me. I don’t see the white house attacking, just defending positions that show the other sides weaknesses. If the drama actually starts to drive policy I don’t think you have a choice. I say keep it in the form or responses to comments or questions. Anyway, please check the banking thing this year and next, it should tell us a lot about the link between the number of mortgages that are actually making payments and MBS values on the books. I might be overdoing it, but I hope that another bubble is not being created to fix the last one that burst. I honestly think the housing credit should be extended, and maybe use stimulus to cover the cost.

Nice family photos Mr President.

The Financial "Crises" is Not Over

My Vote Matters — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:55:16 EDT

I have been reading my weekend section of the FT this afternoon and came across two unrelated articles that struck a chord with me with respect to the financial markets. Some items that are notable, 1) Treasuries, since the credit crises, have been the only acceptable collateral in the repo market [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aed6f9c8-c035-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1] 2) There are still non financial companies out there that are writing off huge losses in derivative "investments" that are way out of proportion to the revenues they had as functioning companies, making me think more non-financial companies than I originally thought got hood-winked by Wall Street into derivative positions way out of line with the regular functioning of their business.[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95d34212-bfed-11de-aed2-00144feab49a.html]

So what does this mean?

Interest Rate Rise NOW!

My Vote Matters — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:47:28 EDT

I have been doing some thinking lately and analyzing the Fed's rate action since 2000 and have decided the biggest problem created by the Fed was not bring rates to historic lows after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The problem began when the jacked up rates in early 2000. Then after realizing they “goofed” dramatically reversed course in 2001 only to overshoot to the down side where they left rates to low for to long. When realizing this, the Fed followed with a draconian attempt to return the rates back to "normal" beginning in 2004, which wrecked havoc with the credit markets and economy.

Additions to last post

Northside — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:52:23 EDT

I did not mean to come down to hard on some of these topics. I hear that there is good and bad Taliban, but what does that mean? Is there actually good and bad Taliban, or is their strategy for one part to play nice while the other part wages war and supports other extremists; the good part allows them to buy time for the bad part to wreak havoc and try to distabilize our efforts and those of allies?

on banking and market regulation, it may be better that the focus on controling balance sheets and portfolio make ups more so than individual financial instruments. The reality is that you want risk and instruments that hedge or reduce risk of negative/or no return. it may be better to limit any one companies exposure to the amount of them it can carry at one time, or force a certain amount of cash or cash equivelents that have to be part of the balance sheet for a certain amount of complicated assets (derivatives, MBS', etc.). But even those capital requirements may need to be fluid (allow for some time to gain resources) in order to allow strategies to play out.That fluidity can allow risk to take place. If we can reasonable allow risk to investors and market players to exist without it having to endanger the entire market, we may be able to keep risk taking active to a degree that it aids in financing new industries (clean enegery), helps maintain jobs by allow expansion and investment, etc.

Even before the election, your campaign stood for something to alot of people around the world, Mr. President. Whether you want that attention or not, you are the only person in the world that could have made that Cairo speech, and lived a life that personifies some aspects of it. We Americans tend to not see beyond that next election, 5-yr plan, etc. But older countries can not avoid the fact that 'setting a tone for the future' is no small thing. Congradulations, Mr. President....you might just catch Truman one day..... but not yet (smile).

Nobel Peace For President Obama

Sanjaya Kannath — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:43:42 EDT

9th October 2009

President Obama has won Nobel Peace for 2009, for giving the world "hope for a better future", we give the President our best wishes and heartiest congratulations. President Barack Obama has been rated as the finest Statesman the world has seen, in the recent years by leading political analysts. His economic policies has seen, the US economy as well as the world economy cool down, from the free fall it has been witnessing. President Obama's climate change initiatives will be creating more job oppurtunity, than any industrial or green revolutions has created so far.

Lets also seek in earnest, pursual of Ethical Governance, i.e Ethics based policymaking and management that addreses performance issues, in business, government, politics, international relations, health care and beyond. The compromise in these, has seen financial woes in major institutions, nations being depraved and fleeced by corrupt practices. Lets seek active support and cooperation for Ethical Governance, locally and globally, to save the world from financial meltdowns, terrorism, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats and gross misuse of power and government machinaries, by despotic rulers, to make this world a better place to live in. (http://ethicalgov.co.cc)

Re: thoughts on foreign affairs, job creation, health care and stimulus

Northside — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:38:23 EDT

This isn’t the group for it but in all the talk about Afghanistan I think that the president and team should focus in on some basic realities about the war on terror. The families and soldiers who suffer are heart breaking. Nobody wants a longer Viet Nam. And even though it does not apply to me I will try to follow Sec Gates requests and not jump on one side too much…even though I have one. I feel for the fallen soldiers, I know many do not have a stomach for a long occupation of land and not strides made at beating terror. I also understand that the idea of 100,000 soldiers in a small country seems like conventional war strategy used in a war that is a non-conventional war/global police action against suicide gangs with multi-million dollar funding. I will not lean on which way you should go Mr. President. But I think that people on the right and left should remember that…..terrorists are insane (in the most important ways). Polls showing Americans are willing to stay in Afghanistan and possibly attack Iran to stop them from having nukes is a real sign that they see terrorist (and people who can support terrorists) as non logical, and extreme measures may be warranted in many people’s opinions. Remember who your enemy is, even before what it will take to stop them. They are well financed and highly intelligent people (at the top), but lack a moral compass that almost every religion or philosophy of man follows. That lack of a moral compass and the fact that there is no national headquarters makes not forgetting what the enemy is more important than the resources needed to defeat it, at least at first. I think the source of their strength is that their perception of things is opposite to the norm in some ways that it fosters a commitment we have not seen often in the civilian world. There is no treatment and no counseling for them, they can not be persuaded and they threaten civilians of most nations, without claiming a nation or headquarters as a home really, only the goal occupation is some cases. (Anarchists). Do we know that if we cut off the top people will new leaders emerge? Does the U.S. holding land that Al-queda does not need to blow up make sense? Is holding that land part of a plan to strike at headquarters and top people? Does 40000 more troops requires all to be on the front line; and if so, why, and if not, how will they accomplish non fighting objectives?

If your plan is positioned as clearly the best way to deal with that ‘insanity’ and what supports it, you can get a good decision and create a way to sell Americans on the fact that it’s good. They understand the ‘terrorist insane’ part. They will feel sympathy for fallen soldiers and a Viet nam repeat. But a fear of another mainland attack or some Clancy-movie drama will trump that sympathy most of the time. Americans are good people, but we do not all strive to be Gandhi. I know how this sounds and I don’t agree with it myself, but in reality a soldier in uniform dying in a far away land does not move Americans today the way a building blowing up in a downtown area does. Even though some may think that is heartless, they can not honestly argue the morality of it if the threat to American families is considered real.

Who in this war fits the profile of that ‘insane’ terrorist, and how can they get what they want because the terrorist are successful in maintaining the terror. I think that there is a fundamental difference between the behind-the-scenes guys who finances, find weapons, cover tracks of resources, etc; and the guys who live in mountains to fight ‘infidels’ and believe they will go to heaven by blowing up a public place with a bomb on their chest. The guys we’re fighting in the mountains in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the guys that keep this operation a float and organized on a military level, to me. Whatever you do Mr. President, link your decision to the clear bureaucratic structure, economic resources, organized military assaults; as well as to the kids that could run into a train station with a bomb. You may want to combine strengthening any weakness in homeland security with the 2 headed problems with Terror.’ We will keep you safe, so we can effectively take the fight to them’ kind of message. Whatever strategy, link it to that sir. I’m a novas, but that’s what I think. First remember what the enemy and how to beat that enemy first. I think if you lose that focus, and it becomes more about what might be lost, you may approach this new kind of war/police action the same way.

Also, people in the media don’t keep the Taliban in the same level of importance as Al-queda it seems. Al-queda is insane; the Taliban wants some form of world presence where they can find it. The ‘insanity’ works for them unless the targets change. The Taliban seem to want a different world order and every G20 nation should really like the current one we have….I’ve heard some people separate them, I think your long term strategy should not. I’m not talking about what you should do, I’m saying what you do needs to show Americans that you can protect us from the ‘insanity’ and take the fight to those that support it.

Iran is tricky because the whole region is dependent on by the world for energy, in my opinion. I think the top people in Iran get their ‘balls’ from that fact more than anything else. Military action means price spikes in oil, possibly to a point of deeper economic hardship. Again energy independence in no longer a ‘tree hugger’ issue, it’s about national security. 9 11 was an attack on our financial HQ’s as well as governmental and military, even if just symbolic. Europe’s history of not really getting physical may not mean much to them, particularly when everybody keeps buying oil from them and their neighbors. Russia and China need to get more vocal but they can’t because ….they keep buying oil and other things or selling to Iran and their neighbors. Try to economically isolate them as well. The speeches of the President, Sarkozi and Brown where good, but they know China and Russia need their oil; all three presidents’ countries need oil from the region. I am a speculating amateur, but I think that opinion is shared by many. You may have better negotiations by creating a strong position for the US and allies in the long-term with other world powers that are not as vocally opposed to sanctions or more.

Can you work with those other world economic powers to supply Russia and China some or much of what Iran gives them? I believe China is working toward energy independence anyway, in time (long term) hopefully they will not need oil like they do now. I know that there is proof otherwise, but I think Russia is far more ‘capitalist’ than hard-line, power hunger old KGB. Still tough and not a place to mess with, which is why you may not see a lot of terror attacks there (they may suffer with the good and bad of not following due process in all things). But I think they understand that ‘insanity’ and what it can do, even if they don’t think Iran is there yet-they know Iran can give support to that insanity. Russia and China too will need stable markets and economies in other countries in order to maintain stability in their own economies. But if we can get China and Russia to ‘not need’ resources from Iran as much as they do now, it may be easier for them to make that stance of sanctions and even possibly action if need be. They too are victims to price spikes do to military actions, decisions to stop oil productions as protest etc. (I don’t thinks it’s impossible). Its pie in the sky maybe, but if all or most of the remaining economic powers can work together to supply those 2 countries or more what they usually get from Iran, Iran may have to question the legitimacy of the thinking of their government. I think the money the world pays them and the ties they have with some parts of the world is what they use to justify what they believe about international relations and behavior in my opinion. Yes this is all pie in the sky, idealist thinking. But I have not heard of how our side can get everyone else on our side economically, and not just with security concerns. Some G20’s aiding other G20’s when the whole world is ‘feeling it’ does cross some lines; but what if it could be done and lead to almost total UN Security Council support. Add with the understanding that some of your biggest economic partners will not need your resources if you challenge the international community more.

Also, it could force the Iranian government to show their people and the world, what does all of this get your people? Really, what is the goal and how does it make Iranians safer, wealthier, etc. Can he prove that what he is doing is for the long-term benefit of his people? From what I’ve seen from the election there, they have a lot of good people. Many of them who wish only to believe in their religion, work, support families, etc. I saw that we have more in common with them then I once thought. Why does he stand up to much of the world; and the part that could help bring more prosperity to his people? My prayers go out to them.

Energy independence people not in the white house, use this to point out that a clean energy economy for the world is not just about polar bears anymore. Iran’s and Israel’s problem could lead to higher oil and gasoline prices, right when we are suppose to see some improvement in the economy on a GDP level. There is an argument to be made; even though it may not be taken well by all….it is the truth. Also, keep the oil speculators in check. The price may need to go up if supply is limited, but this is not the time for them to make up for past loses in my opinion. I’m for making profits, but this may not be the time to push for everything.

The ‘we need job creation’ people may do well on TV with that given the reality of the situation we are in. But can they translate tax cuts into increase spending by consumers who still may fear future economic problems? Proponents of the ‘supply curve only’ approach have not yet shown that supply side increases economic growth in a time like now, when the mind set of the consumer is ‘lets what and see for a while before we spend what we can actually afford’.

There is a logical argument that a one tax break or tax credit does not cover the business expense of a new job, unless there is new demand to sustain that job. If job creation talk and strategy steps away from that thinking, I don’t think it gets you to the kind of long-term job creation the President is thinking about. It is a nice idea that may work in normal downturns. But is this, even as GDP may start to grow, a normal downturn on the way up? It should be logical that if low unemployment was linked to easy credit, poor regulation, and over spending by consumers in Jan 2008; low unemployment will not come back quickly unless you institute things that do not work for long term economic stability. “Where are the jobs?” rhetoric makes sense on the surface, but if pressed the right way to give answers- virtually no one can walk the average American from tax break ALONE, to a job being created and sustained over time.

Job creation plans for me should start with a ‘tactic’ to get the right participation, but HAS TO BE linked to a foundation that supplies demand and healthy ‘wealth-effect’. A tax credit or tax cut can be a strong ‘tactic’ that justifies hiring in the short-run for a business to get the benefit of the credit or cut. But if it is not followed by plans to give that employer demand that justifies production needs over the long-term, in this downturn that job may not be needed in the long term. That first time buyer tax credit that’s about to expire is good, but when it ends we may find that it was propping up the housing market (along with foreclosure pricing). Remember that currently the right can only cheer the ‘tactic’, because the ‘foundation’ requires some govt evolvement they can not be for. You may be able to turn the argument on them with strong examples. Why would an employer take a one time $10000 tax credit to hire a $50000 a year employee for the next 5 years plus, unless there is work need because of sales to justify his salary from year 2 going forward (for certain industries). Something like that which is linked to policy.

I would also suggest that your team look at a more specific use for the remaining stimulus money. First strategically, you may get information that shows you what areas of the economy are there furthest from what the old ‘normal’. Maybe consumer lending is stabilizing but commercial lending is not, for example. I talked to a far-right republican who knows his stuff (even though I disagree with him often). Extension of unemployment may have to happen. Extension of the first time home buyer tax credit thing should maybe happen as well. New homes force people to purchase things and we may find that the credit along with foreclosure sales might be propping up the housing market. I talked to a real estate developer that is finding it impossible to get small loans anywhere. So I guess my point is, consider changing the focus of the remaining stimulus to more concrete things. Maybe some of it can go to covering the cost of the housing tax credit. Maybe some to secure that certain lending that could take place normally (strong credit, valuable collateral, but the industry is too shaky to risk lending to right now). We know that there are some signs of stability, so it should be easier to focus on weak areas. I really believe that in 2010, much of that stimulus will show up on Ads, and you want to separate the white house from it (mainly because you should, I think it had too much to do with dems being out of power for a while).

Also I must stress that the ‘foundation’ should lead to an eventual exit strategy for government plans. Markets and industries can not rely on government support to make profit; it goes against the nature of ‘the money multiplier’ in my opinion. After looking at things and doing some research that I can, it appears that we want government to support some things until the consumer can get working and start spending more, but in a healthy way. But we don’t want business welfare. I’m not a fan of welfare, but at least if given to citizens most goes into the normal economy. Business welfare programs-consistent money into industries from government spending and specific tax credits- can lead to a recycling of the same dollars, instead of creation of new dollars.

You’re not trying to create temp jobs, Mr. President. That’s why education is a priority, because the new jobs require strong education. That’s also why we have to get health care cost down, so that people can spend more on things that add value to the American experience. Rising health care only means you pay more to stay alive and/or healthy, but not to improve, expand or enjoy your life. You’re the first president in the 24hours news cycle that includes blogs, emails, and internet. You may have to push back on things that have traction. But even the ‘push back’ needs to lead back to that clear message that almost anyone can understand. The right has the luxury of simplicity, less government more freedom…. Easy to understand. You have complex problems and solutions, not your fault. But I believe all of it can be brought back to a philosophy and message of E=MCsqaured for health care, energy, the economy.

Energy independence is still the best ‘foundation’ in my opinion, because it does not exist and has not be made so efficient overtime that it can afford to not take on new employees in bad times (as an industry). Its road map may be unclear right now, especially in distribution of energy. Cap and trade makes sense from an environment standpoint; but as a normal American, I can not see how I can use it to lower my energy cost. There should be enough information from R&D and engineering in these companies to give Americans a picture of this new clean energy economy. What kind of cars? What will the filling stations be like? Will you need filling stations, and if you don’t what will homes have to be like to refuel these vehicles? Can Bobcats or large factories run on clean energy, and can someone show us these machines or prototypes? You don’t have to give names of companies, but they should be able to show us what there are ‘going for’ in terms of prototypes and was to distribute this energy. In my opinion, a lot of ease will come if people can see that this new economy is not science fiction, but around the corner like next year’s model of car.

In the future you may want to consider making part-time work more accessible to benefits like savings, 401k plans, college savings plans. Better tax breaks for companies that pay for college. Also maybe seeing if businesses can get more access to paychecks for layaway plans, loan and mortgage payments, etc. The fact that a payment comes from a paycheck could justify someone as a better credit risk. That could mean millions of purchases and services that did not exist before, coming to people that would normal not get them on part-time salaries. Also the future may force less than 40hrs-a -week jobs to be more of a norm in America. You may want to brace us for that or not, but it is possible. But access to some benefits like these could help lessen the pain of making less. Also it may make people value those jobs more than people tend to now. Again, this may not be the time to talk about it in those terms. Maybe state it as ‘in tough times, when people are working less- the admin wants to add more security to you temporary situation as well. That’s why we are instituting modified 401k’s, college saving plans, credit union and bank accounts through part time jobs’. It may be the norm and a needed way to get into the careers of the future, but the politics of saying it wrong can look like your punting to most people.

And the CBO gave you something to work with I think. Can it be arranged with a public option or well constructed co-ops (I think multi-state, regional ones)? Price from GA sounded like he had some good ideas, but there is a certain number you’re going to need in premium payers to make a public option, co-op, or anything else cover the # of people you want to cover and maintain any kind of budget expectations in the long-term. But remind the left that even if you can not plant your flag of liberal principles upon it, a win is win. And a foundation that gives coverage to millions more with much of what you want is still better than what we have now. Lead them as well Mr. President, they will need you in 2010, more than you will need them in 2012.

Choose your direction on these things and bring all 3 issues back to job creation and job stability-jobs that do not become obsolete or move away so quickly. Why focus on health care now with 9.8% unemployment?-we want the job you will get to remain available for you 10 years after you get it, lowering health care cost helps insure that also part of the current unemployment problem and a larger part of any future unemployment problems will come back to the fact that American businesses can not afford to pay these premium prices. Dealing with health care now is a cheaper way of deal with those premiums and allowing American businesses to keep hiring now and in the future’… something like that but better…(smile).

I will have to focus for a while (no I’m serious this time) and get some personal stuff done. Yes, a check for taxes in on the way. Give them hell, Mr. President. Glad to see Plouffe back again. No one has had to deal with all of this in this modern world, keep your head about you Sir. The republicans are starting to separate the crazies from the right, that’s the sign that they have a message and plan for 2010. You and your team will need to lead the agenda more than guiding the eventual positive process. You may be doing it, but it may not come across that way. Keep up the good work Sir. Give him hell….even Truman could not do it any better in these times and circumstances…But Truman is still my favorite (smile).

President Obama leading the Way

Sanjaya Kannath — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:15:35 EDT

President Obama's path breaking climate change initiatives will create more jobs than any major Industrial or Green revolutions ever has, so far globally.

Just climate change initiatives could create 10 million new jobs by 2020 - worldwide. http://bit.ly/ecojobs
Renewable Energy shift could increase employment in the EU by 2.7 million jobs by 2030.
Creating renewable electricity generation markets & prioritizing low-carbon sectors in China could create 30 million additional jobs by 2020.
Going full-throttle on wind energy development in India could create 243,000+ jobs by 2020.
In Nigeria, 273,500 extra jobs could be created from the development of small scale hydro and gas technologies.

One of the most important factors in the global fight against climate change will be governmental policies favouring climate change. Only active government policy will trigger the wholesale expansion of clean energy? Energy industries is going to be key driver of low carbon and its related employment opportunities. This is a global and a local matter, and action on both levels will create greater benefits for all. Lets seek active support and cooperation to President Obama's Climate Change Initiatives locally and globally.

http://ethicalgov.co.cc

AIG and Attitude

My Vote Matters — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:14:38 EDT

I came across this comment from "White House Economist" off the Dow Jones Newswire today referring to an article in the http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/24/goolsbee_chides_aig_ceo_to_min.html?wprss=44 Washington Post.

I find it objectionable that AIG has a new CEO with anywhere near the attitude he has. I don't care if the guy thinks Washington is clueless about business or esp. running his business. On this front he is more than likely correct. It is very unfortunate we (the American Taxpayer) own 80% of the blasted company. I would prefer we own 0% I don't give a darn if AIG would have imploded. Personally I think it did not implode because of the number of "well connected" wealthy bank running CEO's and "investors" that would have lost a fortune if it did called their "friends" running the Treasury and said, "Bail out AIG or we will loose a fortune". So the American Taxpayer paid to make sure that Goldman Sachs can pay it's employees $700,000 in bonuses each this year.

Besides the fact this is the biggest financial crime ever perpetrated against the American people, mind you done without any approval from our impotent legislators, the guys running the show at AIG should have better taste than say such things in public about the "crazies" in Washington. I mean how many people in the entire Government are qualified to run a sprawling 100 + country "insurance" operation, let alone all the other far flung divisions they own? There are not many people in the world that understand AIG enough to "run" it.

Obviously Hank Greenberg was running an operation with "Enron" financing. It has been reported he was moving money around to skirt the US regulators (Partly allowed because of the arcane and completely outdated insurance regulation in the US which is still state by state and completely out of touch with the fact that the industry is national and international in scope) and pad his accounts to hide the billions of dollars in risk and losses he began to accumulate when they kicked him out over one false reinsurance deal for which was caught.

Hank still gets "answers" when he make calls to Washington and as far as I can tell he is a one man lobbying effort right now to "save" his old company. He has said himself "all of his wealth" is tied up in AIG shares (though he sole enough to pay some bills) and he obviously thinks he can influence "Washington" to loosen up credit terms and allow AIG five years or so to "unwind" loosing positions and rescue the company's balance sheet.

It is not going to happen. AIG should be "gone" as we know it and unfortunately, not unlike the "bad banks" the Chinese created after bailing out their banking industry about a decade ago, the American Taxpayers will NEVER see the $160 billion sunk into the company. This is reality. But the bankers, hedge funds and other "investors" that benefited from the taxpayer bailout "got theirs" and they are living large off what is left of the crumbled institution's lousy contracts.

Shame. Mr. Robert Benmosche should be fired. AIG wound down, sooner rather than later.

A co-op idea can have a govt public option 'trigger'

Northside — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:22:31 EDT

If you have not noticed, I have a natural arrogance that has been tamed by consequences of my mistakes in life. I look back on things I’ve done or said wrong and things I’ve been accused of doing or saying wrong. Even though a lot of accusations are false, and the ones that are true take place in an environments of similar actions and I feel, still today, that I was a victim of not fitting in (maybe because of them, but more likely because of me). For me the biggest mistakes I made were not being willing to seek resolution and humble myself right away, even the times I thought I was correct; in the name of the best working environment for me and others. In one instance, I waited to make my apology for what my actual part in the problem was only after speaking to an outside advisor which angered those I worked with and created a difficult environment….. The lessons we learn sometimes and the reasons why…. I can’t speak for his actions and where they came from, and his mistake happened in front many unbiased witnesses. But I can honestly respect him cooling down and apologizing right after. There were times I could have not ‘dug my heels in’, and done that. Some may need to accept that not all things have deep meanings of psychological warfare, or represent underlying rage. And for those who feel there is a legitimate concern about what you think his outburst represents in some parts of our country, I say the best way to right that wrong is to follow the President’s lead, move on, and help him pass a strong health reform bill. Personal attacks, whether accurate or not, don’t fix the major problems we face.

In all this talk about the ‘trigger’ public option, I believe that large co-ops, public options can have a ‘trigger’ effect for a government run public option to take it over if certain conditions are met. If the federal government is putting up the money to create co-ops; they could have claims to ownership in case of insolvency or where the amount government aid needed for it to stay on budget is too great. Also the large co-op idea may push more admin costs onto business in the form of HR department’s doing some of the claim processing. If government forces more work it appears to be government over-reaching and creating more cost to businesses. If fellow members in co-ops work together to reduces costs, it appears to be more like businesses adding efficiency to a service they all benefit from, and pay into. Simply put, to allow co-op members the ability to find ways to save the co-op money through some ‘elbow grease’ and sacrifice will look better than government saying companies need to do more work to make a government-run public option less expensive to run. I don’t have all the information needed, or time to do it, but I know that some decent pro-formas and projections can be made on the cost of creating large co-ops vs. the public option; and the cost of co-ops ‘in the red’ being taken over by a public option. The ‘trigger’ of the government-run public option would force co-op members (mostly incorporated ones) to actively work to keep cost down and apply ‘elbow grease’ where they can, in order to avoid the government-run option that comes if the ‘trigger’ is pulled.

I believe the large co-op plan with a government-run, public option ‘trigger’ may allow you two positives. 1) As I tried to show earlier, if the public option ‘trigger’ is attached, it will force a more efficient creation, and on-going management, of large co-ops because of the fear of the government-run alternative; which would be a stronger motivator than creating co-ops, or reforms, by themselves. 2) A public option that comes into affect behind established large co-ops, have a strong possibility of costing less than just creating the public option from scratch. If the large co-ops reach through out the entire country, more people are added to private insurance and the co-ops are still insolvent by whatever standards; the public option comes in. And when it does, it will literally come to oversee, or put new people into, the top of an established health insurance provider. One that needs improvements can cost less to manage than the creation of a new insurance provider from scratch, because you use the same structure in place to do what any other health insurance provider does. The upside is that the co-ops provide the same coverage of a public option at premium prices much cheaper than private and closer to what a public option would be able to charge for the same amount of benefits. It is basically impossible for a for-profit going-concern to compete with a non-profit going-concern (public option or co-op), based on pricing alone. The assumption will be that they will compete on service, which is not unreasonable give the number of newly insured we could be talking about.

The down side of having a public option ‘trigger’ is lessened by the fact that the public option will simply take over and possibly fix an existing non-profit health insurer with resources and people in place already providing that service. If the large co-ops have to become one large government-run public option, the law of big numbers in insurance will be in its favor in terms of premium pricing related to the amount of benefit offerings. Also the administration of the large regional co-ops should be, at the ‘trigger pulling’ moment, already administering most of the nations health policy holders not on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, federal reservation or plans. There should not be too much more to do to expand services and administering them; only cost to make the ‘triggered’ coverage better and more efficient than what it would replace.

Again I think these thoughts have some merit, but please check the logic of it. Again, if anybody sees this that advises the top guys, I would recommend an old professor of mine Dr. George Manners in Kennesaw State University. His mix of actuarial and managerial accounting may be better suited for this than many experts in just one area. Also, he can demonstrate the complexities of both areas to people that have not seen it before, or do not look at it often. This topic has a lot to do with both those two areas of study.

When I said that this is not Viet Nam or civil rights, I meant in the sense that who is right and who is wrong is not really clear. I see why you have to go after health insurers and the correct reasoning behind it; but make sure all outside the administration go for all the things the President touched on. Yes health insurers need regulation, but the cost problem requires lots of things being applied at once. And if anyone higher up gets this remind the experts you hear from to take it to the transaction level. I had a finance professor once say, in a different way, that ‘the theory has to come down to the transaction on the exchange floor, in order to see if it’s a good theory or exchange floor’. In auditing of financial statements a walk-through is used sometimes, to follow the events in a transaction from start to finish. Do not just use the actuarial numbers, but also the logistics of the day-to-day running of the health insurance provider you propose. The efficiencies in providing health care is primarily agreed on from what I’ve seen out there.

Appology about an earlier messages' timing

Northside — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:41:34 EDT

I really liked the story from the Labor Day speech the President gave. so the 'fired up' comments posted a little earlier where in regard to the health care push I heard may start soon. I should have thought about the timing of a comment like that on a day like today (I wrote it late and was not thinking). I did not mean any disprespect to anyone making the comments health care on the 9/11 anniversary.I realized that it sounded given when it was posted. I am really sorry to anyone that actual read that and who was insulted by that. To those who are remembering loved ones, god bless and to all who took offense I'm really sorry. It wasn't intentional, 9/11 was not on my mind then...and it should have been.

OFA ===> Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:30:18 EDT

The President's Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress: "Stability and security for all Americans"

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Washington, DC
Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.   Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.   More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

A Brilliant Strategy (The Party of NO )

Lois — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:00:56 EDT

The GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant strategy. The strategy of NO.

The strategy of No coupled with distortions, misrepresentations, shock and awe has diverted attention from the real issues and has enabled the GOP to dilute and block any legislation that would benefit Americans.

By simply saying NO without any explanation or offering a counter plan, the Democratic must guess at what is need to gain bipartisan (Republican) support. So begins the game of what if....

If I remove this, if I change that, If I add this will you provide support. The if continues until a Maybe is said.

The loser in all of this is the American Public. The public is strapped with a bill that does not benefit them or address their needs. The winner is this are the lobbyist and special interest groups who provided the necessary funding (bribes) to ensure that their interest was represented. Neither party represents the people...the Republicans via the strategy of NO and the Democratic who have failed to take a position. This scenario is similar to that of an abused child who loves the abusive parent unconditionally and will do anything to please the abuser. The democratic party (or the party of wimps) by caving in to and making concessions to the GOP responses are similar to that of the abused child. The abuse does not stop if the child does everything they think will please the abuser. The GOP position does not change even if they are given everything that one thinks they want.

BRILLANT....AN BRILLANT AND EFFECTIVE STRATEGY....A disaster for the Public.

A co-op idea and short explanation...public option is better I think.

Northside — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:02:14 EDT

I read some articles on co-ops and here are some ideas I have, for what its worth. Any policy whether it is a public option or not, would have to have ‘actuarial value’ in order to be effective at lowering some of the cost of health care. I got the term ‘actuarial value’ from an article talking about what Sen. Snowe wanted to see in a bill. That term means to me (in my mind) enough policy holders that pay premiums in order to hopefully cover as much of the cost of administering and paying benefits as possible. Therefore ‘actuarial value’ is getting the most amounts of premium paying policy holders so you can justify the cost of the most or best benefits you can get.

construct ideas for the regional co-op

Okay, how do you get the most ‘actuarial value’ out of co-ops? I think the best way is to add as many people to a co-op policy as possible. The Wyden plan wanted states to determine a lot, maybe too much, of the premium pricing and administration individually. I think if you make them multi-state co-ops while making some allowances on state requirements for health insurance; you can get working co-op policies that are big enough to offer lower prices to the health insurance market.

First, make every business or organization that is incorporated (for profit and non-for-profit) in each state eligible for membership to the regional co-op; and people who are residents in a state who ‘go-it-alone’ eligible for a citizen membership. If they sign-up for at least one policy, the business or person is a member of the co-op. All premiums go into the same pool. (I’m not sure about fees yet, but let’s just deal with the construct for now). After that, examine information from each state’s individual law on health insurance benefit requirements to determine which state has the highest, or costliest, benefit requirements for health insurers to meet. For example, I understand that New Jersey (NJ) has some tough requirements on the kinds of benefits health insurers must offer on policies sold in that state. So you group NJ with 5 or 10 states in the region (east coast) and base the co-op requirements for minimum coverage required on NJ’s requirements; or on requirements that at least meet those of the other states in that region (this may not be that clear of a comparison, but some adjusting can be done to the co-op and what states will allow). For example, if NJ requires $30 co-pays while surrounding states offer $50 co-pays, use NJ standards for $30 co-pays as a standard on all co-op policies in the region(or for certain memberships).

The type of benefits offered may be tough to provide at a reasonable price to all states in the region, individually (based on population and other factors). But we are talking maybe 10 states worth of new premium payers from a pool of maybe millions not covered or that choose the co-op for whatever reason, all under one policy. That is potentially 2 million policy holders or more for one, 5 to 10 state, region (based on my intuitive estimates, but I doubt I’m too far off some very well researched estimates). That many people on one policy can justify, in premium money received, a large variation of demographics for policy holders that would normally get larger valuation pricing (education, income, type of work performed, medical history, etc and all the things that determine what one company is charged versus another).

The only difference between the citizen and incorporated memberships is that the incorporated have the traditional co-op ownership rights and responsibilities directly, like in other kinds of co-ops, when they have at least one employee on it. Citizens members (who do not have co-op coverage through an employer) would not have that same rights (if they did it would be logistical nightmare) but their complaints can be heard, assuming premiums are paid (somehow, maybe subsidies early on), as one voice when grievances relate to something that can affects a large # number of members or is an injustice. I would think it would be easier for the administrators for each regional co-op to be selected by the top insurance officers from all the states in the region (they can vote, or whatever).

If you would use the Medicare provider network for the public plan, why not use it for the regional co-ops? There may be less people signing up for a co-op plan anyway, so it could be more manageable to treat them while the structural changes are being implemented or coordinated. I think you want to have government insuring medical provider fees for treatments covered by the co-op plans; either early in creation of the co-op or permanently. If you do not have pre-existing condition restrictions, most likely the co-ops will be in the ‘red’ early on which could worry medical providers if they think it could affect them receiving payment from the co-op plan on covered treatments. Government insuring those payments would lessen that worry I think, but it may be a tough sell.

So the co-ops may be like a GSE (Fannie or Freddie) for health insurance, but without toxic assets. Bad policies no longer have benefit requirements (liabilities) tied to them. Bad assets (toxic assets) no longer have (or can not predict) cash flows coming in that justify higher values of that asset on a balance sheet. So before they say it, co-ops would not be just like Fannie and Freddie. If the co-op gets anywhere in congress, don’t take any crap on that one.

Although, they will need more than start up cost in the early years. The co-op may need to get special concessions from states on reserve requirements. But realistically, without pre-existing condition limitations you will need tens of billions, but more likely hundreds of billions, in reserves for all co-ops to cover benefits of all the people that will need covered treatments, at least in the first few years or more. I’m thinking reserves in cash or cash equivalent at all times in case new policy holder treatments out value your budget.

Businesses with about 500 or fewer employees (maybe 1000) may be able to do much of the claim processing in-house with their own HR depending on the business and the employees. You would get complaints about it, but for the average claim, the employee calls HR, files a claim and that claim is recorded and given to the regional co-op. The insurance card should cover non-business hour emergencies. Many HR departments in companies that size, play a big hand in medical leaves, sick pay, anyway. A large company like Wal-Mart, that has stores (branches, offices, etc) in different states, will file claims with the co-op in the state that store (branch etc) is located. The number of medical claims generated by a large company should determine if claim processing is done in house or by each co-op’s claim processing department (companies with thousands of employees and/or high medical claim filing rates). But that part can vary, I would recommend that with the co-ops, small and medium sizes businesses have their HR’s handle claims to the co-ops (if there are no pre-existing condition requirements, than the claim process and approval should be much easier and less labor intensive).

The health insurance/health care transaction in a regional co-op

If you get it through the company, you will probably get more benefits (bells and whistles) and an HR department that ‘has your back’. If you get it on your own through an exchange, you may not get benefits as good, but the number of policy holders should allow you to get good coverage anyway. Also businesses can pay a little more for coverage than citizen members that get coverage. You get your co-op coverage and find out how to pay, where to pay, or when premiums come out of your check. You want a check-up for your child; you make an appointment and take your insurance card to a network doctor/provider with your co-pay. The doctor bills the co-op, and receives payment for services covered just like he or she would under a private plan. If you get hit by a car and that same child has to stay in intensive care for a week, it would work the same way as it would with private insurance. Show them the card to prove coverage, the co-op is billed and the person would be responsible for their percentage of costs incurred (whether it’s 20%, 10% or Zero). Your premiums come out of your check, maybe direct withdraw out of checking accounts, or walk up and mail-in payments.

To recap the structure of the regional co-op idea

- Make every business that is incorporated (for profit or non for profit) in each state a member of the regional co-op.

- People who are residents in a state who go-it-alone have a citizen or individual membership.

- Examine information from each state’s individual law on health insurance benefits requirements to determine which state has the highest, or costliest, benefit requirements for health insurers to meet in order to sell in that state.

1. That state’s requirements, or close variations, are used as the minimum benefits offered on that regional co-op’s plan. (Again you may need allowances from the states, or make them accept these co-ops as federal GSE’s. Assumption here is more benefit requirements, the more expensive for insurance companies to provide coverage there).

- The incorporated membership has the traditional co-op ownership rights and responsibilities directly, like in other kinds of co-ops, when they have at least one employee on it.

- Individual or citizen memberships would not have the same rights, but the citizen complaints can be heard, assuming premiums are paid (somehow possibly subsidies at first), as one voice when grievances relate to something that can affects a large # number of people or is an injustice.

- The administrators for each regional co-op to be selected by top insurance officers in each state or by all incorporated members (they can vote, or whatever).

- Medicare provider network would be used for the public plan, why not use it for the regional co-ops?

- Government insuring medical provider fees for treatments that are covered by the co-op plans; early in creation of the co-op or permanently.

- Businesses with about 500 or less employees (maybe 1000 or less) may be able to do much of the claim processing in-house with their own HR (technology can simplify that a lot).

- The number of medical claims generated by a company should determine if claim processing is done in house or by each co-op’s claim processing department (companies with many employees and/or high medical claim filing rates).

If my structure holds up in simulation, these multi-state regional co-ops can produce what I think are the essentials of a public option to lower costs of premiums. For example, a co-op policy with anywhere from 1 or 2 million people on it from the western plain states, to 2 to 5 million or more people on it for regions like the west and east coasts, or the mid west (big 10 conference area). That many people paying premiums may be able to justify longevity of some decent policy benefits. If there are no pre-existing condition limitations, people can go to their local co-op office to apply for coverage, maybe online (with state residency verifiable) or simply choose it with their employer when it’s listed with private options (every company and non-profit should be eligible, anyone with a least one employee enrolled has membership benefits). Because of the number of people in one regional co-op, and there’s no profit motive or sales commissions; the price should not only compete with private insurance but be low enough for people that can not come close to paying that average private premium rate (whether you are a business or a person who can not handle COBRA-like premiums). Also there will be people that are in between jobs that will have citizen memberships until they get new employment. These are benefits that are likely not to have claims against them because those people are not on the policies long enough. That can help cover cost for co-ops and a public option.

The 30 second explanation

I write these things for people in this group who get it and are well versed in this stuff and many other things (its mostly for the ‘meeting with the opposition’ a sales pitch for those that fully understand what’s being sold, not the evening news). I was reminded that the real world needs that shorter, easier-to-understand description. I would explain the co-op like this: what is a co-op for health insurance? ‘It is a non-for-profit organization made up of businesses and US citizens. A ‘union’ of businesses and citizens that pay premiums into a pool of money, and that pool of money pays to administer the policy and pay for covered treatments like pregnancies, certain injuries or many long lasting illnesses.” What is a regional or multi-state co-op? ‘It’s a pool of businesses and citizens from your state that pools its premiums together with businesses and citizens of other states. Together they create an insurance policy for everybody that ‘chips-in there share’. The pool of money from these regions of states, pays to administer the day-to-day of keeping the policy working internally and for the covered treatments of any member in any state that pays premiums to the pool.’

I still say that the public option is the better plan, that might have less managerial bureaucracy and could have 20 to 30 million people on one policy instead; giving that one policy a stronger ‘actuarial value’ than any one co-op can. But I don’t think it will sit well with anyone if we do not make serious strides to improve health care distribution, because a public option bill does not get out of congress in this environment. And given that the tax payer will be on the hook for co-ops going into the ‘red’ anyway, you might as well get the ‘actuarial value’ the public option gives you with its large numbers. And maybe some people are willing to risk their re-election for the better plan for their country, I applaud them. But the static given is not just them being sensitive about losing their seats. It’s a reflection of where the people are in their part of the world. And this reform will take a long time and will not come without some logistical problems and political drama probably. And I’ve heard from TV people I trust that reconciliation is not that likely in the Senate, but I think the White House knows this already. With the White House and the majority in Congress all in the Democratic Party, it’s still a toss up by many estimates.

I think some of these ideas have merit. I did some work on them in school for a project to see if business owners could reduce the cost of benefits to help increase retention and productivity. A lot of the thinking for that idea worked here. Also there is a congressman I heard on Hardball once, Cooper (I think) from TN. I think that he understands what I am ‘going after’ and believes that, in general, the co-op can be designed to have the essential elements of the public option, in regard to health care reform. I would say quietly check with him. Again, I say go after what you think you can get, and hold fast to what you feel you must. But if you can get some heavy-weights to strengthen the co-op idea so it takes on the essential elements of a public option that will help cause reform; I think you will have a strong plan B in place. If the public option or the ‘trigger’ will not work, the co-op can get it done well enough to be a major factor in comprehensive reform, while still not having left that after taste of ‘government-run health care’ in the minds of many people in this country (I'm really not sure why). The other stuff which is actually a larger part of fixing the cost ‘driver’ problem in the current health system. Coverage or lack of coverage, is only part of the problem really. After this post I will be busy on other stuff (I kinda have a life outside of this site....smile). Good Luck, Mr. President and staff. Give them hell tomorrow.

Some thoughts on stuff

Northside — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:57:41 EDT

....I think I've had some security problems lately. thoughts over the last week and a half.

I understand why the CEO pay-scales, and much of the compensation issue in general, upset many people. But I don’t think that it’s an argument that will get anywhere with the people that are not already sold on major health care reform. If those CEO’s all made what the top pay grade government officials made, there would still be a growing cost problem inherent in the construct of the system and the people (patients, insured and uninsured) that drive up the cost. The ‘right’ and the ‘left’ have drained a lot of the logic out of this issue and both have not allowed for real discussions and compromise on it. The New York Times wrote about conservatives saying that they can not get good ideas into the debate. But their arguments come from the strategy of capitalism is good for all aspects of health care and they find theories and supporting research that support that logic; even if the basis of their studies assumes all participants in health care are good consumers and providers of services that can work for individual and systemic well being. Some of these conservative ideas that are based on the free market don’t deal with the health system inter-workings the way the Obama administration has laid out before. Contracting out Medicare’s administrative functions doesn’t guarantee, or really lead to, a reform of cost savings in treatment and administration by itself. It only makes the treatment and administration process slightly cheaper in the short run by making a ‘bad process’ cost a little less. This and the voucher-system I’ve heard mentioned by some on the ‘right’ both do not fix the problem and don’t deal with the 2 part cost/price dilemma. One part is the cost of operating this multi-industry ‘thing’ that finances, and provides us with, health care. The other part is not just reducing or stabilizing the price of coverage for people and businesses, but also finding a way to offer good coverage that is significantly lower than what the market tends to charge; so that people who either do not get coverage and can not afford it now, can get coverage. The ‘right’s’ plans will attempt to keep the inflation problem in health care in check-I’m not so sure their plans will. But they don’t deal with the fact that there are millions of people and many businesses that need a premium price that is considerably less than the norms in the marketplace, right now.

The ‘left’ is not convincing people why a public option is the only way to achieve real reform, and I’m for a public option. Health insurance executive salaries do not explain the dramatic rise in health care cost over the last decade or two. The ‘left’ sees the public option as a compromise from universal health care, when that was never really realistic for this country right now. Also, they can tell you why they are for the public option, but they can not demonstrate why large, non-for-profit co-ops will not meet many of the goals they are setting out to achieve. This makes people like me suspicious of why they can not or will not tell us why. No one that is a supporter of the public option on TV can give any good reasons to be against co-ops and that leads people to think they do not understand co-ops or how they can be constructed to achieve much of what the public option can. And I believe that’s why the ‘middle’ is losing patience with everyone, even the President (even though I don’t see this as his fault, really). If you play by the rules and try to stay healthy you may not be concerned that many people have no insurance or poor insurance. This is not civil rights or Vietnam. And if you think drastic changes will affect your treatment, as someone that plays by the rules in life for the most part, you will be worried about taking on so much change in health care. The president has done a good job on some grounds dealing with the issue, I think that conservatives that study this topic and the entire ‘left’ needs to consider looking at things objectively.

What is needed seems to be 1) more efficient and cost effective treatment and administration in health-care that can deal with millions more newly insured people. 2) An ability to price premiums in a way that, those without coverage and companies who may not be able to, can afford decent coverage in the near future (or as close to now as possible). The title and the method that some prefer to use to achieve these goals should be put aside for a while. The party platform on either side doesn’t get to the correct legislation and/or does not convince in the public that is undecided.

The ‘well intentioned right’ needs to deal with the fact that the general price levels of premiums will not go down enough, in a short-enough time period, to meet the needs of the growing uninsured through competition alone. You can open up interstate sales or contract out certain functions of Medicare to private industry but neither deal with the previous statement. If a company in a different state charges 5% less in premium prices to attract new business, that’s great; unless the population that needs coverage needs a 30 to 40% reduction on the lowest prices in the market to be able to afford it. The reality of waiting for efficiency to spread through out all the interdependent and competing industries that make up American health care could take a decade or more, if it happens at all. There is little incentive for the individual companies/practices to stop certain practices in health care because 1) the competition is not directly medical provider against medical provider for better service at lowest cost and 2) people in the actual medical treatment world are not cut-throat capitalists who will search for the best way to compete on cost and pricing, with competition they don’t think they have. Insurance companies have to pay what they agreed to cover, and costs of things they will cover are still growing at 2 fast a rate. Something (with help from all the players in health care) has to interject itself into daily processes and point out what works best for the system as a whole and the economy, in order to stabilize costs and premium pricing. It’s bigger than reducing the costs of the billing department of Medicare and private insurers, it about dealing with the growing part of our economy that is spent, not to improve the American experience; but spent to keep us alive and functioning on a basic level. One large insurance policy, like a public option, is better for long term premium price stability and can begin pricing low enough to meet the needs of the uninsured because the law of big numbers in insurance work in its favor (better prices tend to come from more participants in a plan). Either the right can honestly, with objective information refute that argument in a way that makes sense to most of us, or you can not. Trying to avoid it based on the idea that the ‘free market’ is always best will not hold up if costs keep going up, after money keeps going into fixing the problem. And if people can ‘choose’ to purchase a public option or not, the market is still free; unless the ‘right’ is now admitting that the government will deliver equal health insurance service for lower prices or that free market pricing is only driven on the lowest prices for services and goods (tell that to luxury product makers and service providers and high-end banking and money managers-who all justify their prices on quality and reputation). Also, the ‘right’ can not honestly say that health care can be based around the capitalist model the same way a normal commodity can; maybe in 1909 but not today.

Again it’s no longer you paying your local doctor to put a cast on or give you medication. If you can prove it in a way that can be demonstrated or work toward a compromise that achieves most of what real reform requires. We need cures for this system; not temporary, one department cost ‘band aids’.

Keep things simple when pushing back bad arguments. Opening up interstate sales will not lower prices because… walk them through a transaction. If one insurer under-cuts another one’s premium for the same coverage by $10 less a month to get your business, that’s great for everyone. But what that person needs it to be is $50 less a month to be able to afford it.

The ‘right’ is bothering me because of what is being said, but the ‘left’ is bothering more because of what they are not saying. I’m starting to think that the reason they are against co-ops is because policy holder ownership makes it harder to force universal government health care in the future. I hope I’m wrong about that. I don’t think I am because the President seems willing to consider other options even though he has a preference, while the ‘left’ have to have a public option or nothing, right now. Maybe things could have been said better, but there is no road map for a successful trip on this one. But it appears the administration is more concerned with fixing the problem, than fixing the problem the exact way they want to. For what it’s worth I really appreciate that. It should be about allowing the most numbers maids, janitors, people out of work, unemployed or underemployed as possible, the ability to get coverage and good treatment given the entire political environment right now. I believe that your intentions are honorable, and therefore I feel the people can trust your judgment more than those on the ‘right’ and ‘left’ this time. Go after what you think you can get Wed, hold fast to what you feel you must. If you chose based on what is doable and possible, for what its worth I think people like me will have your back, Mr. President and staff…..no matter who challenges you on this issue. Let their ideas “prove their worth, in a test of arms, under the eyes of God”- from one of my favorite movies as a kid. Go get’em Mr. President!!

PS. Your ideas on retirement never would have occurred to me….even though that bothers me a little, Nice Work!!!- (smile)

The 'trigger' public option can work but...

Northside — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:15:44 EDT

The ‘trigger’ aspect for the public option is a good idea but it still exposes some logistical problems with real health care reform that needs to change how health care providing industries do business. What will the environment need to look like, or what will have to happen, to set off the ‘trigger’? In order to increase coverage to millions of people at a substantially lower premium price, all insurance providers would have to work in unison to offer coverage at a predetermined price; even if that premium puts them into the ‘red’ once it’s in place. Regulation is suppose to keep an existing environment (which is working generally well except for extreme situations) from violating economic and industry rules, it is not suppose to determine the business model that all industry participants have to follow, by its own definition. Regulation that goes into businesses (that have predetermined cost structures and profit margins) in order to force them to lower prices for services ‘overnight’ without correctly adjusting cost structures and profit margins; will appear to be creating de-facto government-run health insurance companies, that have marketing departments. It’s a great strain on the operations of insurance businesses because they will have to come out of pocket to restructure for these new lower priced plans; or the government will have to subsidize their restructuring.

Let’s pretend more government money going to health insurance companies is even doable, what do you restructure within a health insurance company? Processing claims and underwriting don’t really force company expenses to increase out-of-control, alone. Decreasing commissions or incentives is really all there is to do, but we have to go back to what insurance companies do. They pay on claims that are covered. Therefore, much of the health issuers expenses passed to all of us, is the amount charged to them by the actual ‘health care providing’ industries, that are covered by health policies. And therefore, I think much of controlling what expenses health issuers pass to us has a great deal to do with the non-coverage part of reform the President wants to do. Adding new technology to records, reducing redundancy in the treatment and administration parts of health care; these can not be done simply by forcing private insurance to cover more people and charge lower premiums alone. But in this environment, how you describe coverage is all that people think about and doing it correctly is the only way to get legislation for all of it (I hope I'm wrong about that). Health insurance reform is needed as part of the solution, but a comprehensive solution with all players being able to (or forced) work together should be the goal.

Government paying for health insurance upgrades may be tougher to sell than the current health care reform plans out there. Also, financing for businesses is hard enough now. The fact that there is a ‘trigger’ that can ‘go off’ (and mostly like will go off, if in place) means that budget plans in the future would have to always consider that possibility of that 'trigger' during a year, or it would be wise if they did. Any year could be the year you have to start planning for the public option. With this type of problem and some of the general rules of inflation, it will cost more to get the public plan going later, than sooner (particularly if deficits start to effect the dollar in currency markets over the next 2 to 3 years or sooner). In a strange way, creating a public option or strong, well designed co-ops to enter the health insurance market is closer to economic examples of how innovative market entrants can, in a pseudo-organic way, change an industry through natural competition (even though this would be competition by government). The ‘trigger’ for the public option seems to be forcing all industry participants to adopt money-losing business plans while possibly not giving them the time and resources to restructure operations accordingly. That’s not entirely evil, but what if the time period for them to change is too long and they don’t meet the ‘trigger-put-on-safety’ requirements? The public option goes into affect and it costs more to do it later than to do it now. And what if you do not give health insurers and all industries enough time to restructure, while staying in the black, before the ‘trigger’ goes off? The cost and needed resources to meet the deadline could be too much for them and the public option starts sooner, but with more cost added to it because it happened later and with the collateral damage of failed health reform in the short run. I think both ‘right’ and ‘left’ need to remember what the White House has admitted recently; the direct and indirect (circumstantial and unnecessary) cost of treating people is just as big as the coverage problem, and probably more pressing. The coverage part of reform may just be a ‘sliver’ of actual comprehensive health care reform, according to the President. It’s the cost which goes into treating people from ‘start to finish’ of a condition, illness or life that causes premiums to go up, and makes it almost impossible to have ‘portable’ health plans now. The costs which go into treating people also allow it to be easier to make profits on the health system, or make excessive profits. The trigger option can work, but I think the public option or large co-op coverage plans, timed with improving the medical treatment and administration parts of health care, may work better because the later options may actually be more predictable to budget and plan for correctly. Telling a company ‘cover more people and charge this much by a certain date or you’ll compete with a public option’ may force industries to change faster than they have the resources to. Especially considering that health insurers does not have much control over the cost of covered claims that are literally charged to them nowadays. If they have the resources to make those structural, operational changes that allow for lower premiums immediately, I hope it’s considered with everything else the President is thinking about in his approach to health care. The right and left can not explain why they are against what they claim to be against. I have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’ of anyone, but I’m assuming that the President will set a direction since it has been tough for congress to do it. (Again, I know this is all hard to do, and easier to pick apart as an arm-chair quarterback like me).

(For football fans and players only) For those that play on the national stage, ‘leave it all out on the field’ for those of us who do not have the ability to be on the field with you. Put on a show this season, make those who are favored to win earn it, underdogs…there are no coronations in football!!!

Give’em hell Mr. President on Wed!!.... and everybody doing the media thing this week. I’m going to try to watch ‘A-rod’ Axelrod on MTP tomorrow. I think it’s great that the President is talking to school kids!! Lord knows I could have used some inspiration to work harder when I was a kid (smile).

Fed Auction Looms Again

My Vote Matters — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:35:49 EDT

Any Surprise that Friday before next week's Treasury Auction the rates are up significantly? Should not be. The Fed's decision to keep pre-announcing it's auctions has and continues to give the players in market the ability to push up interest rates prior to the auction (pushing down the price) then miraculously after the auction, rates drop back down (with prices on the debt going up) allowing the 18 primary dealers required to bid at Treasury auctions to rake in easy profits.

I am very disconcerted by this practice ever since I first read about it some months ago. It is an absolute travesty that our government, the Fed and Treasury continue to feed the profits of a bunch of insolvent institutions on the backs of the taxpayer and now on the backs of other investors.

Of course you have seen the percentage of buying of these offerings by so called "indirect bidders" increase by a factor of 4 since late 2008. My unscientific findings of the percentage of uptake by "indirect bidders" are thus:

Last 3 months of 2008 = 15%
Jan 09 = 18%
Feb 09 = 24%
Mar 09 = 33.5%
April 09 = 38.5%
May 09 = 37.3%
June 09 = 43.8%
July 09 = 54%
Aug 09 = 62.5% (a Record)

It is nice to know the world of "indirect bidders" is not ignorant. They see "free money" and are taking an increasingly large portion of initial offerings. Are they then selling this supply back to the market for a quick profit? Are they being seduced into taking the product with guaranteed short term profit margins? Is it possible that no matter what is going on now that eventually the free ride will end and ultimately nobody will want to own the massive supply of debt being put out there right now?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I do get the sense that what the Treasury is doing is purposefully padding the profit margins and accounts of anyone who wants to "play" in the auctions. What their multiple motives are, I don't know. What the result is... Big short term profit margins, big short term commissions, big short term pay and bonuses for insolvent institutions, yes a BIG PAY DAY EVERY MONTH FOR THE SAME INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER SUPERVISION AND WE ALL KNOW ARE INSOLVENT.

Yes, this is just another candle in the eye of the average American for the gain of institutional players on the "Wall Streets" of the planet... For now.

Here is a nice chart from the Treasury from previous years:

Bidder Category Purchase Shares for
All Treasury Securities

ISSUES with Health Care Insurance Lets break it down

Food Fascist — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:33:28 EDT

BANKRUPTCIES
Every year one million Americans
claim bankruptcy due to a major medical issue
Senator Bernie Sanders,
Thom Hartmann Show 8. 2009

INSURANCE CAPS
Once your cap is used say in a major medical
you are virtually uninsurable afterwards.
Representative Slaughter, Ron Reagan
Show 9/1. 2009

POST CLAIM UNDERWRITING
You pay your premiums faithfully but
when you have a major medical matter,
the company drops you from your policy.
Ex insuance broker, Stephanie Miller Show
8/17. 2009

CLAIM DENIAL
You pay your premiums faithfully, something major happens. Your claim was denied.
A bonus was paid to the employee for denying
your claim. Caller to Stephanie Miller Show8/17. 2009

LOSE YOUR JOB LOSE YOUR
COVERAGE / PORTABILITY
Then, if ill, this becomes a lapse in coverage
and a possible pre existing condition.

PRE EXISTING CONDITION
There are disabled persons and others
for whom will never be insurable.
How could this happen in America?

WORKMANS COMP/ MALPRACTICE CASES could be virtually be eliminated.

COST INCREASES TIES UP COMMERCE
The average business can spend as much
as 20% of their costs on health insurance making
them unable to compete with companies from
other countries that do have nationalized coverage.
USA 18-22% GDP is health care while other

THE COST OF NON INSURED
The average insured can pay as much as 1000. Per year more to compensate for those who are uninsured and relegated to using the emergency room as a source of primary care for which a tooth abscess can become a 250,000 surgery.

Bank Bonuses

My Vote Matters — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:59:47 EDT

Until about now I have had little opinion of the bonuses banks pay out to the people who make money for them. In fact, with respect to Merrill Lynch, I felt the "retail brokers" should get whatever performance bonuses they deserved as long as the cash was in the bank, if for only the reason they had little to do with the risky undertakings of the firm's high profile traders who gambled with the firms own and borrowed capital and lost miserably.

Now, however, I am inclined to get very pissed off when thinking about not only the bonuses being paid by these financial firms but at the exceptional trading profits being made on the backs of the taxpayer through our direct support of financial firms through TARP and the indirect but just as risky support through the FDIC backed loans (TALF) companies are floating at dramatically subsidized interest rates that taxpayers are ultimate responsible for.

To have had the Fed and Treasury spend and allocate several (one estimate is $12 Trillion) trillion taxpayer dollars to "shore up" what is essentially a pool of financial firms that are technically insolvent and then to see the folks running these firms still with the mindset to rake out as much cash from the system as they can, while they can, is an insult to their profession, shows a complete lack of respect for the trauma they caused not only the global financial system but to the lives of at least a billion people who have been financially crushed by their reckless, unregulated activities over the past 10 years (well the latest 10 years in this case),is a travesty.

If I were in any decision making power, I would gather some economists together and apply "market reality" metrics to each one of these firms. I would invite them to a nice lunch where I would spell out in no uncertain terms, they are insolvent, they are not making any money above the losses still on their books and will not likely to be truly "profitable" for 2-3 years as they work off the dead assets. If they have "profitable" divisions (like Citi owning a trading arm that made a killing) they will make it clear to the folks that work there, they work for a government subsidized failed banking firm and they will not be paid bonuses until the entire firm can show "real" profits overall in the firm.

If this does not work for these folks, then those people should leave the bank or the division split off so those folks can continue to run their little profitable firm with the bank holding a minority stake.

The bottom line is the model of large conglomerate banking enterprise does not work. This was sorted out in 1934 and the reason they do not work is you CANNOT HAVE TAXPAYERS BAILING OUT LARGE UNWIELDY FIRMS JUST BECAUSE ONE COMPONENT OF THE FIRM IS RETAIL BANKING. Retail banking, with its FDIC assurances should NOT be combined with other kinds of investment banking, finance, insurance etc. This is well known.

Just like the Enron disaster, where a few guys get together to take over a large regulated (at the time) firm with stable cash flows they could heavily leverage and turn it into a crazy speculative monster and lead it to bankruptcy, the same folks that run investment banks and other financial gambling oriented firms love to get their hands on retail banks for their stable deposits, fee income and seemingly unlimited access to cheap capital.

This should not be allowed. Period. We need to go back to Glass-Steagall Act and separate the various financial businesses for GOOD!

See latest story on banking bonuses from EU remarks today.

Health Care Tipping Point

Rheanni — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:58:25 EDT

As I am writing this edition of our Tipping Point Game for Changing Our Frame of Mind, we are currently witnessing, via "death panels", the perfect example of how the Status Quo is borrowing old tricks and pulling rabbits out of the hat when it comes to health care reform.

By appealing to the baser instincts of their constituents, the Old Guard seems to have successfully bullied and intimidated those leaders who claimed they were dedicated to changing the way our government works.

If this is all it takes to cave their determination, what will happen when matters of greater consequence are debated?

Remember how George W. Bush used to distract us with his confusing double-talk and poor grammar? While everyone got all upset and emotional about the gibberish that was being said, Dick Cheney and his cronies were busily working behind the scenes, organizing outrageous schemes under the table. By the time everyone figured out what was going on, it was too late. The damage had already been done and a course was set that led us to the place where we are now.

They were following the Sacred Cow that has supported innumerable acts of war, poor planning and bad decisions:

"Use distraction and fear to get what you want."

What would have happened back then if we had stayed focused on what was important and let cooler heads prevail? Would we have spent trillions of dollars fighting a war that should never have happened in the first place?

Now, years later, we seem to be letting the same thing happen again. Will we actually allow hysterics to distract us from a moral responsibility that has been left in the ditch for too long?

Change Begins From Within

Think of your own life. How often do you get distracted from the real issue by cheap theatrics and emotional outbursts from certain people who have their own agenda? Can you stay focused on what's in your long term, best interests in spite of their behavior? What are they doing that is distracting you?

You don't have to give away your power to decide just because someone is behaving irrationally.

You can decide that going for solutions that benefit us all in the long run is preferable to succumbing to screaming and going for the short term solution that isn't really a solution at all.

Be The Change You Hope To See

You can support an underlying change in consciousness by looking at the Soul Contract Circle below and affirming these statements:

"I release my agreement to be distracted from what is important."

"I release any agreement I have to refuse to learn from the past."

"I release my agreement to make important decisions based on emotional reactions."

"I stop feeding the screamers with my attention and take affirmative action for the benefit of myself and my fellow human beings."

You can replace those old Sacred Cows with this:

"I now make a commitment to make sane and balanced decisions that are in my long term, best interests."

To understand how deeply these Sacred Cows have affected you, play the complete Tipping Game and help yourself shift into a whole new way of thinking.

Diverting Foreign Aid

My Vote Matters — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:55:33 EDT

I must comment on the idea that pulling down our $100 billion in foreign aid to help other initiatives in the US is somehow going to be “good” for America. This argument pops up every time the US Mindset returns to focus on the disastrous budget deficits we have been running for nearly 2 generations now. Unfortunately, like the ups and downs of our economy, all discussion related to the deficit dies as soon as the economy turns the corner and people go back to focusing on making money in the latest paper bubble. It is also unfortunate that these incredible "peace time" budget deficits do little more than expose the underlying reality that the US economy has become so reliant on consumer spending and non manufacturing "industries" that our bubble to burst cycles have become more frequent (about every 10 years) and more dramatic. Obviously, with the economy based on businesses that have no physical infrastructure and or physical output capacity (the production of intangible products) they are able to grow rapidly when able to exploit the latest economic / financial gimmick and can just as rapidly shrink when that "event" is played out. Consumption as we all know is primarily of foreign made products of all varieties.

Getting back to the argument that somehow reducing our "foreign aid" and bringing back a few billion dollars back to the US as having any tangible ability to "enhance" our economic development. This is a completely false argument and even when foreign aid has been reduced during tough economic times, it quickly returns during boom times and is usually a greatly celebrated event stamped by whoever happens to be in the White House as an example of the how "generous American" people are willing to back whatever pop-charity is prevalent at that time.

Before I go on, I will preface my argument with my own jaded view of the machine that functions in Washington of ex-piece-corp / lobbyist / international "aid" how to make $200k a year "non-profits" with "do gooder" figurehead cronies "leaders" related to the various politicians, lobbyist, ex-politicians etc., all of whom are very good at raking money out of the Federal Government to feed themselves using their idealistic agenda. These many folk are professional and very good at making carriers for themselves, backed by US Gov money under the guise of "international aid" and normally spend most of their time traveling the world, speaking, living in posh neighborhoods of DC and otherwise justifying their idealistic agenda to other folks who look just like them or aspire to create their "careers" picking up in their footprints. The vast majority of US Foreign "aid" goes in the pockets of these folks and their extended networks and little of it gets anywhere near the end "user" or "target" of the program or individuals it was designed to "help". I could go on but you get the point. In addition, the "International Aid" machine in Washington and associated labyrinth of non-profits (most often not of international focus) are also often the best way to pay for access to the political machine. "Give $50k to my wife's / sister's / friend's / ex-business partner's / other relative's charity and we can talk" kind of politics.

Having said all of that, I will go back to the argument that somehow reducing foreign aid is going to better our economy if we redirect that cash. We have directly spent since our pointless invasion of Iraq no less than $1 Trillion. I remember Bush's speech during the height of the financial crises when talk of $700 billion to bail out financial institutions was being thrown around and thinking, "George, why don't you just say it? You know how much $700 billion is, you spent more than that battling your fictitious "enemies" on the other side of the planet for the past 5 years." George could have just said, "T-ain't anything America. Just deal with it. I know the war was a great excuse to use my access to the largest "bank" on the planet to write checks to my friends and buddies, esp. the ones who lost so much money in the .dot com crash and Enron like debacles of the early part of my presidency, but this, well, now we have another "crises" primarily created by my friends and I got no nation to invade so please excuse me if I just hand this money over directly to them this time!"

Well, that is reality you know. So what about "foreign aid"? What about pulling our vast military presence out of Japan, 2/3 of it out of Korea and Europe? What about exiting Iraq? Can we get that Trillion Dollars (plus the estimated Trillion or so legacy costs) back? Never. What about the pointless war in Afghanistan? Does anybody ever ask themselves what the real long term ramifications of a decade war against Muslim extremist around the globe will have on the long term desire of these folks to one day actually organize themselves some kind of multi-nation alliance and truly threaten other nations? I mean really, right now and for the years going back to the beginning of radical Muslim movements against nations outside of Israel (the true root of all this mess), was there ever a time in modern history they had the potential to do anything more than cause a bit of terror by blowing something up with some rudimentary explosive devises or come up with more creative ways to use our own technology against us like in the 9.11 "attack"? Come on? Help me out here. How many Americans ever went to bed worried that some "army" from the middle east would invade their shores? We and a few other developed nations feed our "allied" Muslim nation friends all of their military technology for crying out loud. These folks cannot even make a microphone or CD player in their own nations let alone a computer or sophisticated guidance system, navy fleet, air force or any other mass weapon arsenal necessary to threaten other nations. Isn't it true the primary reason we don't want Iran to develop the technology to enrich uranium is that we really don't want any of the nations on the planet that do not align themselves with our capitalist / "democratic" value system to have the ability to create ANY technology or products which could head them in the direction of being able to create real weapons of mass destruction like we do?

And so with all this, is taking $25 or $50 billion out of our "foreign aid" going to solve anything? We are directing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to our global military infrastructure; billions more are spent subsidizing our agricultural and agricultural exports; billions more are being spent / or credited to companies for the removal of fossil fuels from all corners of the planet; billions of dollars are being sucked out of our economy, from each individual, by companies operating within pathetically designed regulation / lack of regulation of our energy companies and infrastructure; billions of dollars are being sucked out of the American taxpayer every year for the construction of and maintenance of a transportation infrastructure designed specifically for the single most destructive product in use on the entire planet, the automobile; billions of dollars in energy literally escape right in the atmosphere by the pathetically designed and geographically dispersed regulation of building standards that allow millions of structures to be built annually with the environmental soundness of a mid 20th century box; billions of dollars are being spent incarcerating millions of Americans each year instead of educating them (with more of these dollars going into private hands each year);billions of dollars are being sucked out of the wealth of people, their pension plans and their governments around the planet monthly by the vast unregulated financial industries that have learned to rake as much cash out of the planet's financial wealth as possible with no nation, government, regulatory authority or power to answer to but the pursuit of as much wealth as humanly possible... I could go on about how many ways $25-$50 billion a year are completely wasted, lost, sucked into the coffers of companies riding the "free economic" poorly regulated and wasteful economy we have created but I will rest here.

Suffice to say, any person who decides to go after the politically easy, populace target of "foreign aid" when the true causes of our financial mess and destructive economic model lies right in front of us, is only succumbing to a failed logic and worse, exposing themselves to a deeper sense of "America is right and great and we should look after ourselves even if much of what we do economically and militarily is pathetically harmful to the planet and humanity in general."

CFTC Derivatives Limits

My Vote Matters — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:47:57 EDT

I am forever amused by Washington's half-hearted and weak attempts to "regulate" various aspects of the financial markets. All of the approaches they are taking or attempting to take are weak and useless and easy to circumvent.

Most amusing is when a company like Goldman Sachs says out of one side of their mouth that they support limiting exposure to commodities contracts to speculators and at the same time out of the other side of their mouth they are saying, "We are the exception because of our unique offerings and the need to be able to have unlimited access and exposure to 'protect ourselves' against the exposures we offer to our clients.

There is nothing Goldman would like better than to limit other's exposure so they can have even more power in the market place. Goldman is nothing but a big gambling house. Look at the "products" they offer regularly. They are like, "I will pay you X amount of money if you buy this "contract" and the value of the underlying "asset" or "index" increases or decreases in value over Y amount of time". They limit ones gains but not losses. They also "protect" themselves against losses with derivatives.

There is NO limit to the amount of these types of products they can and do offer. This is only one example of how Goldman "creates" products based on underlying derivatives and commodities and indexes and hedges themselves against losses.

There is no legitimate reason for these products to exist. Goldman simply games the market. They use the billions they earn with massive leverage in the derivative markets to buy real assets where they control and monitor the output of the various commodities they are trading. They own directly or indirectly all types of commodity storage facilities, distribution facilities and outright production.

Goldman and Morgan Stanley should be immediately stripped of their bank holding status they were granted during the financial crises (along with Cap One, American Express, State Street and a host of other non retail bank finance companies as well as forced to repay all government guaranteed debt outstanding at artificially low government backed interest rates. They are fast back to their old formulas of risk taking and gambling.

The CFTC is NOT the agency to be doing piecemeal regulation. The financial industry needs total overhaul and total regulation and we desperately need a return to the Glass-Spiegel Act days of separating retail banking from insurance from investment banking etc. We need total regulation of the hedge fund industry and we need to come up with completely new ways to deal with the way in which the financial industry has learned to game the entire market with technology, leverage and control.

It Official - Barack is not trying to kill Grandma

Food Fascist — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:24:04 EDT

Dear Friend,

If you’re like most Americans, there’s nothing more important to you about health care than peace of mind.

Given the status quo, that’s understandable. The current system often denies insurance due to pre-existing conditions, charges steep out-of-pocket fees – and sometimes isn’t there at all if you become seriously ill.

It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections:

No discrimination for pre-existing conditions
No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays
No cost-sharing for preventive care
No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
No gender discrimination
No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
Extended coverage for young adults
Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid

Learn more about these consumer protections at Whitehouse.gov.

Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.

It’s time to act and reform health insurance, drive down costs and guarantee the health care security and stability of every American family. You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

Teachers and not shot takers will solve health care reform

Food Fascist — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:56:32 EDT

THX - I will agree with Bill O Reilly of all people in that the right have no basic education on what health care reform is about altogether and we must bear the few hours it would take to put a simple power point together or promote pieces like ‘Sick around the world’ at pbs.org. Every college student can put one together to educate their class mates, surely our leaders ought to be able to bring those that do not understand the need for health care reform, the basics, and bring them up to speed. And certainly, we should not be allowing disinformation to interfere with what we need and want. In this, it would not be unreasonable to have case studies to reveal. -But right now, though there are places around the world to point to, Joe couch potato doesn't understand what's outside the USA or that we are not always the best at everything. Consequently, we have nothing to point to in America in terms of even test plots here in the USA. For example, the City of San Franciso’s shot at a universal health care is not working so well and the Massachusetts a disaster [ well thx to Mitt Romney]. Mike Papatonio had some reasonable strategies this past Saturday on Ring of Fire. Start, he says by ferreting out the inefficiencies in the system, as we are doing with mileage standards. Pitifully slow, but until we stop attacking the other side for how stupid they are and become teachers, we will just be hampsters spinning the same wheel. Hang out on twitter with this search 'health care' and you will see what I mean

Some late night thoughts

Northside — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:19:52 EDT

More time allows you to break up the plan and logic behind it into parts, so people can digest it better. Visual aids or short ‘you tube’ documentaries of medical professionals explaining the problems and how correct execution of your plan will bring down cost and in some cases improve the care of many people can help also. Don’t let the fear that is easy to create lessen the explanation of your plan. It’s the “all things being equal” part of economics that can keep people from seeing the whole picture sometimes, myself included. Correct interaction from elements outside of an economic model can make some things unequal (for better or worse). Intuitively, I think many people are underestimating the power that more uninsured people having routinue coverage, accruate medical records in a modern database, and a system that forces more prevention of illiness than treatment of illiness symptoms can have on a health-care economic model. Based on facts you have given, conversation I’ve had with medical professionals, some understanding of insurance basics, I think your plan provides interaction that will lead to ‘the better’. If I’m not mistaken, the CBO scores spending for the short-term and long-term correctly, only if all the things they measure stay the same. They can not take into consideration all the savings and ‘macro-level’ efficiencies your plan can bring to non-government health care and the health insurance profession, after the initial investment and some time. Your plan seems to deal with the large scale problem that the health provider and health insurance industry can not or will not confront. Again, "Pound them on the issue" for the next 6 months, so we all can learn. I have a feeling that, depending on gasoline prices, Christmas and holiday spending and companies gearing for next year, there will not be so much anxiety about the deficit/unemployment problem. You are on the correct side of the issue I think. If it is executed correctly, the numbers are in your favor. When what your plan is and is not, what it will do and will not do is made clear through you, your friends, and supporters; the comparison of the continuously ascending line graph of our current health-care system can be easily placed against the short-term rise and larger fall of a line graph that represents real reform. Hold the conservatives to your earlier statements. A person who does not look to, and serious discuss, the long term savings and efficiency of health care reform, are not serious conservatives(period). Hold the religious right (in a polite, indirect way) to their moral obligation to work to help ALL people (What would Jesus do, or what would the first church in the New Testament do?) Honest opposition is good and can help improve the final legislation. But a bunch-a-bullshit is a bunch-a-bullshit. If they are throwing it around town or on TV, nip it in the bud. ‘Keep your foot on the neck’ of the lies and exaggerations about the plan right up until the night of the vote. I will work to pass exams, while you and your staff, Mr. President, change health care in this country (I can’t push back my August, and early October deadline (smile)). Let us know what you want us to do (people that are members of your online groups). We may be able to contribute more (the email forwarding can not turn the people that are worried about cost, although they are very effective emotionally). For those who might be reading these, when I have time and if I think of something, I’ll post it. I hope all members can post there ideas more too. Make history Mr. President, again!! (smile).

Re: Defeat the opposition to health care reform with Health Care Reform 101-(better than my attempts here though)

Northside — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:57:37 EDT

I caught Richard Wolfe on ‘Meet the Press’. He made some really good points on the health care situation (even though Gregory gives the right an easier interview all the time). I think the President will have to explain why the program will save money and make people understand the basic logic of how that is achieved. Considering the small number of people actually taxed, I think it would leave the right without a strong offensive against it.

I like the concept a teacher said once about lessons focusing on explaining things in three or fewer parts when possible because it has a better chance of residing in most people. I want to take a break from things I’m doing right now, and I’ve been thinking about this on and off since my last longer post. I could be wrong on the facts but I think that the general ideas are good ones. Again, I think you should first explain how and why it saves the system, and all of us, money. The three-part framework may not overwhelm most people and it can allow you to throw powerful statistics into an explanation without losing people that don’t think about this stuff much, if at all. I like these three topics; again I can vouch for the logic but maybe not all the facts.

1) John Doe vs. a medical providing person or organization. See if you can find a real live civil case (preferably that is representative to a decent number of medical civil cases, I will use this fictional one) dealing with a malpractice suit caused by errors that could have been avoided. Let’s assume its one where someone incorrectly read medical records or prescription information written by a doctor who was in a hurry or just has bad hand writing. That error lead to mistreatment that was discovered when it took twice as long to heal from something or a person had unusually harsh symptoms for a routine sickness. The patient sues and is awarded lots of money (If a stat from a ‘CBO’ like source could show that thousands of suits are filed and millions of dollars are paid out because of situations like this, that would be great). All of which could have been avoided if the administration's plan to computerize medical records was established. This new computerized network of medical record sharing could have avoided misreadings and created safe guards against illogical prescriptions or treatments.

2) The ER problem. I hope I remember this correctly, but a part of our medical insurance premiums comes from paying for the uninsured when they go to the ER or medical facilities, for treatment of things that went unchecked because they are uninsured and don’t see the doctor regularly (as well as injuries, accidents by those uninsured). The cost of covering the very unpredictable number of uninsured people, and the fact that when they go to the ER it is for things that require lots of treatment, is a big part of the reason why we pay so much in premiums. Insurers have to take into consideration what paying for the uninsured will cost them when pricing our premiums and it leads to charging us more. If millions of the uninsured get coverage, your insurance company will have less cost and can begin to stabilize premium prices instead of continually raising them the way they have for the last decade. That’s why the administration/congress’ plan wants to see to it that all, or as many as possible, get coverage.

3) Lack of access to medical care for all Americans is part of the ER problem. There are millions of people that don’t have access to doctors or clinics. If they could get access to doctors, even nurse or nurse practitioners for routine medical treatment and information, it could drastically improve the health of people in these areas. Remember if the uninsured get sick, have a heart attack/strokes, suffer from severe diabetic symptoms they don’t call your doctor (most likely), they go to the ER. Therefore the lack of access to medical treatment amplifies the ER problem. The administration’s plan to set up a health workforce to go out into the community and make clinic/medical care available through out the country will give people the chance to get disease-preventing treatments they would not otherwise get. Thereby decreasing the need for, and number of, costly ER visits by uninsured.

Then you say that the facts that seem clearly laid out can not be a part of what the CBO scores because they involve improvements outside its scope and responsibility. CBO scores government spending for the short-term and long-term, only if all the things they measure stay the same. They can not take into consideration all the savings and macro-level efficiencies your plan can bring to non-government health care and the insurance profession, over time. (You can site authorities that do have the respondsibility of measuring these areas of health care). Then you summarize the three-points and how they save us all money and how much savings we get in a decade for the deficits/debt we may take on in the early stages. I think chuck todd was right, you will have to sell this for about 6 months after you pass it (the polls show a lack of trust tied to unemployment fears and higher deficits, more than the spending the money itself I believe. "Pound them on the issue" for the next 6 months, so we all can learn. I have a feeling that, depending on gasoline prices, Christmas/holiday spending and companies gearing for next year, there will not be so much anxiety about the the deficit/unemployment problem.

These are too simplistic, but the structure of the argument is one that I think will work; an easy-to-understand narrative that shows how the plan will save money in the long run. If that is understood, the cost will be easier for the people to swallow. Also if the logic is clear to understand, you take away one of the strongest agreement against it. The August vote does not have to be a bad thing. It has forced the opposition to put out all, or most, of their strongest arguments, early. This gives you most of your remaining time to address them and the public; not only do you give some specifics of your plan, but you weaken one of their central, easiest to understand arguments. You counter their argument by explaining your plan in a way that can not be picked apart with the typical 1-liner, sound-bites from the Right. You can give the conservative democrats, that will have a hard time selling it, the ability to sell it back home which makes their vote easier to get.

I believe you might already know all this, but I figured why not. For those that might read these recent posts on health care, I’m not for temporary pre-existing conditions-unless it was the only way to pass a bill that can not be gutted or drastically changed by a new congress and president 20 years from now (or by a new congress sooner). But I hope you guys keep going. I liked the president’s address Saturday- the stories were good (the one about the guy reminded me of me, accept some facts are far different, obviously). But I still say that the administration will need to educate the public clearly, and by doing so you make it harder for the opposition to attack your plan. Their strongest argument is the CBO numbers; you ‘check’ that one in a clear, understandable way, I think you will get the vote and most of what you want.

Ted Kennedy’s article in Newsweek, wow!! Not to be corny or over sentimental, but I felt his brothers in that article…political courage. I’m reminded why he will be in the history books. My prayers go out to him and his family. I still say that the administration should attack the opposition’s logic by showing that the long-term numbers are in your favor for the core of your plan. But its great to see one of those ‘history book’ guys show us how it’s done….Thank you for everything you and your brothers have done for us, Sen. Kennedy (both all of us and my fellow African Americans).

Thumbs Up for the President and the Congress Today!

Food Fascist — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:42:34 EDT

Great work Mr. President and congress. Just a few scraps to the masses and we don't have to live like rats. Lets be sure though people do not party too much and begin having kids left and right- we need to maintain an ecological ethic bearing in mind foot print and quality of life in terms of having enough resources for everyone until we can take over another planet. Lord knows we could use a few more!

Good work on health care reform today! 500 billion over the next 10 years by just a small 1% tax on those over 350,000 and maybe 2% making did the congressman on Ed Schultz say one million...!?

Re: health care and other thoughts ( just thoughs, i didn't proof as usually these things)

Northside — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:15:09 EDT

I think the president did well on the health care ABC special. And the town halls are good for explaining the plan and giving us the human side of the lack of health care coverage. They are powerful stories that are emotional and force someone to feel the need to reach out to those people in my opinion. But I assume you will have more of these town halls, and there will be more of these people with personal tragedies. I think the public can get desensitized by these stories, because the current system lives with them. That combined with the unemployment and economic picture that may not show real positives until early next year, and the focus will come back to the up-front cost, deficits/debt. I agree with most of the plan and what it wants to achieve, but I think you will have to do a better job on linking the up-front cost and deficits/debt to the long term cost savings and eventual rescue of the health care system. Its like the argument for medical liability caps; I don’t see how capping a malpractice payout from 50 million to 5 million is going to keep doctors from scheduling more tests in order to ensure their insurance company will not pay out 5 million later (as well a doctor’s own out of pocket expenses, doctors do very well but there not hedge fund guys-the risk of 5 figure pay outs or higher to them, or much higher premiums, will still make most of them be careful to diagnose correctly and take extra precautions. “What links the caps on liability to less testing and costs to the patient and system?” is what I ask when people are for caps. Similarly, what is the direct link to the billions more in deficit and the trillions in savings down the road? How does a dollar here and now save us 2 dollars in ten years, exactly?- Mayo clinic is a good example, but walk us through the day-to-day where this new money will go and how it will save. And keep doing it until the night of the vote on the health care plan, in my opinion.

I’ve heard strong arguments from doctors and many other groups about pre-existing conditions, but these people don’t have to run the very real and necessary business end of health insurance. When the right gets there act together, they will come at you with ‘doctors are not responsible for protecting reserves of a multinational and paying benefits for the vast majority of people who do qualify…and see that tens of thousands of people working for insurance companies keep there jobs’ or ‘those stories are heart wrenching and maybe government, religious groups, non-for-profits should do something directly to aid her, but her treatment will cost far more than what she will pay in premiums…you multiple that by millions of people for many different conditions all coming to get coverage and you have extremely high costs for years to come because modern medicine applied correctly increases life-spans’ across the board, why night provide services to help with treatment of those that have lost coverage and have medical histories and set up some pre-existing conditions in the short-term until savings begin to appear. Temporary pre-existing condition requirements are some of the most inexpensive ways to protect reserves, create more predictable short-term expenditures, and insure that the majority of people get coverage/benefits for many years to come. Your opposition to this clear business/ fiscal logic is the emotional stories that many Americans can become desensitized to when there neighbors are still losing jobs, gas prices are pushing too quickly to $3/gallon in the last 6 months; and lets be honest unemployment will peak later and come down, but 5% is not realistically in our near future (unless people stop being able to file). Pointing out that the status quo can not be maintained is great, but show us why these are ‘cost-saving investments in the health-care system’ and no just new tax dollars to cover more newly insured people under the public option. You can do it, you may be one of the few people in politics that can link short-term costs to long term cost savings. Break the plan’s explanations into parts if need be. First showing why and how in the long term how money will be saved, and then what it will cost now to get those long-term savings.

I would say watch out for this China and Brazil thing, about them wanting to limit the dollar as a major source of international reserve. Realistically, the world is gonna have to be tied to us for a while, but Brazils strong financial system right now (linked to there energy independence) and China’s investment in energy independence means they are thinking about controlling recourses domestically. It’s a sign of a trend, and they are trying to position stronger domestic currencies against what may be a much weaker dollar in the future (provided that deficits/debt doesn’t come down so quickly). Again lower deficits in an initial package can settle those fears and lessen the chance that it will cost 20 dollars for a foreign product, which use to cost 10 dollars (because we know salaries will grow fast enough to keep up with that, if at all). Deficit neutral over a 10 year period still means large deficits over a 3 to 5 year period, and if people don’t understand why the are getting so high or the benefit of it; it opens up not cost cutting measures and amendments and real questioning of good plans that will benefit us in 20 years, but may seem like too much now (even if all is executed well, is not too much now). Keep clarifying things for all of us.

It was great to see your family on the 4th Mr. President. As a kid of a single parent (mom) who hopes to have a family one day, I thought the father’s day event and comments were great! As a black man I was proud of your comments that day. I come across a certain way in these things; but if my ideas are ever heard, I want to make sure that my points strengthen your causes, most of which I believe in. Maintain the argument from your strengths, logic and practicality. The republican drama is just the ‘cutting of fat’, the remaining contenders will get a message and if your numbers on any of your big agendas’ are too far from reality. Again, the tragedies of health care are good for the cause, but the ‘meat’, the stuff that will win over the center (and those on the right who see the moral obligation but are fiscally more conservative) is to demonstrate the link from the ‘short-term investments in health system-cost cutting measures’ to long-term health care cost savings-that can be felt through out the economy.

Janet Nepalitano Will the soliders keep them out or us in?

Food Fascist — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:20:43 EDT

I am with the pentagon. There be no reason to simply not enforce the laws in place against illegal hiring. Rather, you continue with Naomi Kline Shock Doctrine and you call the military to keep us in.

That's IT! President makes great come back

Food Fascist — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:22:36 EDT

Q Why have a national health care plan?

Its a tool to discipline the health insurance companies.

Q How are you going to pay for it?

The health care dollars are already in the system and all that needs to be done is to re allocate those dollars elsewhere.

An option for you to choose that is not profit driven.

President makes great response to 'Won't a government run health care system put the private insurers out of business."

A If true as the private insurers say that government can't run anything, they won't have any competition.

Q How will we pay?

A We already pay

ps one trillion now, aren't we already paying two trillion? projected estimates are 4 million according to Organic Consumers Association see this link http://foodfascist.blogspot.com/2009/06/organic-alternative-recipe-for-survival.html

Dick Cheney - Spokesman for this Sacred Cow

Rheanni — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:50:50 EDT

We are getting closer and closer to releasing our economic agreements with the Status Quo. However, before we're finished this particular series of Cow Tipping Games, we really must handle this major Sacred Cow accompanied by her siblings, because they would just love to keep us stuck in the mire of doubt, fear and cynicism:

“Without the Status Quo in charge, the world will fall into chaos and be destroyed.”

This “big one” sets the playing field up so that the others can spread their misinformation and thinly veiled threats throughout the pasture, keeping people like us corralled into a scenario of doom and gloom. This manure creates thoughts in our heads, like these:

~ “You don’t know what you’re doing.”
~ “You obviously don’t understand.”
~ “You’re lost.”
~ “What if you make a mistake?”

The Current Spokesman for this Sacred Cow is Dick Cheney and His Position on Torture.

Reclaim Your Faith in Yourself

The kind of thoughts that he is advocating have never led us in a positive direction, they take us right back to avoidance of our own power and being willing to settle for less. He would love us to believe:

“Things will never change, we might as well give up.”

“It’s too hard. We don’t have a chance – we’re screwed.”

“Let’s face it, there’s no way out.”

“I’m too scared to make a decision, make it for me.”

“I’m stuck, we’re stuck, the whole world is stuck.

We aren’t stuck; the Status Quo is stuck and we need to stop following the Status Quo. It feels really sticky and unpleasant, that’s true. However, the very fact that we’re feeling it so strongly means that we’re breaking away from it. Not only that, in the past, Mr. Cheney would have one of his minions do all this for him. He can't stay hidden in the shadows, because no one with any credability is left to shield him. This is not the time to give up!

Look at the Sacred Contract Circle to your right and let go of your personal, familial and cultural agreement to be lead around by fearmongering of the Status Quo. Tip the cow and make a new commitment to a change in direction. Not just any change, a real change that has freedom, peace and prosperity at its core.

Rheanni Lightwater Ccpyright 2009

Play all sixteen games!

Finally Agree with Geithner on Regulations Needed

My Vote Matters — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:58:57 EDT

I was pleased to read on http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alaMtgFAIQoc&refer=home# Bloomberg today that Mr. Geithner has a plan to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. This is so overdue and I have been frustrated for 3 years by various leaders in Washington do anything about this market even though it was largely responsible for the collapse of the global economy.

Not only was it largely responsible for the collapse but very dangerous precedents are being set as I write this where these exotic financial products are being used as a gauge to price debt.

These contracts represent a $684 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market and they are now typically conducted over the phone between banks and customers!

What an absolute trip. I know with the "trillion" word being passed around like water lately another "trillion" figure may not sink in but Think about this number for a moment. What is the US debt, $10 Trillion? We are talking $684 trillion here. Yes, yes many of you will say, "So what." there are trillions of dollars in "derivatives" out there on every other product, commodity, stock etc. traded every day. Yes, "traded" on "open markets" with clear pricing and risks born by those who trade them and these types of "products" are not "insuring" against default of debt.

I was so incensed when I heard a clip by Lloyd Blankfein where he made this point with a straight face. The guy is a raving lunatic in my book to be able to do so. He is a "Hitler" of finance. There is no question. Some may call him a genius but he defends destruction and annihilation of all around him from a financial perspective and as I have said a million times and will continue to say, with 6 billion people on the planet all more interconnected every day, guys like Blankfein and the businesses they run no longer serve any benefit to humanity, on the contrary, they are destructive to humanity, our "capital system" and serve no allegiance to any good on the planet other than to do whatever is necessary to return 30% plus to their investors irrespective to the damage they cause economies and individuals and they operate without rules governed by any sovereign state, territory or jurisdiction (except for the strings now on his firm after taking money from the government and borrowing to feed his machine with the backing of the FDIC).

So some reasoning has entered Washington and they seem to understand the importance of regulating these derivative products. Now what about the unregulated pools of global money driving this, Hedge Funds?

Re: This new Health Care Arrangement

Northside — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:48:14 EDT

I worked in a disability claims dept. while going back to school and trying to find a career. I remember the stories of people dealing with illiness, not working and seeing the difference in medical care across the board in this country. With phone calls, claims and complaints from every state. people that took partial benefits while on light key-mo and/or radiation theropy in order to work part time at there Walmart-some saying their dept would go bad if they weren't there. Good people. When the Pres. said that about his mother, I could not relate but I've heard the stories-I felt that sir.....health care reform is an economic issue almost to the extent that is may need to be a moral one. You hold them to it. Not just in pricing from companies, but also in efficency and speed in service, document and medical record exchange & delivery. Use the 'legion' to keep the congressmen and women that still get big money from these companies in check. You've been playing hard ball with some of these business people, and there may be some law suits to come-Chysler secured debt owners, etc. Watch your six, Mr. President and make sure that your position can go to the supreme court and win. I am a capitalist, a real one (not like these 'lets change the accounting rules so we can make things look better' people). But I'm a realist that can admit that history proves; from time to time capitalism needs direction away from not only corruption, but also practices that undermine the longivity of the real economy. As a capitalist, I can't promise that I will agree with all of these moves- But I trust your intentions as much as anybody's on this issue since Sen. Kennedy, and Hillary actually. I've agreed with the ones so far and I think all group members should work to protect this adminstration while they work on these things. the economy will look better but not good enough for many, the fight publicly will start when some on the right will look for a voice to fight back and get more control in congress. Hold all sides to reform and change, enough with the cosmetics and protection of health care money in Washington. Well done today sir. For what its worth coming from me- You are gaining on Truman's lead as my favorite president...(smile)

Foreign Policy Agenda Should Include Uniformity in Business Law

Northside — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:48:57 EDT

Obviously safety/peace in hostile regions will be a priority for the administrations international agenda. But If you are going to focus on foreign policy, I think some effort should be put into gathering the will of world leaders-and action-to create stronger uniformity in business and contract law through out the world. US accounting standards have started to align more with international standards, and this would be a good time to deal with business and contract law uniformity-particularly courts and enforcement. Job growth in the future and now will come from small to mid sized businesses. If we can create internationally business and contract laws and court jurisdiction that can allow for real enforcement of contracts around the industrialized world, we may be able to have small and midsize businesses expand overseas more or create joint ventures with more frequency. For the US to maintain real job growth, we will need services and products with US orgins to be sold overseas. if the success rate of joint ventures and overseas expansions can be seen as less risky, they can become more profitible and likely to succeed. the world may not be ready yet-not intergrated enough for someone in the plain states to purchase much more than ethinic foods from different countries. But the time will come, and joint ventures could be the way to get american product and services overseas with less risk. a us company that hooks up with an asian distributor for the first time because the laws make it less risky and more affordable at the same time. I would suggest that maybe lower level people push for some of those broad strokes. The global economy seems to benefit the most wealthy when it is successful and hurt the rest of us the most when it has problems-like now. Your administration is in a unique position to begin laying the foundation for this stuff. I know a lot of this post is not where we are, but we should get ready for it. We do need to make more things, as the president suggested and we also need more people to sell them to.

Sorry for the sloppy post, something came up and I never got back to it.

Who is interferring with whose health care?

Food Fascist — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:53:13 EDT

Dr. Margaret Flowers from the http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/content/what-leadership-conference was arrested per Senator Bachus because despite the fact that the majority of Americans want single payer healthcare, he told us we must remain enslaved to the torture of Western Medicine, derived from robbing of corpses from graves, unlike real wellness and health care while breaking the backbone of the capitalism for a few rich old fat white guys to watch their bank accounts fatten.

Call! blog! Get Angry! Watch the Ed Schultz Show on MSNBC this evening!

Bailing out Goldman was wrong...

My Vote Matters — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:23:24 EDT

The more I think about the bail out of firms like Goldman Sachs I really get fired up. Goldman is / was a gambling firm, nothing more, nothing less. They did business with the biggest gamblers out there, hedge funds, private equity, off balance sheet firms of banks and individual investor / speculators.

We bailed them out. They were not a regulated bank / financial firm. The Treasury had no right to bail them out with taxpayer money, or Morgan Stanley or any other unregulated entity.

The fact that the Treasury and Fed rushed through applications to make these firms "regulated banks" infuriates me. This was a complete hijack of sensible regulations and laws in place to define what firm is a regulated entity that has to conform to routine inspections and a certain legal framework and those that can gamble at will with money from people who wish to be involved in their conduct.

As far as I am concerned, the folks in Washington who orchestrated the bail out of unregulated financial institutions and who are now making over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money available to unregulated industries to buy debt should all be indicted and tried for wrong doing.

I am very firm on this opinion. In addition, I read yesterday in the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139573742681835.html WSJ about the way banks are treating business lines of credit. It appears no only have hedge funds and unregulated (now regulated) gambling institutions have figured out how to make a killing on CDS products but now the banks are using the CDS market pricing of institutional debt as a guide on pricing that debt. From article:

Now, lenders are cutting the length of many commitments to less than a year. They are charging higher fees for the lines of credit, known as revolvers. And instead of promising an interest rate determined mainly by the company's credit rating, banks will now charge more if the cost of insuring the company's debt against default is higher.

I feel this is very dangerous. Although the traditional credit rating agencies completely failed to do their job correctly for the last 5+ years with respect to the secondary market for various types of debt and companies who engaged in selling various secondary products, to resort to making credit available and at what price based on what speculators are paying and or charging for credit default products is very dangerous and will lead to very distorted pricing and benefit money lenders and speculators at the cost to real companies that create real products and employ people in industries that ad real economic output to our GDP (unlike the financial products / debt "industry")

The time has come to fire the Washington insiders, tell congress to get a spine and regulate the CDS and other derivative markets, pull the cash out from the unregulated firms who were fast tracked into becoming "regulated" entities and force them to fend for themselves. All this BS about "to big to fail" is baloney. The sooner these financial companies who have come to dominate our economy through debt products are gone the better for the long term health of our economy.

Please Sign This Petition to AT&T Executives

Food Fascist — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:19:08 EDT

It's happening again. Another big corporation looking out for executives and big investors at the expense of workers.

AT&T made $12.9 billion in profits in 2008 and is on track this year for solid earnings, top executives say. Yet AT&T wants to cut quality jobs and benefits for employees.

Please Sign This Petition to AT&T Executives

Especially in these tough economic times, profitable companies like AT&T should lead the way in providing good, middle class jobs -- not look to cut benefits and lower middle class standards of living.

AT&T, we ask you to:

* Take the lead in helping to turn our economy around instead of copying the worst Wall Street behavior.

* Support the employees who make AT&T a success, and who help build today's high tech infrastructure.

* Work with CWA for real health care reform.

Americans want an economy that works for all of us.

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/standupforworkers

National Call in day to stop subsidies for Nuclear and Coal - also support Climate Crisis Bill

Food Fascist — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:10:53 EDT

Thursday, April 30, will be a national call-in day in opposition to federal subsidies for nuclear power and coal burners..

Call the Senate Energy Committee at 202 224=3121- Also call the House Energy Committee at 202 225-2927.

1. Tell them you support Waxman Markey Climate Crisis Legislation and

2. Stop Subsidies to Coal and Nuclear Industries

See more here: http://nukefree.org/

Three times in the last two years the nuclear industry has come to Congress asking for $50 billion in handouts to build new atomic reactors that Wall Street won't finance.

Your activism has made the difference. All three times these attempts have been stopped..

And please note that we have re-vamped the NukeFree.org website. It features regular postings on the breaking news in nuclear power and green energy.

No Nukes!

BonnieRaitt
GrahamNash
Jackson Browne

We will keep you posted on the progress of the Senate Energy Bill and House Climate Bill. But please send your letters in now, call on April 30, and spread the word!

Call in Day: Energy Committees Stop Nuclear and Coal Subsidies Support Climate Crisis Legislation

Food Fascist — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:23:13 EDT

When I called the Senate Energy Committee at 202 224=3121- the nice gal there recommended we also be calling 202 225-2927 to the House Energy Committee at 202 225-2927. Tell them you support the Waxman Markley Climate Crisis legislation and Stop subsidies to Nuclear and Coal. Thank you, Karen Hansen We Create the World We Live In Make Progressive Radio Part of Your Day
From: Harvey Wasserman [mailto:windhw@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:27 AM
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Fwd: NATIONAL GRASSROOTS CALL-IN DAY TO STOP NUKE/COAL SUBSIDIES

Begin forwarded message:

From: "NukeFree.org" <contact@nukefree.org> Date: April 28, 2009 11:02:29 PM EDT To: Harvey Wasserman <windhw@mac.com> Subject: NATIONAL GRASSROOTS CALL-IN DAY TO STOP NUKE/COAL SUBSIDIES Reply-To: contact@nukefree.org
Having trouble reading this email? View it on our website. April
28,
2009 Hello from NukeFree.org

As you can see from the Action Alert below, this Thursday, April 30, will be a national call-in day in opposition to federal subsidies for nuclear power and coal burners..

Three times in the last two years the nuclear industry has come to Congress asking for $50 billion in handouts to build new atomic reactors that Wall Street won't finance.

Your activism has made the difference. All three times these attempts have been stopped.

Now we must do it again. Please support the national call-in.

And please note that we have re-vamped the NukeFree.org website. It features regular postings on the breaking news in nuclear power and green energy.

We also post a steady stream of critical action alerts that can continue to make the difference in saving the planet.

Time and again grassroots activism has paid off because people like you have ACTED when it was needed.

So please join Thursday's call-in....and keep checking in with us at NukeFree.org.

We welcome your feedback. And your activism!

No Nukes!

Bonnie Raitt
Graham Nash
Jackson Browne

***ACTION ALERT ***

NATIONAL GRASSROOTS CALL-IN DAY TO STOP NUKE/COAL SUBSIDIES
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

LET'S KEEP CONGRESSIONAL PHONES RINGING ALL DAY LONG!

Dear Friends,

Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are beginning to consider separate legislation that could have an enormous impact on our nation's energy future. It is essential that we all weigh in now, in the strongest possible manner, to help shape that energy future. Let's tell Congress loud and clear to support renewable energy and energy efficiency programs and to stop any more taxpayer support for dirty and dangerous nuclear power and coal technologies.
Washington-based groups like NIRS, PSR, FoE, NRDC, NukeFree.org, and others are working hard to stop this legislation from becoming a gift to the nuclear power and coal industries. But the nuclear and coal industries have far more lobbyists and far more money than we do.

What those industries don't have is YOU.

And YOU can make the difference.

On Thursday, April 30, let's keep the phones in the Senate and House ringing all day long with a simple message: YES to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, NO to any more taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power and coal.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

In the Senate, the Senate Energy Committee will begin considering a major new energy bill sponsored by Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Efforts will be made to add nuclear power to the bill's Renewable Electricity Standard, to add nuclear power to a so-called "Clean Energy Bank," to add still more taxpayer loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and coal plants, and so forth.
In the House, the House Energy Committee will begin considering the Waxman-Markey climate crisis legislation. And we're going to see similar efforts in the House to add the same kind of nuclear and coal nonsense.
On April 30, please call both of your Senators and your Representative with the simple message: YES to renewables and efficiency, NO to nuclear power and coal.
And to help set the stage for thousands of phone calls, let's now start clogging the Congressional e-mail boxes with thousands of your letters! You can e-mail your Senators here and you can e-mail your Representative here.
Please forward this Alert as widely as possible, please make sure all your friends and colleagues know about it and can participate. Post the info on your websites, blogs, Facebook & MySpace pages, Twitter it, spread the word! It will take many thousands of us to overcome the nuclear and coal industry's lobbying efforts. But we CAN do it!

And please consider supporting our outreach and mobilization efforts with your contribution here. Honestly, your donations of any amount are both needed and very gratefully appreciated. We can't do this work without you!
And now for some good news: yesterday, the Missouri utility Ameren UE announced that it is suspending its plans to build a new EPR reactor, Callaway-2! Congratulations to everyone in Missouri and elsewhere who have worked so hard to block Ameren's plans to force ratepayers to pre-pay for this proposed reactor!

And some more good news: yesterday we learned that the FY 2010 budget resolution will NOT include the amendments from Sen. Crapo to support $50 billion in new taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors and additional funding for reprocessing technologies.. Again, thank you to everyone who took action over the past two weeks to object to those provisions!

Maybe it sometimes doesn't seem like making a couple phone calls or sending some e-mails, or even contributing $5 or $10, makes a difference: but it does! And we've already seen it several times this year. Now we're asking you to take action again--because your actions CAN make the difference.

We will keep you posted on the progress of the Senate Energy Bill and House Climate Bill. But please send your letters in now, call on April 30, and spread the word!

Thanks for all you do,
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
www.nirs.org

Pig Industry Overpowers President As Beef over Oprah?

Food Fascist — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:59:36 EDT

Oprah fought back and won President Obama!

CBS News declared this morning that the President of the United States no longer calls this flu the swine flu and instead is being encouraged to refer to it as the Mexican flu?

Do you see what they want you to do? They want you to hate Mexicans rather than Factory Farms.

Hello- anyone remember when the Cattlemans Association took Oprah Windfrey to the Supreme Court?

BTW I researched some natural antivirals. See here: http://naturalantiviral.blogspot.com/

A New Avian Component?

from David Kirby April 26, 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/swine-flu-outbreak----nat_b_191408.html

Avian influenza viral components can easily mix with swine flu virus to create new bugs - and this can happen on both traditional hog farms and inside CAFOs, scientists say.

Last year, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production issued a lengthy report on factory farming that included research on emerging forms of avian-swine-human influenza viruses. The molecular forensics of rapidly mutating animal pathogens makes epidemiological investigations all the more challenging, it said. "Populations exposed to infectious agents arising in CAFOs are even more difficult to define as some agents - such as a novel avian influenza virus - may be highly transmissible in or well beyond a community setting," the Pew report stated.

The transmission of avian or swine influenza viruses to humans, the report said, (almost wistfully, in retrospect), "seems a rather infrequent event today."

But the commission also issued this grave and perhaps all-too prescient warning:

The continual cycling of swine influenza viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks provides increased opportunity for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission of these viruses. In addition, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities. This bridging increases the risk of novel virus generation in that human viruses may enter the herds or flocks and adapt to the animals.

Reassortant influenza viruses with human components have ravaged the modern swine industry. Such novel viruses not only put the workers and animals at risk of infections, but also potentially increase zoonotic disease transmission risk to the communities where the workers live. For instance, 64% of 63 persons exposed to humans infected with H7N7 avian influenza virus had serological evidence of H7N7 infection following the 2003 Netherlands avian influenza outbreak in poultry. Similarly, the spouses of swine workers who had no direct contact with pigs had increased odds of antibodies against swine influenza virus. Recent modeling work has shown that among communities where a large number of CAFO workers live, there is great potential for these workers to accelerate pandemic influenza virus transmission.

"We met with a team of researchers from the University of Iowa who are studying avian flu, and their real concern was the very scenario that may have happened in Mexico - that avian flu may get into a swine CAFO and rapidly mutate and then get passed to workers, and then on to other people very quickly," Bob Martin, who was executive director of the now-disbanded commission and currently a Senior Officer at the Pew Environmental Group, told me.

"Their concern was that new strains of avian flu combining with swine flu could make the swine flu more deadly," he said. "And because viruses pass so easily between pigs and people, the new avian component could make swine flu more virulent."

Researchers such as Gregory Gray, MD, a University of Iowa professor of international epidemiology and expert in zoonotic infections, warned that CAFO workers could serve as a "bridging population" to rural communities sharing viruses with the pigs, and vice-versa. Other scientists suggested that CAFO workers could theoretically spread disease quickly to great distances. An outbreak of infectious avian flu on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, for example, could reach the Rocky Mountains within 36 hours.

The Iowa team was also worried that CAFO production could lead to another 1918-style global pandemic. One theory behind that calamity is that waterfowl cross-infected U.S. pigs with a new type of avian-swine super-virus that was quickly transmitted to farm workers, possibly in Iowa, who went off to military training camps for WWI, and then spread the pathogen worldwide

"One very big concern was that swine flu mixed with wild bird flu, or bird flu in a chicken CAFO, tended to be ripe for incubating new types of viral infections, especially since the animals are so densely packed together," Bob Martin said.

Hog CAFOs are supposed to be completely closed environments, in order to protect the pigs from outside diseases. Visitors are usually required to shower and don special protective clothing (again, for the animals' benefit) before going inside a confinement.

But these are not hermetically sealed environments, and pathogens can enter and exit a CAFO in a number of ways other than via swine workers (or flies, another proven vector of CAFO diseases).

To begin with, some swine CAFO's recover water from their waste lagoons and recycle it back into the animal housing, in order to wash out the barns while also cutting down on dwindling groundwater supplies (a particular concern in parts of Mexico, to be sure). But wildfowl routinely land in CAFO lagoons, where they can easily shed influenza virus into the water. This can also happen at facilities that use water from nearby ponds or rivers.

Here in the U.S., the National Pork Board had already urged all producers to take a number of steps to reduce the risk of avian-to-swine influenza transmission (A new advisory has also been posted today).

"It is in the best interest of both human public health and animal health that transmission of influenza viruses from pigs to people, from people to pigs, from birds to pigs and from pigs to birds be minimized," says the group's website, Pork.org.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/swine-flu-outbreak----nat_b_191408.html

Swine Flu Outbreak Nature Biting Back at Industrial Agriculture

Food Fascist — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:52:38 EDT

David Kirby Journalist Huffington Post Posted April 26, 2009 | 05:17 PM (EST) Officials from the CDC and USDA will likely arrive in Mexico soon to help investigate the deadly new influenza virus that managed to jump from pigs to people in a previously unseen mutated form that can readily spread among humans. One of the first things they will want to look at are the hundreds of industrial-scale hog facilities that have sprung up around Mexico in recent years, and the thousands of people employed inside the crowded, pathogen-filled confinement buildings and processing plants. Industry calls these massive compounds "confined animal feeding operations," or CAFOs (KAY-fohs), though most people know them simply as "factory farms." You have seen them before while flying: Long white buildings lined up in tightly packed rows of three, four or more. Within each confinement, thousands of pigs are restricted to indoor pens and grain-fed for market, while breeding sows are kept in small metal crates where they spend most of their lives pregnant or nursing piglets. In the last several years, U.S. hog conglomerates have opened giant swine CAFOs south of the border, including dozens around Mexico City in the neighboring states of Mexico and Puebla. Smithfield Foods also reportedly operates a huge swine facility in the State of Veracruz. Many of these CAFOs raise tens of thousands of pigs at a time. Cheaper labor costs and a desire to enter the Latin American market are drawing more industrialized agriculture to Mexico all the time, wiping out smaller, traditional farms, which now account for only a small portion of swine production in Mexico. "Classic" swine flu virus (not the novel, mutated form in the news) is considered endemic in southern Mexico, while the region around the capital is classified as an "eradication area" - meaning the disease is present, and efforts are underway to control it. For some reason, vaccination of pigs against swine flu is prohibited in this area, and growers rely instead on depopulation and restriction of animal movement when outbreaks occur. U.S. and Mexican epidemiologists and veterinarians will surely want to take swine samples from Mexican CAFOs and examine them for the newly discovered influenza strain (No one knows exactly how long it has been in circulation). And though it is too early to know if this new virus mutated and incubated on Mexican hog CAFOs, the industrialized facilities unquestionably belong on the list of suspects. Pigs are nature's notorious "mixing bowls" for inter-species infections, and many swine flu viruses have long contained human influenza genetic components. Then, in the late 1990's - when industrialized swine production really took off in North America - scientists were alarmed to find that avian influenza genetic material was also mixed into the continent's viral soup (see below). Fortunately, it was not the dreaded and lethal H5N1 strain, which most people know of as "bird flu." So where did this new, virulent and highly infectious influenza emerge from? According to Mexico's Health Minister, Jose Angel Cordova, the virus "mutated from pigs, and then at some point was transmitted to humans." It sure sounds like something happened on some farm, somewhere. For years, leading scientists around the world have worried that large-scale, indoor swine "factories" would become breeding grounds for new pathogens that could more easily infect humans and then spread out rapidly in the general population - threatening to become a global pandemic. We know that hog workers in Europe and North America are far more likely than others to be infected with potentially lethal pathogens such as MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), drug-resistant E. coli and Salmonella, and of course, swine influenza. Many scientists also believe that people who work inside CAFOs are more at risk of contracting and spreading these and other "zoonotic" diseases than those working in smaller-scale operations, with outdoor pens or pasture and far lower animal density. But until now, hog workers with swine flu have rarely gone on to infect other people, save for close family members. And that is why this new strain of swine influenza virus is so vexing - and alarming. It seems to spread quite easily through casual human contact. This new strain making headlines and killing people contains genetic components of human flu virus, avian flu virus and - for the first time ever - two types of swine flu virus: American and Eurasian. "Such a combination of components (genes) was not found so far, neither among humans nor among pigs (as far as we know)," CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said in an email. Nobody yet knows whether the mysterious mixing of two continents' swine flu genes is what made this outbreak so deadly, and so infectious among people, but you can bet that the world's best labs are already on the case. Another possibility is that a new and more aggressive strain of avian influenza got into the new mix as well. How could this happen? There are several plausible explanations. A New Avian Component? Avian influenza viral components can easily mix with swine flu virus to create new bugs - and this can happen on both traditional hog farms and inside CAFOs, scientists say. Last year, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production issued a lengthy report on factory farming that included research on emerging forms of avian-swine-human influenza viruses. The molecular forensics of rapidly mutating animal pathogens makes epidemiological investigations all the more challenging, it said. "Populations exposed to infectious agents arising in CAFOs are even more difficult to define as some agents - such as a novel avian influenza virus - may be highly transmissible in or well beyond a community setting," the Pew report stated. The transmission of avian or swine influenza viruses to humans, the report said, (almost wistfully, in retrospect), "seems a rather infrequent event today." But the commission also issued this grave and perhaps all-too prescient warning: The continual cycling of swine influenza viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks provides increased opportunity for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission of these viruses. In addition, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities. This bridging increases the risk of novel virus generation in that human viruses may enter the herds or flocks and adapt to the animals. Reassortant influenza viruses with human components have ravaged the modern swine industry. Such novel viruses not only put the workers and animals at risk of infections, but also potentially increase zoonotic disease transmission risk to the communities where the workers live. For instance, 64% of 63 persons exposed to humans infected with H7N7 avian influenza virus had serological evidence of H7N7 infection following the 2003 Netherlands avian influenza outbreak in poultry. Similarly, the spouses of swine workers who had no direct contact with pigs had increased odds of antibodies against swine influenza virus. Recent modeling work has shown that among communities where a large number of CAFO workers live, there is great potential for these workers to accelerate pandemic influenza virus transmission. "We met with a team of researchers from the University of Iowa who are studying avian flu, and their real concern was the very scenario that may have happened in Mexico - that avian flu may get into a swine CAFO and rapidly mutate and then get passed to workers, and then on to other people very quickly," Bob Martin, who was executive director of the now-disbanded commission and currently a Senior Officer at the Pew Environmental Group, told me. "Their concern was that new strains of avian flu combining with swine flu could make the swine flu more deadly," he said. "And because viruses pass so easily between pigs and people, the new avian component could make swine flu more virulent." Researchers such as Gregory Gray, MD, a University of Iowa professor of international epidemiology and expert in zoonotic infections, warned that CAFO workers could serve as a "bridging population" to rural communities sharing viruses with the pigs, and vice-versa. Other scientists suggested that CAFO workers could theoretically spread disease quickly to great distances. An outbreak of infectious avian flu on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, for example, could reach the Rocky Mountains within 36 hours. The Iowa team was also worried that CAFO production could lead to another 1918-style global pandemic. One theory behind that calamity is that waterfowl cross-infected U.S. pigs with a new type of avian-swine super-virus that was quickly transmitted to farm workers, possibly in Iowa, who went off to military training camps for WWI, and then spread the pathogen worldwide "One very big concern was that swine flu mixed with wild bird flu, or bird flu in a chicken CAFO, tended to be ripe for incubating new types of viral infections, especially since the animals are so densely packed together," Bob Martin said. Hog CAFOs are supposed to be completely closed environments, in order to protect the pigs from outside diseases. Visitors are usually required to shower and don special protective clothing (again, for the animals' benefit) before going inside a confinement. But these are not hermetically sealed environments, and pathogens can enter and exit a CAFO in a number of ways other than via swine workers (or flies, another proven vector of CAFO diseases). To begin with, some swine CAFO's recover water from their waste lagoons and recycle it back into the animal housing, in order to wash out the barns while also cutting down on dwindling groundwater supplies (a particular concern in parts of Mexico, to be sure). But wildfowl routinely land in CAFO lagoons, where they can easily shed influenza virus into the water. This can also happen at facilities that use water from nearby ponds or rivers. Here in the U.S., the National Pork Board had already urged all producers to take a number of steps to reduce the risk of avian-to-swine influenza transmission (A new advisory has also been posted today). "It is in the best interest of both human public health and animal health that transmission of influenza viruses from pigs to people, from people to pigs, from birds to pigs and from pigs to birds be minimized," says the group's website, Pork.org. "The global reservoir of influenza viruses in waterfowl, the examples of infection of pigs with waterfowl-origin influenza viruses, the risks for reassortment of avian viruses with swine and/or human influenza viruses in pigs, and the risk for transmission of influenza viruses from pigs to domestic turkeys all indicate that contact between pigs and both wild and domestic fowl should be minimized," the Pork Board says. It then offers some "potentially useful" factors to "reduce transmission of influenza viruses between birds and pigs": ■ Bird-proofing - All doorways, windows and air-flow vents in swine housing units should be adequately sealed or screened to prevent entrance of birds. ■ Water treatment - Do not use untreated surface water as either drinking water or water for cleaning in swine facilities. Likewise, it may be prudent to attempt to minimize waterfowl use of farm lagoons. ■ Separation of pig and bird production - Do not raise pigs and domestic fowl on the same premises. ■ Feed security - Keep pig feed in closed containers to prevent contamination with feces from over-flying waterfowl. ■ Worker biosecurity - Provide boots for workers that are worn only within the pig housing units, thus eliminating. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/swine-flu-outbreak----nat_b_191408.html

President Obama in Iowa: "A Choice Between Prosperity and Decline"

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:11:27 EDT

The President placed what was happening in Iowa in the context of two centuries of energy innovation in America, but noted America’s leadership in innovation had always been coupled with an alarming rise consumption. The President ran down the all-too-familiar list of problems our energy consumption and oil dependence brings, from those people face every day like prices at the gas pump, to those that have a broader but equally serious impact like the trade deficit, constraints on foreign policy, and the prospect of irrevocable climate change left as a burden for out children.

As the President has stated again and again, these problems also represent a fundamental weakness in our economy which will prevent long term stability as long as we refuse to address them. And while those interests who have profited off of this weakness have aligned to defend the status quo and paint change as a danger, the President forcefully framed what this choice is all about:

"We can't afford that approach anymore -- not when the cost for our economy, for our country, and for our planet is so high. So on this Earth Day, it is time for us to lay a new foundation for economic growth by beginning a new era of energy exploration in America. That's why I'm here.

Now, the choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy. We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects. We can hand over the jobs of the 21st century to our competitors, or we can confront what countries in Europe and Asia have already recognized as both a challenge and an opportunity: The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy.

America can be that nation. America must be that nation."

I'll Take Prosperity Mr. President!!!!!!

Thank You Very Much!!!!!

Harvey Wasserman How Chernobyl could happen here

Food Fascist — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:15:59 EDT

Harvey Wasserman

How Chernobyl could happen here
April 21, 2009

A catastrophe like Chernobyl could happen here. It's the radioactive core of the second biggest lie in US industrial history.

The atomic pushers say such a disaster is “impossible” at a US reactor. But Chernobyl's explosion spewed radiation all over the world. And Sunday’s tragic 23rd anniversary reminds us that any reactor on this planet can kill innumerable people anywhere, at any time, by terror, error and more.

It further clarifies why yet another grab at billions of taxpayer dollars for new reactor construction must be stopped NOW!

The BIGGEST lie in US industrial history is that “nobody died at Three Mile Island.” Just before last month’s 30th anniversary of the central Pennsylvania melt down, critical new evidence was completely ignored by the corporate media.

Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, a former industry executive, reported in Harrisburg that new findings show far more radiation may have been released than previously estimated. Epidemiologist Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina joined in a study indicating human health was indeed compromised downwind.

To this day neither TMI’s owners nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission knows how much radiation escaped, where it went or whom it impacted. The Gundersen/Wing findings cast new light on the question of building more reactors.

But they got a Stalinesque blackout from ALL corporate media, which parroted the official lie that "nobody was harmed" at the 1979 disaster.

This week comes official Radioactive Lie #2: “Chernobyl can’t happen here.”

Chernobyl Unit 4 exploded in the wee hours of April 26, 1986. It was of a different design than US reactors. But its lid was stronger than about a third of the domes covering plants here. The Soviets who ran it also said Chernobyl could not explode, and that in any event its lid would hold.

On October 5, 1966, the Fermi I fast breeder reactor nearly delivered a far worse explosion. Cooled by highly volatile liquid sodium, it teetered for a month on the brink of a radioactive eruption that could have cratered much of southeastern Michigan and permanently destroyed the biggest fresh water bodies on Earth. The accident was kept under Soviet-style wraps for years.

When TMI melted a potentially explosive hydrogen bubble formed inside the dome. Officials denied there was a melt-down (there was) but were privately terrified the trapped gas could rupture the containment. The escaping cloud would have contaminated millions along the east coast from Boston to Washington.

Chernobyl's cloud blanketed Europe with deadly isotopes. Some came down in California within ten days, killing countless birds and possibly, in the long run, even more people. The radiation then crossed the entire northern United States, contaminating milk in New England. It returned later for a second pass.

Reactor backers say Chernobyl “only” killed 31 plant workers. But the Soviets denied the accident happened, then ran 800,000 drafted “jumpers” through the radioactive corpse for a futile clean-up. They have been dying in droves for two decades.

Chernobyl’s radiation rained down on a May Day parade among citizens of Kiev who were told nothing about the catastrophe 80 kilometers away. The heartbreaking deformities plaguing the children born thereafter are the starkest reminders of that horrific day. Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the late President Boris Yeltsin, and president of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy, has estimated the known death toll at 300,000. The financial costs have topped a half-trillion dollars. The sale of lambs is still banned 2000 miles away in Wales and Scotland, where radioactive cesium still contaminates sheep farms and grazing land.

The tidal wave of cancers, miscarriages, sterility and worse that still washes over the Ukraine and surrounding regions gets ever more horrifying as time passes. Because Chernobyl 4 was a new “state of the art” unit, its core spewed far less radiation than might come from older reactors at Indian Point, New York, or Oyster Creek, New Jersey, which has just been re-licensed to run twenty years beyond its original design specifications.

Chernobyl’s design was peculiar to the Soviets. But to say only it could explode is to argue that hybrid cars can’t run people over, or that since there are no more World Trade towers, terrorists can no longer kill Americans.

On January 31, 1986, four months prior to Chernobyl’s explosion, an earthquake shook the Perry reactor east of Cleveland, which thankfully was not operating at the time. Now it is.

By accident inspectors stumbled onto a football-sized hole eaten by boric acid to within a fraction of an inch through the pressure vessel at Davis-Besse near Toledo. A worker using a candle set a $100 million fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Alabama. A cooling tower unexpectedly collapsed to the ground at Vermont Yankee. A basketball wrapped in tape was used to stop up a pipe at a reactor in Florida. This March 28, on TMI's 30th anniversary, an unexplained tremor shut Unit Two at Fermi.

And, of course, the first jet that flew into the World Trade Center passed directly over the two decrepit reactors at Indian Point, as well as the three spent fuel pools and one dormant core shut for lack of an emergency cooling system. No reactor on this planet could withstand a similar terror attack.

Small wonder the reactor industry cannot get private financing or insurance and has no place to go with its radioactive waste. Or why its pushers are yet again demanding $50 billion in loan guarantees for new reactor construction, and still more to perpetrate the myth that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed (to help stop this madness, see www.beyondnuclear.org, www.nirs.org and www.nukefree.org).

Chernobyl remains history's worst human-made disaster. Something slightly different but even worse could be happening as you read this. Building new reactors, and keeping old ones running, will guarantee it.

The only containment strong enough to make atomic energy truly safe is the political power YOU exert. Chernobyl “can’t happen here” only if the reactors are turned off before they kill again.

--
Harvey Wasserman edits http://nukefree.org. This article originally published by http://freepress.org.

Tea Party or Bash President Obama Day

Food Fascist — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:34:44 EDT

The first people I met on my way to the capital was fortunately to run into a couple with an appointment to do official business at the Capital for whom questioned me whether I understood the real history of the Boston Tea Party.

Thankfully, I was able to hand them a copy of the Hartmann paper of The Real Boston Tea Party which was against the East India Tea Company which had just won from the British government laws which made it easier to compete against the other businesses. Members of the British government and royalty including the king were stockholders in the company- Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America.

There were about 400 people there including a major stage with band and large screen, and a member of the California Parks and Recreation passing out free books of both the United States Constitution and the State of California's constitution.

The only rally to take place were some persons on stage calling for the impeachment of one assembly member because he had voted to increases taxes in California. One of the perhaps 5 black people there, a 'famous blogger' Alfonso Riviera from San Francisco - no doubt a Michael Savage listener got up on stage and ridiculed President Obama by making some jokes about 'change.'

Clearly though, the masses had been slated as back drop to the Neil Cavuto on FOX News show. There had been no education or discourse about tax matters, just the blogger and then a right wing duo called Armstrong & Getty got up and shouted some things for which the crowd yelled back some things. When Neil Cavuto came on, I did not hear him address the crowd but perhaps that was because I was circulating through the crowd waiting for opportune times to pass out my true history of the Boston Tea Party as well as the Lauffer curve showing that two tenths of the American population had income greater than 90% of everyone else’s from lcurve.org. Then, I had typed on top= The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Forget

The First Lady had even been ridiculed as Marie Michelle Obama Antoinette along with buttons of the President with pictures of him on and then where the word 'Hope' would have been written, the 'H' was changed to 'D' for Dope.

Others gleefullly posed for cameras wearing 'Change you can’t believe in' and the like.

Two brave African American college gals were happy to accept my papers and then it was understood we were together and one perhaps became a bit too brave and figuratively bit right into one of the sign bearers with a picture of Obama and some incendiary message like give me my government back. She asked his good common sense questions and I joined in. The second girl joined in and then another member of the other side joined in - none of them able to provide any good answers- especially as to how disingenuous it was to not have had the tea parties in the former administration who spyed on us and stole the treasury altogether.

Did they understand that their taxes were indeed going down? there was nothing they could say that we could not blow over like a house of cards. Finally, the sign bearer got frustrated and left and his helper became very concerned that a camera man had picked up on the gals when even openly were shouting- "You are all just mad because a black man got into the highest office in the land- go on and admit it"- She further said, "We're black and we voted for a black man. And you can't handle that." Then- that gal she out rightly said "And i have had two abortions."- Now, this had not been my style, but I am not to judge here and backed off to find others I might continue to pass my flyers out to.

One opportune moment was a bright young fellow of about 10 years old who looked like Harry Potter held his mother's hand and asked "Why are we here again, Mom?" She said "oh- I guess you'll have to wait until your older. But there I was, with my paper flyers and said, "Here is an historical accounting of the tea party." then I learned to look for more restless children whose parents could not explain why they were there.

Another segment of the persons who were happy to take my information thought that they were there because they themselves were hurting economically.

Hartmann reported that if today’s billionaires had the same tax rates of 1955- we would have raised about 35 billion.

If we simply collected the off shore investments from the Cayman islands, we could greatly relieve our debts and wealth disparity.

John Birch Society was there- the Howard Jarvis.

Had been co-opted from the 911 truth movement, then the Ron Paul supporters, and now by Fox News.

The upshot was that the poor and the unkowing are being conned into defending the rich.

Sell marijuana to stop crime in San Francisco

Food Fascist — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:41:50 EDT

Legislation proposed by a San Francisco supervisor would make the city by the bay the first city with the Mary Jane.

Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi proposed legislation on Tuesday that would create a pilot program for the city to get into the medical marijuana business, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mirkarimi said he has asked city attorney to craft a measure that would allow the Department of Public Health to distribute medical marijuana.

See the remainder of the article here" http://www.examiner.com/x-4106-California-Statehouse-Examiner~y2009m4d15-San-Francisco-supe-makes-push-for-city-to-sell-marijunana

Google scholar: for more articles like this:

J. Clin. Invest. doi:10.1172/JCI37948.
The American Society for Clinical Investigation
Research Article

Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells-

in other words, cannibus can shrink tumors and ceased tumors in two humans this study.

Our non supportive friends do not get that alcohol is indeed on par with an herb thata was only outlawed because Dupont and the Herst Corporation did not have the business savvy to compete with them

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.” ---- Albert Einstein, 1921

Save the Rich! Fox News Hosts the Tea Parties

Food Fascist — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:29:07 EDT

See this link - its a scream.

How do they get these people to keep cheerleading for the rich that would steal the blankets from their own baby and the food from their very mouths.

http://www.savetherich.com/

Debt is Not Money

Food Fascist — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:59:07 EDT

Published on Monday, April 13, 2009 by CommonDreams.orgDebt is Not Money

by Thom Hartmann

"Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs."

--Thomas Jefferson letter to Thomas Cooper, 1814.

Are we standing at the edge of a Great Inflation (like Weimar Germany), a second Republican Great Depression, or a return to the middle class prosperity of the Roosevelt/Eisenhower New Deal era? Until Americans understand the difference between "money" and "debt," odds are its going to be one of the first two, at least over the next few years.

Money

"Money" is a convenient replacement for barter in an economy. Instead of my giving you five pounds of carrots, so you wash my car, then you trade the carrots for a new shirt, and the clothing store then trades the carrots to a trucker that brings them their inventory, we all just agree to use a ten-dollar bill. Because a nation's money supply represents that nation's "wealth" - the sum total of goods, services, and resources available in an economy/nation - it needs to have a fixed value relative to the number/amount of goods, services, and resources within the nation.

As an economy grows - more factories, more goods, more services - the money supply grows so one dollar always represents the same number of carrots. (And with a fractional reserve banking system like we have, that growth is created mostly by banks lending money and creating it out of thin air in the process.)

If the money supply contracts, or grows slower than the economy, then we experience deflation - the value of money increases, goods and services become less expensive (fewer dollars to buy the carrots), but because the value of money has increased it becomes harder to get. When this happens quickly, because of its economically destabilizing influence (businesses and people can't get current money - cash - or future money - credit - because money is more valuable), it's called a Depression.

On the other hand, if the money supply expands or grows faster than the economy, there are more dollars than there are goods and services so the number needed to buy a pound of carrots increases. This is inflation, and when it happens suddenly and on a large scale, it's called hyperinflation.

Therefore, one of the most important jobs overseen by Congress and executed by a Central Bank (or the Treasury Department if we were to go with the system envisioned by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution) is to "regulate the value" of our money (to quote Article I, Section 8.5 of our Constitution) by making sure the number of dollars in circulation always steadily tracks the size of the overall economy. If the economy grows 2%, then that year there should be 2% more dollars put into circulation. More than that will create inflation; fewer will create deflation.

Debt

"Debt" is not money. Instead, it's a charge against future money. But even though it's a charge against future money, it can still be spent as if it was today's money - except that it must be repaid with interest. And therefore debt must have some sort of a balanced relationship to the total size of the economy - albeit the future economy - for it not to be destabilizing.

In other words, if over the next twenty years (the term of a typical and healthy mortgage) the economy is expected to grow by X percent or X number of dollars, then the total amount of twenty-year debts that can be issued should be limited to X. But if it's greater than X, then when the future arrives there won't be enough circulating money to repay the debt, because the economy (and the money supply) won't have grown as great as the debt repayment demand. The only two options are for debt holders to default (bankruptcies, foreclosures, etc. - Depression), or for the government to suddenly increase the supply of money (inflation).

The same is true of one-year debt (credit cards), four- or five-year debt (car loans, typically), and all other forms of debt. In aggregate, if the amount of debt is allowed to grow faster than the economy will grow over the term of the debt, when the debt is due there will be a problem, and if it's grown hugely, a disaster.

This is what we're experiencing right now. Over the past three decades - largely since Reagan - debt (both private and public/government) has expanded much more rapidly than the economy has grown. "Now" was "the future" when the debt was issued, but the economy hasn't grown to the point where there are enough dollars (in reality, enough value - goods and services) to repay that debt. Thus we are experiencing a "wringing out" of that debt - bankruptcies and foreclosures - relative to the current wealth of the economy.

This is the most critical thing to see clearly - without adhering to this simple concept, a government or central bank will always either create boom/bust cycles (depressions/recessions) or inflation. Without regulating debt, a government will be taken hostage and an economy destroyed by for-profit institutions that are able to create debt without regulation (banks).

Panics

Although Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton - two opposite sides of the national bank debate - both understood this simple concept, it wasn't brought into the realm of law until the mid-1930s with a series of strict regulations on the abilities of banks to create debt (loan money), and strong political limits on the ability of government to go into debt outside of wartime. That's why from the founding of this nation until 1935, we experienced a "banking panic" at least once every 10 to 15 years from 1776 until 1935.

Then Roosevelt took the banks in hand, by creating a series of regulatory agencies and empowering them with strict laws. The result was that for fifty years in the United States - roughly 1937 to Black Monday of 1987 - we didn't experience a single national "panic" or consequential bank failure. The stock market grew steadily (allowing for the blips surrounding WWII).

It was also hard to get a credit card (short term debt), buy a car (medium-term debt), or get a mortgage (long-term debt) without proving that you would be able to repay the amount in the future - in other words, that there would be future expanded-economy dollars that you could lay claim to because of your particular job and skills. Credit was regulated.

Reagan changed the rules of the game, particularly when he brought in the anti-regulation Libertarian Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Fed. He ran up a massive federal debt - greater than that of every president from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined - in just eight years, and began the process of loosening the power of bank regulators.

That process was finished by a Republican Congress (particularly Phil Gramm) and President Bill Clinton (with help from Rubin and Summers) and then booted out the door by George W. Bush, who borrowed even more than Reagan. Bush even used an obscure 19th century law to fight states' attorneys general who wanted to regulate or prosecute fraud among banks and mortgage lenders in their states (see the article by Eliot Spitzer in the Washington Post just before his being outed for sleeping with a hooker).

Green Eyeshades

During the "Great Stability" - that period from the 1935 onset of the New Deal and the beginning of its end with Reagan's massive tax cuts of 1981 and 1986, leading directly to the stock market crash of 1987 and the S&L debacle - banking was, as Paul Krugman noted in a recent column, "boring." Credit and currency were considered part of the commons, not something off which a small elite should profit. Like the utilities in the game Monopoly, banks provided a predictable but relatively low profit. Nobody got rich, but nobody lost anything, either.

Bankers were the safe and predictable guys who wore green eyeshades at work and pocket protectors in their shirts. The nation's main products were goods and services; nobody "made money with money" in any big way.

Since the serial deregulations of the financial services sector brought on by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, however, bankers became fabulously rich. They called themselves the "Masters of the Universe." They came to dominate contributions to politicians, and facilitated the takeover of most major US newspapers, all the while using debt as their mail tool to make money (burdening those newspapers with such debt that many are now going out of business because they can't repay it).

By 2005, fully 40 percent of all corporate profits in the US came from the financial services sector - a group of people who didn't produce anything at all of value, nothing edible or usable, nothing that would survive into future generations. They invented fancy derivative "products" that they "sold" at high commission rates around the world so others could "make money with money." In fact, they weren't making money - they were taking money. Behavior that would have been criminal during the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations became "normal" and was even encouraged: more than half of all the graduates from many of America's top colleges and universities went into finance so they could get in on the very lucrative scam.

They created debt. As Ellen Brown notes at www.webofdebt.com, according to the Bank of International Settlements, they created and sold at a profit over 900 trillion dollars worth of debt- and risk-based "instruments." That's a pretty mind-boggling number when you consider that the GDP of the United States is around 14 trillion and the GDP of the entire planet is around 65 trillion.

All of these "products" were made and sold based on the assurance that when "then" became "now" the economy would have grown fast enough for there to be enough dollars to pay it back. But the reality of a debt bubble that exceeds the world's GDP many times over came crashing in on us in 2007 - and still hasn't fully crested - producing the "crisis" we currently face.

Are we there yet?

Are we recovering from it all now? Will things soon be back to normal?

If by "normal" we mean like life during the "Great Stability," the answer is: "Not a chance." Back then we had in place tariffs and trade policies, first initiated in 1791 by Alexander Hamilton, that protected our domestic manufacturing industries. We still made things - in fact, the USA was the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods, and the world's largest creditor. Like today's China, for over 100 years we'd loaned other countries money so they could buy our stuff!

On the other hand, if by "normal" we mean how things were over the past 28 "Reaganomics" years - a stagnating middle class, disintegrating manufacturing sector, and piles of money being made by bets and debts - then maybe. After just the first decade of Reaganomics, we went from being the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods to being the world's largest importer; we went from being the world's largest creditor to being the world's largest debtor.

None of that has changed. We haven't repealed Reagan's disastrous tax cuts, which have exploded our nation's budget deficits. We haven't repudiated NAFTA and the WTO and gone back to an international trade policy that puts American interests over those of transnational corporations. We have not re-regulated the banks, and have not brought back 6000-year-old laws against usury (excessive interest rates on debt).

The bankers, in fact, are fighting it tooth and nail - the financial services industry in whole has spent over $5 billion lobbying Congress over the past ten years - and their acolytes like Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner play major and consequential roles in the Obama administration.

It appears that the plan today is not to regulate the amount of debt that banks can create, but instead to both print more money and do everything possible to reinflate the debt bubble. (Lacking a return to Hamilton's national manufacturing and trade policy, as a nation we just continue to slip deeper and deeper into Third World status as an importer and debtor - this may be our only choice if we don't wake up soon.)

If followed, the Summers/Geithner policy can have only one of two outcomes: inflation or another, more serious crash. It's possible we could have both. Apparently the bankers and Summers/Geithner's hope is that neither or both don't happen for at least three and a half years...

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program The Thom Hartmann Show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?," "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It," and "Cracking The Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion." His newest book is Threshold: T he Crisis of Western Culture

Leave Michelle Obama's organic garden alone!

Food Fascist — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:46:05 EDT

Don't let them get away with it.
Ask your friends to join the campaign to tell pesticide lobbyists to stop spreading propaganda about Michelle Obama's organic garden at the White House.

In the past few days, tens of thousands of CREDO activists like you have mobilized to tell pesticide lobbyists that their propaganda about Michelle Obama's organic garden at the White House is unacceptable. It's truly amazing how many of you have taken up this fight in such a short time, and we thank you for your activism.

We need your friends to join this campaign so we can ensure the Mid America CropLife Association and the rest of the chemical industry know that it hurts America when they suggest we can't garden organically, sustainably, and without their chemicals.

Click here to send a note to your friends to tell them what the pesticide lobbyists said about Michelle Obama's organic garden at the White House.

You can also forward the sample message below to your friends.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Kate Stayman-London, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

P.S. CREDO is the phone company that fights for the environment and prints all of its bills on recycled paper. When you join CREDO, we'll give you a free phone, buy out your contract*, and give you $10 off your bill for a year! Click here to get the details.

*Up to $200. Offer valid with 2-year contract after credit approval.

Sample message to send to your friends:

Subject: Tell Pesticide Peddlers: We support Michelle Obama's organic garden.

Dear Friend,

The Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) has a bone to pick with Michelle Obama. MACA represents chemical companies that produce pesticides, and they are angry that — wait for it — Michelle Obama isn't using chemicals in her organic garden at the White House.

I am not making this up.

In an email they forwarded to their supporters, a MACA spokesman wrote, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder." MACA went on to publish a letter it had sent to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals — or what they call "crop protection products" — in her garden.

I just signed a petition telling MACA's board members to stop using Michelle Obama's garden to spread propaganda about produce needing to be sprayed with chemicals. I hope you will, too.

Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=3305&id=3482-1817417-EWkLp6x&t=15

Thanks!

Eye to the Future: Where's the Power Point?

Food Fascist — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:29:03 EDT

Great talk tpday. Wish: I am looking for the PowerPoint Presentation, cannot one be put together to cover more learning modalities other than simply audio/ speech. This could be presented as a simultaneous web cast. Enjoy having the Call to Action from you always.

Would like a slide of each pillar you propose - especially renewable energy- the 3rd Pillar. Germany is on track to be 30% by 2050- see NOVA Saved by the Sun.

Pillar 4 - Health Care - focus on affordability is good. Regular access to wellness counselors are 50 - 75.00 and used for thousands of years in India and China and other countries.

' Everyone should pay what they owe'

Final Point- Cree Indian Saying - only when the last fish has died will man discover he cannot eat money.

The house upon the rock.

I like what I heard today because it was converging more with my economic hero, Ravi Batra. For which you can hear at this link to the audio cast.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SANFRANCISCO-CA/KKGN-AM/Thom%20Hartmann%20040109%20H2.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=SANFRANCISCO-CA&NG_FORMAT=progressivetalk&SITE_ID=5257&STATION_ID=KKGN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Green_960_-_Thom_Hartmann&PCAST_CAT=Podcasts&PCAST_TITLE=Green_960_-_Thom_Hartmann

Are you going to the Tea Party ?

Food Fascist — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:10:38 EDT

I am planning to show up at our tea party and pass out flyers with a copy of what is at http://www.lcurve.org/

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

–The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

–At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

–The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

–From there it keeps going up…it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale

Yet Another $50 Billion for Rust-Bucket Nukes? By Harvey Wasserman

Food Fascist — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:59:01 EDT

Yet Another $50 Billion for Rust-Bucket Nukes?
By Harvey Wasserman

The nuke power industry is back at the public trough for the fourth time in two years demanding $50 billion in loan guarantees to build new reactors. Its rust-bucket poster child is now the ancient clunker at Oyster Creek, whose visible New Jersey rust and advanced radioactive decay are A-OK with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which just gave it a twenty-year license extension. The industry's savior may be France, whose taxpayer-funded EdF and Areva Corporations may be poised to build their own reactors on US soil using French and American taxpayer money.

And President Obama's first big test on nuke power may be how he fills a vacancy---and the chair---at the NRC.

The latest demand for a $50 billion taxpayer handout has been sleazed into the Senate budget bill.  It has already been kicked out of the Stimulus Package, and George W. Bush’s Energy Bills of 2007 and 2008.  Bush did get $18.5 billion in guarantees into his 2005 Energy Bill, but that is being being challenged.
This latest bailout incarnation has been widely tagged “nuclear pork” even in the right-wing Washington Times, which says the Senate accepted it “without debate, explanation or a recorded vote.”   The amendment came from Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID) with support from Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND).  Crapo says the guarantees are part of a program created in the 2005 Bush Energy Bill is aimed at “clean energy” programs, not just “advanced” nuclear power.  But no Congressional experts take that disclaimer seriously.

No independent financiers will take an un-subsidized flier on new reactors.  Nuke operators can’t get private insurance on a major melt-down.  With the proposed Yucca Mountain dump all but dead, the industry---after fifty years---has no certified place to take its high-level radioactive waste.
Guarantees are also part of a bill supported by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy spending, and has been working with Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), a pro-nuke cabal of business and retired military leaders. Green energy groups such as Friends of the Earth, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, NukeFree.org, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and others are gearing up for yet another Congressional fight.  If they win this time, they’ll have to fight it out again and yet again as the industry gloms onto new bills on a "clean energy bank," global warming, reprocessing and more.  “The $50 billion in nuke loan guarantees proposed in February’s economic stimulus bill were taken out in House-Senate conference following a national outpouring of opposition,” says Michael Mariotte of NIRS. “With a similar outpouring, we can defeat these again in the conference committee that will meet after the Easter recess.”

Mariotte says green energy groups are organizing a national write-in campaign to begin next week, and a call-in effort for April 27, the day after the anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. No one doubts the industry will pour on one legislative scam after another in its desperate attempt to get taxpayer money as it is being priced into oblivion by rapid advances in renewables and efficiency.

Reports are also circulating that France’s heavily subsidized reactor pushers, EdF and Areva, may use newly purchased stakes in Constellation and other US utilities to strongarm their way into the American electricity market. Among other things they may use French taxpayer money to build reactors on American soil. Their foreign ownership status may insulate them from even the infamously lax NRC regulation. The Atomic Energy Act prohibits "foreign ownership, control or domination" of a US reactor project, but the industry will try to work around that. As the over-priced, inefficient French fleet wobbles at home without meaningful regulation, and with no solution to its waste problems, the EdF/Areva reactor pushers apparently view the US as virgin territory. Indeed, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just granted a 20-year license extension to America’s oldest reactor. The Oyster Creek plant opened in December, 1969 with an expected design life of forty years. It now has visible rust around its core and has been constantly plagued by errant releases of hot water and lethal radiation. Perched 50 miles east of Philadelphia and 75 miles south of New York City, Oyster Creek could not be licensed at all by today’s standards. Its reactor containment was never required to withstand a jet crash and is far flimsier than the lid that blew off Chernobyl Unit Four in the Ukraine in 1986, releasing massive quantities of radiation into the surrounding countryside. Because Oyster Creek’s old core is laden with far more residual radiation, a breach could blanket the densely populated American northeast with an apocalyptic cloud of death and destruction. Owned by the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, Oyster Creek has been bitterly opposed by area residents and nuclear experts who fear its vital internals are crumbling. The re-licensing process did not require a test of metals in the core, which can become dangerously embrittled after decades of exposure to super-hot water and intense radiation. In 1991, Massachusetts’ elderly Yankee Rowe was shut by lightening. Congressional pressure then demanded an embrittlement inspection that the reactor’s owners would not do. Parallel issues have been contested in bitter relicensing fights at Minnesota’s Monticello, Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit One, Vermont Yankee and Indian Point, 45 miles north of New York City. The first terror jet to hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 flew directly over Indian Point, whose elderly containments could not withstand an airplane's impact. But the NRC’s willingness to re-license the rickety, trouble-plagued Oyster Creek signals a willingness to ignore a wide range of serious health, safety and environmental concerns. Thus pushers of the “Peaceful Atom” are pumping hard for taxpayer handouts and against meaningful regulation, even for the oldest and most decrepit reactors still pumping radiation into the American landscape.

Fittingly, there is now a vacancy on the five-member NRC that President Obama could fill. He could also appoint a new chair. The number of Commissioners over the past three decades who have been at all responsive to legitimate safety and health concerns has been miniscule. An independent-minded appointee would signal that the administration is serious about the health, safety and environmental issues that cut to the core of the "Peaceful Atom."

But whomever Obama appoints, it's painfully clear that the world’s most expensive failed technology is not going away without a long, hard fight.

Harvey Wasserman edits the NukeFree.org website. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org.

GM Killed the electric car Good riddance Waggoner you dope

Food Fascist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:07:23 EDT

In 1996, General Motors (G.M.) launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of 'battery parks'.

Many of the people who leased the car, including a number of celebrities, said the car drove like a dream.

"...the EV1 was a high performer. It could do a U-turn on a dime; it was incredibly quiet and smooth. And it was fast. I could beat any Porsche off the line at a stoplight. I loved it," Actress, Alexandra Paul told NOW. Even Mel Gibson ordered one and contested when they would no longer re-new his lease and came and took the car away from him to bring it to the auto wrecker.
Here is the link to a streaming video to a trailer of the film:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

Yahoo! Enough of Waggoner That Schlep

Food Fascist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:05:06 EDT

Published on Sunday, November 16, 2008 by CommonDreams.orgGM Must Re-Make the Mass Transit System it Murdered

by Harvey Wasserman

Bail out General Motors? The people who murdered our mass transit system?

First let them remake what they destroyed.

GM responded to the 1970s gas crisis by handing over the American market to energy-efficient Toyota and Honda.

GM met the rise of the hybrids with "light trucks."

GM built a small electric car, leased a pilot fleet to consumers who loved it, and then forcibly confiscated and trashed them all.

GM now wants to market a $40,000 electric Volt that looks like a cross between a Hummer and a Cadillac and will do nothing to meet the Solartopian needs of a green-powered Earth.

For this alone, GM's managers should never be allowed to make another car, let alone take our tax money to stay in business.

But there is also a trillion-dollar skeleton in GM's closet.

This is the company that murdered our mass transit system.

The assertion comes from Bradford Snell, a government researcher whose definitive report damning GM has been a vehicular lightening rod since its 1974 debut. Its attackers and defenders are legion. But some facts are irrefutable:

In a 1922 memo that will live in infamy, GM President Alfred P. Sloan established a unit aimed at dumping electrified mass transit in favor of gas-burning cars, trucks and buses.

Just one American family in 10 then owned an automobile. Instead, we loved our 44,000 miles of passenger rail routes managed by 1,200 companies employing 300,000 Americans who ran 15 billion annual trips generating an income of $1 billion. According to Snell, "virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system."

But GM lost $65 million in 1921. So Sloan enlisted Standard Oil (now Exxon), Philips Petroleum, glass and rubber companies and an army of financiers and politicians to kill mass transit.

The campaigns varied, as did the economic and technical health of many of the systems themselves. Some now argue that buses would have transcended many of the rail lines anyway. More likely, they would have hybridized and complemented each other.

But with a varied arsenal of political and financial subterfuges, GM helped gut the core of America's train and trolley systems. It was the murder of our rail systems that made our "love affair" with the car a tragedy of necessity.

In 1949 a complex federal prosecution for related crimes resulted in an anti-trust fine against GM of a whopping $5000. For years thereafter GM continued to bury electric rail systems by "bustituting" gas-fired vehicles.

Then came the interstates. After driving his Allied forces into Berlin on Hitler's Autobahn, Dwight Eisenhower brought home a passion for America's biggest public works project. Some 40,000 miles of vital eco-systems were eventually paved under.

In habitat destruction, oil addiction, global warming, outright traffic deaths (some 40,000/year and more), ancillary ailments and wars for oil, the automobile embodies the worst ecological catastrophe in human history.

Should current General Motors management be made to pay for the ancient sins of Alfred Sloan?

Since the 1880s, American corporations have claimed human rights under the law. Tasking one now with human responsibilities could set a great precedent.

GM has certainly proved itself unable to make cars that can compete while healing a global-warmed planet.

So let's convert the company's infrastructure to churn out trolley cars, monorails, passenger trains, truly green buses.

FDR forced Detroit to manufacture the tanks, planes and guns that won World War 2 (try buying a 1944 Chevrolet!). Now let a reinvented GM make the "weapons" to win the climate war and energy independence.

It demands re-tooling and re-training. But GM's special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system---and ecological balance---it has helped destroy.

Harvey Wasserman is co-author, with Bob Fitrakis, of four books on election protection which are available atwww.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. His HARVEY WASSERMAN's HISTORY OF THE US is atwww.harveywasserman.com

NORML Strikes Back!!!

Food Fascist — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:25:02 EDT

SoloPocono Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

OK Paul, I JUST got home from the doctors-where HE laughed at ME when I suggested Marinol, at LEAST, for my glaucoma, chronic ulcers, severe muscle spasms caused by frequent dislocations and fractures–all related to a genetic disorder I was born with. I live in a State where a congressman plans on introducing a bill for medical cannabis in the coming weeks: and where Allen can tell you-last night on a local newscast, the subject was all BUT laughed at. *I’M* NOT LAUGHING!!!
I”M IN PAIN, I”M GOING BLIND, and can’t take the eye drops because I’m allergic to them. 10 years ago I lost everything-my career as a healthcare professional, and my insurance which began a domino effect; beginning with my marriage, my home, my car, my children-and because of the latter-I nearly lost my sanity. Despite my deteriorating health, including a fight with ovarian cancer, I’ve pushed on. At 48yrs old, I would NEVER have guessed that in 2009, this valuable, medicinal, life giving, peace loving PLANT would STILL be illegal!! I’ve actually looked forward to the day where I could sit back, smoke a joint, LEGALLY, knowing that those magical cannabinoids that GOD PUT HERE ON EARTH FOR US, even constructing our own bodies complete with a receptive endocannabinoid system–were at work in my body helping me to heal,..in peace.
My fantasy is blown. Do you all realize what kind of effect this insane attitude that Obama portrayed this morning will have on those legislatures that are, right now,debating the possibility of legalizing cannabis? FINALLY?? We’ve come SO close, only to have this man WE BELIEVED IN, that we ALL believed would bring CHANGE–make a mockery of US??!!! A mockery of the suffering that MILLIONS are going through just waiting for the day we can have some HOPE??!!
uuhhmm..wasn’t “HOPE” a pillar of Obama’s campaign??!!
You know folks, I’m REALLY starting to believe that this man is just ONE MORE, bought and paid for, instrument of the almighty dollar, and ONLY the almighty dollar.
Maybe we should REALLY get to him where it WOULD make a CHANGE. A *CHANGE* in poll numbers, support of his other policies-most of which are all leaning towards the corporatocracy anyways.
Obama just DOESN’T “GET IT”. And I for one, am sick and tired of being laughed at, trodden on, and lied to by politicians, owned by special interests.
I’m calling Caseys and Specter office as soon as I’m done here. After that, I’ll start writing-to everyone I can. I REFUSE to continue to support a president who LAUGHS at the suffering and VERY hard work of others.
My fantasies about “CHANGE” are gone, the bubble has burst.
sorry folks–a rather emotional issue for a sleep-deprived woman in extreme pain right now….Keep up the GREAT Work Paul, Allen, and everyone else. I may be giving up on Obama, but NOT this cause….

See more here: http://blog.norml.org/2009/03/26/president-obama-what-is-so-funny-about-taxing-and-regulating-marijuana/comment-page-3/#comment-24974

Sacred Cow Tipping - A Change in Focus

Rheanni — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:43:14 EDT

Creating a Tipping Point for Sustainable Economic Prosperity

The Status Quo is at it again - trying to blow the smoke of denial in our eyes. They would like us to rescue the Old Economy and bring back the old ways of manipulating commerce and unsustainable business practices.

What is actually required is to move forward and build the infrastructure for a New Economy based on sustainability, access and accountability. Yet the Sacred Cow that says, "Keep looking backwards" is front and center, stubbornly digging it's heels in to sabotage any real change.

Most people know in their heart of hearts that the old economy is dying. The Old Guard would love to feed the sense of hopelessness and fear with their carefully calculated doomsday predictions and the Media will gladly oblige.

What we can do to pull the plug on this kind of thinking is to turn our focus towards businesses and solutions that are being built now, rather than spending our precious resources on keeping the Titanic afloat.

President Obama Disrespects Jeer those who would legalize marijuana

Food Fascist — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:06:57 EDT

If Tom Ammiato’s Bill would pass in California, we could tax the herb and yield an estimated annual one billion dollars. Please educate yourself on it before disrespecting the issue. This would reduce significantly the Mexican drug cartels and keep medical doctors out of jail. Do you outlaw clover on your front lawn. Do you have any background in herbal medicine. Your response today really offended me. Read Dr. Sperling's book Rebel with a Cause. Marijuana has shown a big part in healing cancer. Stop making fun of the idea of making fun of legalizing marijuana and at least educate yourself on the matter or put in place. I’ll tell you what to laugh at- Clean coal.

You have the audacity to tell us herbalists what does and does not cure cancer when you are supporting the ficticeous clean coal that does? If the nation won’t allow marijuana, then be intellectually honest and prohibit alcohol. Eric Holder came out and said there would be no more federal raids in California and sure enough there was another raid at a medical marijuana club in San Francisco just a few days ago.

We have a problem with Western Medicine in general, I doubt many would have need spinal taps or unnecessary surgeries or additctive pain killers to mask their true health problems.

Outline of the Banking Plan

Northside — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:53:12 EDT

Thank you Mr. President and your administration. I read about the outline of your banking plan to come out soon and for what it is worth I like it. It seems to show that government understands the problem and is willing to act, while allowing business to participate in the process which gets it closer to operating the way it was designed to. I know that some of these guys in banking have a 'sense of survial' that is alien to you, but thanks for looking past that to deal with them. With a plan in place, it may be harder for you to get opposition to the big 3 issues (health care, energy and education). Great work in my opinion. Try to see if some of the cabinet people running these things can get your message out and handle well, some hard questions about this plan. I think that your plans for the new big 3 seem like too much because you are the primary spokesman. It's hard for most people to grasp why now and why so much change by this one man-is he the only one doing it because he is the only one talking. I understand that you want it that way now and for good reason. But if others can defend it with some similiar ability as yours, it would show a team effort with other key people able to focus on parts while you bring it together. Now that the banking plan will be layed out and enacted soon, everyone will have to accept that we will wait and see, and adjust if needed. So you and those most senior on the big 3 issues may want to show that the president is not trying to single handedly run this entire agenda. I think you can and are in the end, but the lack of appereance of multi-person administration makes these huge issues seem overwhelming, even for you to handle, in the eyes of most people. The may underestimate how smart you are-but it doesn't matter why, its the result of a number of solo speach and appreances. With a banking plan in the works, you want to see that your lieutanents are able to appear as commanders in your abscense (I am sure they are).

This moderate democratic senate group thing of 15 senators. I think is more about Pelosi and the house than the president, and is a good thing. Your admin and them may agree on most things anyway, but just in case remember that you have legions in their states as well. but you got to give it to pelosi, she got republicans to vote for the mother of all tax increases with this AIG bonus tax thing (not sure of constitutionality), which may make it hard to justify not accepting some higher taxes later. However be careful. if there is a wedge or sticking point between your admin and this moderate group where it gets public-repulbicans could try to use that disagreement to align with this group and not you, in order to make you look like the far left liberal and them with replublicans as the compromisers and on the right course for the country. the biggest things they will have in common with republicans is fiscal disipline claims. But maintain that King Arthur thing, your legions will fight for you. and do not sweat the bonus stuff more than needed. at the end of the day it does not have the substance to last much longer. I got a lot going on before the usual hire season for my career path, so wish me luck all. and Mr. President hold onto the Big 3 issues, provide the appropriate reform in the finance world, and align who we are with who we need to be for the future. My republican and ultra conservative friends won't like this, but- Long Live Obama, Long Live Obama!!

P.S. I am a novice, so i mean no disrespect with all of this before and after. Elizabeth Warren gets the whole picture and sees how the pieces move, if you can get her advice on thing and have not already I would say you should consider it. Also, I sence even seeing you in public with Pres Clinton that this may not be what you want to hear. But if you can get if feedback on you plan or hear any of his ideas and run them off of your advisors it may be helpful (if you have not already). We get caught up in some of his past, and forget that he can see the whole thing-better than many experts of economy and how the financial industry fits- and relate it to policy, people, execution etc. I understand why you may not want to, or be willing to make those conversations public-don't let his competitive thing get to you-he is a good man and may be able to contribute ideas to your Big 3 issues. Not that you guys need any help from anyone, me included. But your admin seems welcome different points of view, Pres clinton may see things differently and have something to offer and there aren't that many presidents that can grasp all this stuff who are with your party-clinton and carter i say check with them both. I realize that i can come across 'difficult' in written blogs.

President Obama to Unveil Plans To Help Small Businesses.

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:01:30 EDT

The broad package of measures to be announced Monday includes portions of the $730 million from the stimulus plan that will be used to immediately reduce small-business lending fees and increase the government guarantee on some Small Business Administration loans to 90 percent. The government also will take aggressive steps to boost bank liquidity with more than $10 billion aimed at unfreezing the secondary credit market, according to officials briefed on the plan who demanded anonymity to avoid pre-empting the president's announcement.

In the coming weeks, the SBA will unveil additional initiatives as part of the stimulus plan to help a small-business community that is seen as critical to staving off job losses and promoting economic growth, officials said.

"It's a huge step in the right direction," Giovanni Coratolo, director of Small Business Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Saturday. "In this economy, having the least amount of risk for banks will incentivize banks to lend to small businesses. A lot of small businesses will benefit from this." Link

banking plan and the mark-to-market decision

Northside — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:01:23 EST

The congressional decision on mark-to-market is coming up this week I think. This would be a good time to lay out more specifics if you can about the banking plan. I personally think that a relaxation of a rule that is designed to allow the market to price things is a b it treasonous to the concept of capitalism (yeah I said it, and I don’t think that is too extreme). I am also concerned by those who are ‘delighted with joy’ about a possible relaxation of this rule. I worry that they are only capitalists and ‘free marketers’ when it is convenient, and really don’t believe in these concepts. I can not say that they do not believe what they believe, or that they are absolutely wrong. But if they do not embrace or comprehend the long term ramifications of this relaxation-I think there opinion on many things should be continually challenged.

However, I did not expect 8% unemployment by the first 2 months of 2009. Given that I have a feeling that there will be strong moves toward relaxing mark-to-market to keep values of these assets up. Here’s how I see it. If congress does not approve relaxation, the markets will continue a down turn most likely. And if we start getting to a level of 5000, it then becomes difficult on the psyche of Americans that can afford ‘wealth affect’ spending; it also makes it very difficult for many of our safe investments (annuities, money markets) to keep return commitments. Here, I believe is where a lot of baby boomer money is or will be. The paper loss on equity is so great that the time it will take to ‘ride it out’ back to pre-crisis levels is just too long for anyone, and worse for those who will have to retire and use that money soon (4 to 10 years before getting the markets and indexes back to pre-crisis #’s, depending on how many actual circular recessions we may have in the future). Many estimates expect 10% unemployment or higher by year’s end. I would still say you will flirt with 10% even with your stimulus. It, I think, should be clear that housing being the problem is actually code for foreclosures that limit cash flows to MBSs’ and indirectly to other investments, that is the heart of the pricing problem in my mind-home values and the rest stem from that, to me. Cash will trickle back into the market, but at a slow pace, and under more conservative conditions until people feel the ‘bad asset problem’, foreclosures, market/economy psychology problems are behind us (that will not be soon the way things are going, and there is a treat that the cash on the side lines will stay out longer than needed). While we are waiting to get this confidence back, there will be week after week of bad news of some form for a while, adding to the likelihood of a 5000 Dow down the road.

If they do approve a relaxation, there will most likely be a nice bump in all markets that may actually last for a while. There may even be some selling of these assets that is motivated by the artificially high values, maybe there will be a lot depending on the length of time the relaxation is slated for. But these things will not justify most businesses hiring or keeping employees, it does not stop a certain level of foreclosures without certain actions taking place. And the reality for many of these assets is that continued high foreclosures will still continue to lower the ‘actual’ value of these things even if the accounting rule change allows for higher recorded value. This sets up the possibility of a large forced write down later anyway, because eventually an asset that was priced at a performance level of 70% is actually only receiving 40% of its contractual agreed upon cash flow/mortgage payments. Eventually for many of these assets the numbers about the ‘underlying’ elements will not add up to the inflated accounting value- basic financial equations will not be able to justify high prices for low performance. The worse part is this will most likely happen when these assets are sold to the more solvent private entities in our financial system. Or there is the likelihood no one will buy them anyway because they know the new values are artificial, so the assets stay on the books of companies. Write downs will happen here and there or they will happen often, but either way it will hinder future growth that younger people like me or more importantly boomers are counting on for their retirement. Since no one can predict the amount of damage write downs after an accounting rule relaxation will do, I’m not sure that the accounting rule will be enough to give us long term, multiyear growth in the markets or in banking.

I think that this govt/private joint investment fund is a good idea that can give private industry the ability to participate in the purchase of these things. I would only suggest that the initial budgeting appropriations (or estimated government costs and investment) of this fund be flexible and have an ability to carry the heavy load of most of these assets and govt being the first ones to do so. I love the concept of hedge funds, I admit it. But I would not count on them to go out-on-a-limb for these assets, not if they feel they can make money else were (be it commodities, foreign countries, etc). I think that this fund should have a budget for appropriations based on an ideal or promised private participation, and one for what I think will be the reality of it. The reality being that gov’t will have to go in first and show some justifiable gains in asset values in the short term, before most of the private players will risk limited liquidity in slowly thawing credit and financial markets.

In b-school we learned a little about Nash’s equilibrium and used a simplified variation of that, which can apply to just about every decision making scenario, called game-theory (I’m sure most of you are familiar). I used it in a simplified version, with my limited amount of information and found that the choice that I think brings the highest overall value is for the government to be ready to buy first, and in the beginning most of these assets, in order to set precedence and establish the only real market driven pricing-those created through purchases. The risks of government ownership are not as bad as the risks to private industry ownership. And we can have all the debates on taxes with the far right and far left, but do not be fooled, the programs the Obama admin and majority of congress wants will be hard to sustain without a strong private industry upon which the govt can obtain revenue. Also the reality of global competition for deposit dollars and investing is greater now than it has ever been since we became the recognized wealthiest and most powerful country. We should not forget that the destruction of most of Europe and much on industrialized Asia in WWII gave us a nice window for decades to get to the # 1 spot. That gap is closing, and our long term position at the top is good for us. If we get more competition (or using a reversal of the international financial markets adage ‘When Asia and Europe sneezes, the U.S. gets a cold’ in financial terms) it will make consistent strong revenue a problem, and make it difficult to control inflation and dollar value-I’m not sure we are ready for our economy and markets to be that dependent on others, nor do we want to be that dependent). To sum this point up, if we lean toward bigger govt as a larger percentage of GDP, we should also make sure that private industry is as big as it can be and has a competitive advantage over the world-that sounds elitist but when you think about it, the best way for big govt and big business to live together is for businesses of all kinds to have a consistent competitive advantage over the world.

I know the hazards of it and the unpopularity of the ‘bad bank’ function here, but it does cure the disease of the credit/banking crisis. And I know that the President’s high approval may give him a mandate to do what he wants on these banking things. And his approval may last even if the banking/financial areas continue to take-it-on-the-chin. But Mr. President you will have to answer to history, to the generations of your daughters and your grandchildren on this. You have the ability to ease both the investor world in general and the public at large-mainly because they are one in the same. The 85%-90% of home owners in good standing (yeah my opinion, it could be wrong and it could be right) in basic financial terms and millions of Americans that have some stake in the financial markets are the real economy and back bone of most of the financial markets. And at the end of the day, the best money managers will answer to them through decision to buy, sell, or put it all in cash until things start making sense. They are the innocent victims of a lot of this. Strengthening Wall Street not only strengthens their ‘wealth effect’ desire to start buying, but also makes it easier for them to salvage their future. I love it when the president speaks and introduce his plans and talk to us. But remember Mr. President that many people will believe the worst is behind us ONLY when the economy or the markets demonstrate that they can perform on their own, the way they were designed to (I admit I am one of that many). If govt money is the only job engine of the economy, there is a point were govt could tax its own spending and that is obviously problematic. Mr. President you can convince those against it that it is good for us all to invest in these assets. If it helps remind people that when govt buys them, these banks and financial entities will take large losses, if they have not already(-the people that can win at this point where going to win no matter what, for the most part). I ask that you work on the bad assets, so that market levels can stay as high as possible. Not for Wall Street people, but for the many innocent (I believe I am one of them) who do not need it to be harder then necessary, for them or their money manager people, to navigate some decent returns for their future. It’s good for a personal financial bottom line, encouraging healthy consumer spending, and supporting the real economy; not just wall street indexes. I would ask that you strongly consider the function of buying the assets and be ready with budgets and operational plans based on equal private participation in the beginning, or non-at all. Buying bad assets from business timed with positive effects of the stimulus plan on saving jobs, plus your federal mortgage restructuring plan, may be able to ease the future economic pain, add some stability to the financial indexes, and quicken future economic growth.

You may want to see if you or your speech team can work with Geithner when he starts to announce bank plan specifics-hopefully he will. Don’t worry about Geithner’s critics too much, most of them are yelling about the burning building and still can not tell you how to put out the fire. It’s unprecedented and he has to attempt to please a lot of people. For what its worth I understand if he has to stay in ‘the lab’ and work it out. But the mark-to-market decision may be a good time to walk people through more of a banking plan, or soon after (just an opinion).

FOR GOD’S SAKE PLEASE PASS REINSTATMENT THE UPTICK RULE!!!!!

Congrats Sir Kennedy! - I would think from the entire group. I think people should not treat him like a martyr already though. He looked pretty good at the health summit thing. It looks to me he may still have some battles in him yet.

Sacred Cow Tipping - Playing the Blame Game

Rheanni — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:11:50 EST

Long, long ago, the Status Quo established a particularly opportunist Sacred Cow to use whenever cornered by their own abuse of power. This collective agreement was bred and perpetuated into the people through the use of force and trauma to avoid responsibility, and it's being used now with the economy:

"Blame the Victim."

The way it often works is for the perpetrator to insist that they had no choice – they had to do whatever it was they did because of the victim. They don't want the economic recovery plan to help the people that need it the most. They think they are able to depend on compliance because the victims are so used to being abused, falling into the role almost automatically. A victim readily accepts blame because that is what they have been trained to do through repeated traumatic events.

Old Regulated Monopolies and the State of our Economy

My Vote Matters — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:59:36 EST

Yes, remember that term, "Regulated Monopoly"? I remember it well having worked in the telecommunications industry for 15 years in the "unregulated" paging and cell phone industry after the US system of market duopoly with a** backwards analog technology finally opened up leaving us a minimum of 5 years behind the rest of the developed world. The telecom companies who were regulated monopolies were the worst run companies in the nation, keeping Americans in mid 20th century telecommunications all the way through the Internet creation and evolution as a consumer accessed network that became what it is today. Dealing with them was like dealing with the Kremlin. To this day, America is 5 to 10 years behind other developed nations like S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Singapore etc. in it's telecommunications infrastructure.

So, what I read today from the power industry side was stirring. I can tell you for sure, America's regulated monopolies, the power companies, were just as bad throughout the history of power in America. The problem we have today is as our impotent government "deregulated" the telecommunications and power industries they did so by rubber stamping plans created by the pigs (think tanks, "non-profit" corporate funded institutions and directly from the companies themselves) legislation that did nothing more than deregulate the regulated pricing mechanisms without allowing any competition to gain access to the infrastructure or industry on reasonable terms or at profitable prices. Competitors were sued and the weakly written legislation was challenged in court by the very industries who were "deregulated" using their limitless lawyer bank accounts managing to overturned any hint of "real" competition written into the toothless laws.

I could go on and on just using the pathetic example of the "deregulation" of Constellation Energy in the Mid Atlantic / Maryland market (BGE is our local distributor here) and how it hamstrung any potential competitor for 10 years after the signing of the pathetic legislation. One could also write a dissertation on the "deregulation" of Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) on the same basis.

So why am I babbling about this today?

Obama's Excellent Atomic Omission

Food Fascist — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:32:51 EST

Harvey Wasserman

Obama's Excellent Atomic Omission
February 26, 2009

Two lethal words went thankfully unspoken in President Obama’s address to the nation this week---atomic energy.

Unfortunately, two others---“clean coal”---were included.

An increasingly desperate reactor industry just tried to sneak a $50 billion loan guarantee package into the stimulus bill. But for the third time since 2007, it got beat by a powerful national grassroots movement and key Congressional leaders.

Nuke pushers now want reactors painted “green” in a renewable standard Congress may soon set.

Hordes of radioactive lobbyists will swarm around that and new energy and global warming legislation. Every obscure sentence in those bills will be targeted for hidden handouts. Unfortunately, some money may already have slipped through from previous Bush-Cheney maneuvering.

EDF, the French national utility, wants to force its nukes into the American market. With Wall Street unwilling, Areva---the EDF front company---would use French tax money here as in Finland, where a new reactor project is already years behind schedule and billions over budget.

In Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Maryland, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin and elsewhere, the industry wants to tax ratepayers for reactor construction in advance. In Florida and Georgia, rates are already soaring. A Missouri utility is trying to overturn a 1976 public referendum banning such scams.

Obama’s position has been largely opaque. Close to pro-nuke Illinois utilities in his early days, he has never renounced the technology. But he’s firmly opposed Nevada’s Yucca Mountain high level repository, whose failure---after fifty years---leaves the industry with no solution to its waste problem.

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has made pro-nuke rumblings. But the critical component---massive federal funding---has not materialized. So we green energy advocates held our collective breath when Obama promised to “invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”

In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination, Obama included nuke power. Now the reference is gone. Let’s hope that signals an end to all taxpayer funding for this catastrophic failed technology.

Unfortunately, Obama did mention “clean coal,” which---like “safe nukes”--- does not exist. On March 2, there will be non-violent civil disobedience against a coal burner in the nation’s capital. This welcome action follows in the tradition of mass occupations at the Seabrook (NH) and other reactor construction sites since 1976.

Back then, grassroots organizations like the Clamshell Alliance developed a Solartopian vision of a world totally free from fossil fuels and atomic power. The plan was born in part at a “Toward Tomorrow” energy fair in Amherst, Massachusetts that featured wind power pioneer William Heronemus and efficiency guru Amory Lovins.

A green-powered Earth means ending both fossil and nuke power, to run totally on solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, non-food-based biofuels and other true renewables, with increased efficiency and restored mass transit.

Like stashing nuke waste in an earthquake zone surrounded by dormant volcanoes, as at Yucca Mountain, carbon sequestration for coal is unworkable, unacceptable---and unnecessary.

The upcoming march against that coal burner will be ushered along by three decades of anti-nuke activism. Let’s hope it prompts Obama to omit that clean coal oxymoron from his next speech---and from all proposed government funding.

--
Harvey Wasserman edits the NukeFree.org website, and is author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth. He was arrested at the Diablo Canyon (CA) nuke in 1984, and Seabrook in 1989.
=

$500 K a Year is To Low... and on the Stimulus

My Vote Matters — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:16:19 EST

I have thought long and hard about our president's decision to cap pay of TARP recipient’s top people and have come to the conclusion it is just plain to low. I would like to have heard some rationale for the cap. We are talking about financial institutions here that vary from a few million dollars in market cap to billions. Any one off salary cap is completely out of touch with several realities: 1) the size of the firm and responsibility that goes with it, 2) the practical costs of living in places like NYC where some of the biggest firms are centered, 3) the real loss of management flexibility in providing incentives to people at the companies who received TARP.

HOW TO SECTION: How to Posts in Forums

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:16:42 EST

Many new photography forum participants don't know how to post, or embed, an image within a message. The process is quite actaully simple. The image must first be uploaded to a server such as at an online photo hosting site.

To post an image, use its full URL

Go to the image at a hosting service, right click it and open the Properties menus.

Next, highlight the full address (URL), copy the URL and then paste it into the subject area in a forum post. For the image to appear, you MUST include the .jpg extension.

Generally, you should get the URL from the image itself, not the address bar of a browser.

For example, below is the full URL to a thumbnail photo in the Digicamhelp Photo Galleries. One space has been added after the http: so you can see the how the text is supposed to appear (you wouldn't normally add a space).

http: //www.digicamhelp.com/gallery/thumbs/256-graceful-goose.jpg

When the correct URL is posted in a thread, the image will appear.

This method is the most commonly used in photography forums, but not all forums use it. Some require code placed around the URL for the image such as: [img] URL [/image]

http://www.digicamhelp.com/processing-photos/photo-hosting/posting-photos.php

Just say no to Geiger & Sachs Treasury Secretary

Food Fascist — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:41:38 EST

The American public has been sacked by Sachs Enough!

If Geiger can't remember to pay his taxes or most likely simply did not want to pay his taxes- Just say no to these crooks dammit!!!!

Republican Myth: Cutting Taxes does NOT Raise Revenues

Food Fascist — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:51:01 EST

The following is regarding the current State of California budget crisis- but the following challenges Schwarzeneggers statements regarding taxation and makes use of a Thom Hartmann transcript to be used for the education of the state to get us past this horrible debt issue and perhaps to be used on a national level to help sell however President-elect Obama plans to pay for the stimulus.

THX for everything you do.

January 8, 2008 Senator Darrel Steinberg
President pro-Tem 1020 N Street, Suite 576 Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-1529 Dear Sir: On the local news various times per day I am hearing the voice of Governor Schwarzenegger say 'Californians cannot pass the proposed Democratic Party budget because it raises taxes that will cause the state to lose revenues.' Articulating against this case this very morning at the time I called your phone number to express my anxiety over hearing yet still squabble over a State budget, was my favorite broadcaster, author and pundit Thom Hartmann -literally making the case as I was trying to while on the phone to your staffer, Nicholas Barry. What timing! If only I could have put the phone next to my internet speakers. Well as promised, I am able to deliver the link to the audio cast to enable you to hear this fine delivery with an explanation of the origins of how the myth of cutting taxes raises revenues was generated; but am also extremely pleased to provide you with even a transcript of the case made for which was a response to an email I sent to Sue Nethercott of the show, who arranged a transcript to be developed and was promptly here to me for you just an an hour ago. This information in my opinion should be gotten to the media so the constituents of the state understand the argument. Find the link to the audio cast below. If link breaks, you can go to http://www.green960.com/main.html and to the 'listen here' tab, to Thom Hartman podcasts 01/08/09 hour 1 to the old podcast page for today, hour 1: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SANFRANCISCO-CA/KKGN-AM/Thom%20Hartmann%2001-08-09%20H1.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=SANFRANCISCO-CA&NG_FORMAT=progressivetalk&SITE_ID=5257&STATION_ID=KKGN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Green_960_-_Thom_Hartmann&PCAST_CAT=Podcasts&PCAST_TITLE=Green_960_-_Thom_Hartmann Beneath, please find the transcript Sue had made for your immediate attention.

Highlight of transcript below:

the Two Santa Claus Theory......

Republicans were opposed tax cuts. They thought that a balanced budget was a good thing. And historically the Republicans were opposed to government spending. Now, what Jude Wanniski did is, he came along and he said, 'you can, Republicans, you can now be in favor of tax cuts. You can be a Santa Claus to the American people, because we've invented this thing called the Laffer curve, and we've come up with this idea called 'supply side economics' that says if you cut taxes you're actually going to raise revenue.

.....the two Santa Clauses theory worked. The Republicans in the late 70s, Jude Wanniski, who invented supply side economics; invented the word, the phrase, and Grover Norquist sat down with Newt Gingrich and as Norquist writes, "Newt Gingrich thought he had died and gone to heaven". What, you mean we can be the Santa Claus who gives out tax breaks and tax cuts and we can be the Santa Claus who spends money? Yeah. All you have to do is bankrupt the government.

From: Sue Nethercott [mailto:sue.nethercott@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:43 PM
To: Louise Hartmann
Cc: karenhansen108@comcast.net
Subject: Transcript: Obama's economic speech and the Two Santa Claus Theory rant, 08 January 2009

Thom Hartmann on Obama's Economic Speech and the Two Santa Claus Theory, 08 January 2009

Barack Obama gave a, knocked it out of the ball park today and here's what you're going to get on this program that you're not going to get on any other talk radio show, except perhaps those that follow this to the extent that this show becomes show prep for other shows, and that's the back story.

Why are we here? It's not, this is not just Republican irresponsibility, this is not just the failure of ideology, this mess that we are in, it's not just Phil Gramm doing away with Glass Steagall, it's not just, you know, there's a whole bunch, it's not just the Savings and Loan crisis, it's not just unregulated bankers and all that kind of thing.

In fact, in a very, very real way those are all symptoms of the real cause. And the real cause goes back to the mid '70s with conservative and Republican thinkers, plotters, schemers, people who hate America, at least the way that it was conceived by our founders, planning on how they could gain power, in their mind ideally even permanent power, but at least the majority of the power over the short term and over the long term so that they could make themselves wealthy, (a), but perhaps most important, (b), so that they could have America in the vision that it has been held since conservatives, well, since the very early days, since John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts; our first conservative president, the second president of the United States, the guy who shut down twenty newspapers. He put Benjamin Franklin Bache, Ben Franklin's grandson in prison, 'cause Ben Franklin's grandson dared to write that President John Adams was 'old, toothless, balding and querulous' - combative. For this he put him in prison. Okay.

The conservatives from the founding of this country have believed that if the majority of the people participate in governance, it's a bad thing. The conservative world view is that you must have a small governing elite. It must be the good people, the few good people. And how do you define the good people? Well, they're the rich ones, because riches, just ask John Calvin, right? The founder of Calvinism, the Calvinist church. This was a very, very popular notion for hundreds of, it still is. The way that you know the good people, they're the ones that God blessed. And how do you know that God blessed them? 'Cause they're rich.

So this was the goal: to strip America of small 'd' democracy and replace it with an autocracy. How to go about doing it? How do you achieve maximum power in a nation where the vast majority of the people would really rather not have a small group have maximum power? You do it with the Two Santa Claus Theory.

I mentioned this yesterday, Jude Wanniski, just in passing, I have the details for you now. I was just running off memory, I've done my homework since then. This is where it all began and I want to lay this out for you as we go through this hour and through this program today.

...

But first, Barack Obama and his comments:

"Nearly two million jobs have been now lost, and on Friday we are likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any time since World War II. Just in the past year, another 2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. Manufacturing has hit a twenty-eight year low."

Now, now let's see, twenty-eight years ago, what was going on? Oh yeah, that was Ronald Reagan, twenty-eight years ago, what a surprise. Yeah, so he's identified the problem, that we have a job loss that we haven't seen since the Great Depression, the last Republican Great Depression. And, you know, Barack Obama is such a nice guy. It really helped him during the election; he didn't call out John McCain, he didn't point out the horrible things that were being done, he called it 'silliness', things like that. But there comes a time, in my humble opinion, when it's useful for a politician to actually call these guys out. Now hopefully that time will, or maybe he'll have attack dogs who'll do it. But this was Barack Obama identifying, broadly speaking, the issue. He continued:

"This crisis did not happen solely by some accident of history or normal turn of the business cycle."

See, and this, this is such an important point. This was not a normal turn of the business cycle and it was not an accident of history. This was intentional. Now, what he doesn't tell you in the speech is what I'm going to tell you, which is how this thing was planned going all the way back to the 1970s, and how it came about. Obama continues:

"And we won't get out of it by simply waiting for a better day to come, or relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past. We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC."

And, frankly, it went beyond that. I mean, that's where it ended up, but it started with a group of conservatives saying, you know, 'how can we do this? What can we, let's make this thing happen'. As I said, I'll tell you the details in a minute.

"Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve."

Okay, and that gets to the heart of it. That gets right to the heart of it. This goes back to a guy named Jude Wanniski who, back in the 70s, laid out the blueprint for this whole thing, for the theft of American government. He and Grover Norquist were the guys who really put this thing together. Jude Wanniski invented the term "supply side economics". It was a revolutionary thing.

As Robert Novak, yes, that guy, you know, 'the dark prince' is the phrase he likes to use referring to himself. He's not the guy who coined it, but he loves it when people call him that. As Robert Novak wrote in 2005 in Real Clear Politics, his column, his nationally syndicated column, he says, "The late supply-side pioneer Jude Wanniski wrote about two governmental Santa Clauses -- one bestowing spending increases and the other tax cuts. For 50 years until the supply-side revolution in the late 1970s, Republicans rejected both Santa Clauses and cemented their minority political status."

You get this? Historically, Republicans were opposed tax cuts. They thought that a balanced budget was a good thing. And historically the Republicans were opposed to government spending. Now, what Jude Wanniski did is, he came along and he said, 'you can, Republicans, you can now be in favor of tax cuts. You can be a Santa Claus to the American people, because we've invented this thing called the Laffer curve, and we've come up with this idea called 'supply side economics' that says if you cut taxes you're actually going to raise revenue.

It was a lie then, it's a lie now. It has never worked although it still has it's apologists out there. But this was one of the most despicable and intentional lies of the conservatives and the Republicans to gain power. I'll share the second one right after this break.

...

Bumper music: The Gambler
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sitting at the table.
There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done.

On a warm summer's evening on a train bound for nowhere
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns staring out the window at the darkness
til boredom overcame us, and he began to speak.

Your radio support group for we the people. Thom Hartmann here with you. Yeah, you need to know when to hold them and when to fold them and this is the time that Obama needs to be holding them, and pushing it forward.

Jude Wanniski died in 2005 and wrote several books, the guy who invented supply side economics. His partner in crime was Grover Norquist. Cato Institute president Ed Crane in an article about Wanniski titled, "The GOP: Slouching towards Irrelevance" talked about how this guy gave it to the Republicans. He said, "When [U.S. Representatives]", now this was a decade or more ago he wrote this. "When [U.S. Representatives] Jack Kemp, New Gingrich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy... That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."

Pretty straightforward stuff, economicprincipals.com, David Warsh, the proprietor, writing, you know, his article, "Wanniski-ism, RIP", says George W. Bush cut taxes, he "embraced to Second Santa Theory and rammed still more tax cuts through an all-too-willing Congress in the name of stimulating growth". Instead what it did, obviously, was explode the budget deficit. "Meanwhile", he says, "Bush played a little traditional Santa, shepherding through Congress the addition of an expensive pharmaceutical benefit to the national retirement medical system.". That would be Medicaid Part D.

Now, let's keep in mind who these, who Obama is going to be facing. First of all, Barack Obama, being very optimistic, good on him for this:

"Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness."

And he announces the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, ARRP, which sounds a little bit like, you know, the retirement organization, but here it is:

"I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth. It's a plan that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges."

There you go. So this is the essence of what Barack Obama talked about this morning. He suggested that 2 million jobs have been lost, 2.8 million part time jobs, manufacturing's at a 28 year low, that this isn't an accident of history or a normal turn of the business cycle, this was created.

Now, he all but came out and said this was created intentionally. I'll say it: this was created intentionally. What the Republicans did is they said, "Okay, when we are in power we are going to spend like crazy and thus buy the loyalty of the American people while we accuse the Democrats of the same. But instead of paying for that spending in the traditional way that both parties have done, which is raising taxes so that you don't have a huge deficit, we're going to simply borrow it from our children and grandchildren."

And this is why this year, if you are an average tax payer in the United States, if you're making in the neighborhood of $45-50,000, about a thousand bucks of your federal tax bill is going to pay the interest on the money that Ronald Reagan borrowed following Jude Wanniski's and Grover Norquist's advice. About another $2,000 of the taxes that you're paying this year is going to pay the interest on the money that George Herbert Walker Bush, the first couple of years of the Clinton administration and George W Bush in particular borrowed, following the advice of Grover Norquist and Jude Wanniski.

If we don't understand how this happened, we can't fix it.

Grover Norquist; some of his most famous quotes, the greatest hits of Grover Norquist: "Bipartisanship", he said, now keep in mind, this is what Obama is calling for. And keep in mind, Grover Norquist runs the organization that sponsored the Republican, the RNC meeting last week. Grover Norquist put that thing together. Grover Norquist, here's a couple of quotes. "Bipartisanship", he said, "is another name for date rape", and "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship".

If Barack Obama thinks that he's going to get a free pass on this thing because he speaks well, he's got another think coming. I'm telling you, the right wing talk shows today, already, right now, are going to be yelling and screaming it's socialism and they are going to be falling back on the Two Santa Claus Theory without ever telling their poor duped listeners who think of themselves as conservatives who don't realize that they are voting and playing into the hands of the über rich in America, the corporations in America, the people who hate American democracy, small 'd' democracy, and believe in a kleptocracy, an aristocracy, of the very wealthy.

So we've had 28 years of the Republicans playing both Santa Clauses; spending like crazy, and giving tax cuts, and now we have a disaster.

...

So here's the question: how's he going to do it? I mean, I'm telling you, the right wing web sites, Drudge for example, top headline, "We're Going to Spend Our Way Out Of This". Second headline, "Let's Print More Money!" The Republicans are going to go hysterical about this. They're going to absolutely go hysterical about this because, 'Oh my God, it's government spending money'. This after 28 years of Republicans spending money like drunken sailors. As I said the other day, no offence to drunken sailors. I've known a few in my life and living on the water I've gotten to know more recently. Some of them are fine people. But I lack a better metaphor.

Barack Obama says that we can actually make something here in the United States and not have the jobs outsourced. This was the one part of his entire speech that really caused me to raise an eyebrow. This little moment right here:

"In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced".

Can't be outsourced?

"Jobs building solar panels and wind turbines."

Now, wait a minute. The wind turbines are from Vestas; we import them from Denmark. The solar panels are from four different manufacturers in China, by and large. In fact, the French company that we used to get solar panels from was bought by the Chinese, they dismantled the factory in Paris, shipped it to China and rebuilt it. Is he announcing a change in trade policy?

"Constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."

OK, this is the one place where I'm having a little skeptical moment. We invented the transistor. Who made transistor radios? Japan. We invented the Integrated Circuit. Who's making IC-based computers and TVs and radios? Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Malaysia. We're not making them here. Try and buy a TV set made in the United States. I dare you. Try to buy a computer that's actually made in the United States. I know there's a couple of manufacturers who say, 'yeah, we make them in the United States'. They bring in the circuit boards, they bring in the case, and they assemble them in the United States.

So how are you going to do that, Mr. Obama? I, well, time will tell. We will see.

But I'm telling you, this, the two Santa Clauses have worked. The Republicans in the late 70s, Jude Wanniski, who invented supply side economics; invented the word, the phrase, and Grover Norquist sat down with Newt Gingrich and as Norquist writes, "Newt Gingrich thought he had died and gone to heaven". What, you mean we can be the Santa Claus who gives out tax breaks and tax cuts and we can be the Santa Claus who spends money? Yeah. All you have to do is bankrupt the government.

And then David Stockman comes along, remember, Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, former 35 year old Congressman, or, he was a young guy, Congressman, with no economic background whatsoever. And he says, "yeah, this is the 'starve the beast' theory. We're going to starve the beast, the government, of revenue, and we're going to throw it so far in debt that when the Democrats do come back into power they won't be able to spend any money". And you are seeing that played out right now. The plan that Wanniski and Norquist laid out in the late 70s, that Ronald Reagan ran with, everybody looked at, even George Herbert Walker Bush initially looked at this plan and said, 'this is crazy, this is voodoo economics, this is going to bankrupt our country, this isn't the best thing for America'. He changed his tune very quickly when Ronald Reagan picked him as Vice President.

And the Republicans have been hewing to this line ever since. And they have destroyed this country. And they have destroyed the economy in this country. And they have done it for purely political purposes and for a few million bucks in the pockets of their buddies and a few billion bucks in the pockets of their buddies.

And now Barack Obama has to pick up the pieces and they are going to go after him with a ferocity that you cannot imagine.

Back in the '30s when Franklin Roosevelt tried to do something like this, they called him a socialist, they called him a communist, there was a coup attempt; some of the nation's largest bankers, the Morgans and the Bushes, got together and they tried to hire the most famous, Smedley Butler, the most famous marine general in American history to lead a coup against Franklin Roosevelt. Butler blew the whistle or we would have had a coup in 1935.

I'm telling you, it's going to get ugly, and it's starting today.

Transcribed by Sue Nethercott.

Thank you, Karen Hansen Make Progressive Radio Part of Your Day

Blaming it on Greenspan

Food Fascist — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:57:32 EST

Here is a link to an article from dallasnews.com http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Q&A_19bus.ART.State.Edition1.13656391.html
Ravi Batra's new paper back book on the Golden Age will be in the stores the first week of January 2008. Check it out! Economist with a workable plan. Ravi should be in Obamas cabinet. Pass this article on.
Blaming it on GreenspanBatra says ex-Fed chief created housing bubble, trade deficit

Health care post

Northside — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:42:20 EST

i really did not proof read this to well, had to go

Challenge the ‘Insurance Math’/Federal Re-insurance/business organizations to lessen actuarial risk/

While working on my stuff for school, I have collected some old papers and ideas for project in a file; research on hedge funds and ideas I once had for small business investing structures that I was considering for papers. This allowed me to come up with some of this stuff. This is why I’m able to put a lot of this together on a Sat afternoon. Also I’m finding non news and non sports TV very boring (you take out real TV watching for most American, and there is a lot of time during day)

I use to work at a large, conservative insurance company (that is still around) and got some training and certificates from it. I don’t know much at all about health care, but I read some of the comments linked to Sec. Daschle’s health care email. Some aspects of insurance are pretty consistent, and there are certain misunderstandings about their limitations on coverage, which are based on fair and accurate actuarial information. First, the billions in reserves that insurance companies have are not savings for these companies. In basic accounting terms, they are treated as obligations/liabilities that must be a certain % of policies they have sold/underwritten. Also there are laws that force insurance companies to maintain X dollars for y number of policies. These laws can also force limits on what an insurance company can invest in, and therefore how much money they can make. Second, insurance companies do not make money from the premiums, but rather they profit from investing that premium money into things that actually create a return. In bad market times it can be hard for some companies to really make big profits and if they make bad decisions on who to insure or, how much to charge them, it can cost an insurance company a lot. And there are those that will sell to people but will attach stipulations that have to be met for a claim to receive full benefits. For example, the company I use to work for would not sell property insurance to most of the gulf coast-too much risk of having to pay large claim benefits (money) for small premiums and too much bad PR for cutting a benefit in half because a condition of a small section of the policy excluded flood problems from getting natural disaster benefits. I would need more time and information to maybe come up with better ideas but I only have 3 suggestions at this point but honestly I don’t think I have any. One fits into the ‘community organization’ concept in some ways.

1) Check the math and assumptions behind the actuarial. Get experts that are not tied to insurance companies for business or money and have them check the tables of some of these insurance companies. There is complicated math to be sure but a lot of the actuarial tables have to do with data, trends of that data, and probability. 2 people with the same age, job and health condition could require different premiums because of what a table says is a riskier characteristic of one of them. But have some experts go through and challenge the probabilities. The insurance companies should be able to explain their reasoning and data analysis for probabilities in common terms; if they can not, their math may be causing more cost than need be.

2)The federal government as a Re-insurer for health care insurance. –Wikipedia definitions: “Reinsurance is a means by which an insurance company can protect itself with other insurance companies against the risk of losses. Individuals and corporations obtain insurance policies to provide protection for various risks (hurricanes, earthquakes, lawsuits, collisions, sickness and death, etc.). Reinsurers, in turn, provide insurance to insurance companies… Risk Transfer:The main use of any insurer that might practice reinsurance is to allow the company to assume greater individual risks than its size would otherwise allow, and to protect a company against losses. Reinsurance allows an insurance company to offer higher limits of protection to a policyholder than its own assets would allow. For example, if the principal insurance company can write only $10 million in limits on any given policy, it can reinsure (or cede) the amount of the limits in excess of $10 million.Reinsurance’s highly refined uses in recent years include applications where reinsurance was used as part of a carefully planned hedge strategy….”I want to warn you that this goes against my converative views on business, and it borders on a european model of government. But I think that it may be practical and something that could be profitable for the government, or at least reduces the cost of providing good health insurance to all. The federal government could be the re-insurer for health insurance providers (if it is possible). The govt guarantees the benefits that have to be paid beyond a certain dollar amount for insurance companies. Lets say that a large insurance company only has $50 billion in reserves to have avalible to cover health insurance benefits and as a sound business decision (not unfair discrimination) will not sell health insurance to businesses with less than a 100 employees in the US. The federal govt could become re-insurer for an addition $10 billion of reserve, which could allow that company to start selling insurance to companies that have at least 75 employees. The govt could choose to only re-insurer certain products of companies or entire reserves: but federal govt reissuance reserves should not require a lot of admin and claim services. I think it would be easier and more cost effective to insure entire reserve allocations, because the claim process would be reduced by the requirements to receive fed re-insurance. Requirements and limitations on risk taking would have to be used, but the govt could receive premiums from these insurance companies like any other re-insurance company. Those premiums could go into the budget, be reinvested through a soverign fund/national trust to get some return on it (but the underwritting and claim management cost would have to be very little, the govt would have to receive profit and cash inflows from premiums alone). My conservative side would say that we may need to consider this option ONLY when coming much closer to a balanced budget, before taking on these types of guarntees (if this is even possible on this scale) But if it is doable (big if), it could draw in private sector competiton for reissurance premium money.

3)use that ‘community organization’ to organizes businesses to alter actuarial characteristics, in order to get better insurance deals What businesses pay for health insurance could have a lot to do with one or two characteristics of each of those business, one being the number of employees working there. Companies with 3000 people may have an easier time finding, and affording, good coverage than those with 30 people. What if companies that find they can not afford to offer insurance at all, or for too much longer, decide to create a group/organaization with other smll companies based on their similar actuarial characteristics? Sec Daschle’s video gave me an idea of an example: there is a non-for-profit head that could not afford to give all her 30 employees medical. What if that non-for-profit found another 99 non-for-profits that where of a similar size in revenues, employee base, work type (office, physical labor in the field) debt structure, etc; and all these non-for-profits form a group that works together to form a group representing 300 employees, 10 H.R. depts. This group representing 300 employees will have improved ‘actuarial characteristics" in some ways than one of the 30 employee non-for-profit will alone. Or by teaming up with these other 99 non-for-profits, that first non-for-profit of 30 employees could have the bargaining power of an organization of 300 people. A policy of 300 people is more attractive to insurance company’s than a policy for 30 people. These 100 organizations would have to work in unison on many aspect of HR, and would have to give information to the ‘.org of .orgs’ type entity. All orgs or businesses contribute fees/capital, in order to get benefit cost reduced to a point that the fees and the cost of benefits is far less with the organizatio of 100 companies, than without it. The Govt would have to allow for these types of groups to exist more frequently/freely than they already do for other forms of benefits. Also the businesses individually (and with the aid of the group entity) will need to work on worker retention, maintaining health and saftey, etc. But one organization, representing 10 businesses and organizations whose HRs work in unison, could negociate better benefits & premium costs for one company of 30 people, than those 30 people can on their own (I think...if any of this is doable). But I believe that similar "organization of organizations" do exist specifically to get better things

This is a side note to health care and other issues that are actual entitlements. consider a soverign fund, kinda like a hedge fund, that earns for the government and creates for profits as a form of government revnue. I hedge fund structure that can wait out bad market and economic swings and does not have demands placed on its captial, could make us lots of money to help finance health care and other actual entitlements.

A ‘Internal Controls’ approach to updating financial market regulation

Northside — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:54:07 EST

I plan (for the time being) on beginning start testing in these areas early next year. I’ve been studying accounting and following the markets more regularly and sometimes I come up with screwy ideas. And these may already exist or not make sense, but I’ll give it a shot. It appears that your economic stimulus plan may be vast and I think that in order to keep concerns of the super rich getting richer off govt money, you may want to give some thought to introducing regulations with or shortly after the stimulus plan is written. Also it can help decrease the chance that this kind of crisis can not happen again anytime soon, even in on a smaller industry level.

Internal control is defined as a process effected by an organization's structure, work and authority flows, people and management information systems, designed to help the organization accomplish specific goals or objectives-Wikipedia. In general this is the thought process/construct that should be part of any regulatory reforms you introduce. I think that internal controls can allow the over all system to be protected, while allowing the day-to-day trading/investing/decision making to continue at a fast pace. Also I think this approach can allow for some of these complicated investment vehicles to exist in similar forms, but limit the damage they can do to markets in economic downturns. More specifically, some of the COSO internal control framework components could come into play for these regulations. The main components (I think) would be monitoring and then control activities based on control environment (what is best for the financial system). Many experts have said that the regulatory system is outdated, and does not match the activities of many companies, investors, and institutions that have become more diverse in their business transactions and investments over the years. Maybe there can be increased monitoring of certain transactions by government that allows investors/companies to work freely, with little cost. But there can be certain ‘triggers’ that allow the govt to know when a company has purchased a certain dollar amount of MBS’s, or have issued a certain dollar amount of CDS’s that is too high for its current financial position. That trigger could go off when financial statement positions change drastically within a certain period, a financial exchange notes that a few firms have purchased or insured a certain amount of risk above the norm, or a company’s cash position falls below a certain spot for the risk it continually holds. If those triggers are set off by the market activity of certain firms, those firms are posted on a watch list and their recent transactions are investigated. If it seems too much risk is being taken, maybe there can be a request to change their financial position to accommodate the risk while meeting new govt standards on what the risk should be. If they do not compile after a certain period of time than a deeper audit of the company can take place and more corrective actions or punishments can be administered. This would give risk takers time to act on aggressive strategies in the short term, but not let greed allow them to hold long term positions that will hurt them, their industry, or other industries. For example- an insurer/financial institution issues CDSs to investors that needed it in large amounts in the 2nd quarter of 09, assuming that the dust has cleared and this is profitable if they have not suffered many losses in it before. Let’s say they start issuing these CDS at few million of coverage a day on average. If that issuer purchases say $100 million in few month, but that company may not have a financial position that supports that much risk per established parameters; then a trigger goes off once the $100 million mark is reached. That trigger prompts a request by whichever government agency to step in and check on that company. This way companies that have an appetite for risk, and the balance sheet to handle it, can function as close to the ‘old days’ as possible without endangering themselves or the rest of us. Logistically, these purchases are done electronically in some fashion. Maybe the government can get access to these transactions like an SEC stock watch. The reality is that even the investment products that are not on public exchanges will have to report in some fashion to a government data base that determines when triggers are needed. Given the current circumstances, it may be easier to get the complicated, non exchange product investors to self regulate enough for the government to monitor it. I think that technology today can allow for that kind of transparency. However, I don’t think the triggers should be made public, only the deeper company audit and questioning. A transaction that cause a ‘trigger’ could be a part of a smart strategy, and it could make a good strategy a bad one by forcing movements in the market that hurt the intended environment for that strategy. A trigger could penalize good strategies a point that it limits investing, then limits diversity, which than limits stability and growth in markets. If the govt audit takes place soon enough and is made public; I think that would give the investor accurate information to make decisions. If some of these assets are purchased and that leads to mortgages being reworked by the government or lenders, there should be something on the credit rating of those individuals that lets new lenders of know there actual financial position. It can be a lowered score or a notation on their report that allows others to know that the government/lender had to rework the terms, or lower the principal, of the note for the person/company, possible something that is equally to bankruptcy but comes off your record in a shorter period of time. 1) There has to be some consequence for getting a mortgage that they could not afford-which conservatives want anyway. 2) Second it would help weed out people from getting a lower mortgage that can afford that current higher payment they originally agreed to. 3) it could possibly keep those people from getting into anymore debt until their situations improve. Hopefully it would force people to use that freed up disposable income on improving there financial position. Buying the assets from banks/companies that took on too much risk or liability is not favorable, but many of these banks/companies have had some punishment for those decisions (even if they still exist). It will be hard for conservatives to swallow homeowners that got loans they could not handle getting a new loan for being in need at the right time for government assistance. I have conservative ways, and its hard for me to swallow.I thought it was great you and your family went to that school. I hope you and/or your wife continue that. I can not remember in my lifetime kids being excited about a politician coming to their school like that. I’m sure you will have an education plan. I think you and/or your wife can work on the other part of the education problem that the government can not improve, perception. To have the first African American president come to a school with many minorities can give all the perception that your hard work here can pay off. I have been on both sides of academic achievement (more bad than good unfortunately….smile). I’m much older and you inspire me. Inspire them, because reform of the system is good, but the student will have to meet the system half way (and maybe more than half way right now)for the results to happen. I think you and Michelle can inspire that perception. When the economy improves during your term, I hope you work to toward that end. Bring us as close to Camelot as we can get...

Bailing out

Barry O'Toole — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:49:50 EST

In general, I am very happy with the team Obama has put forth, though I am a little troubled by the unanimity of the Economic team, which is made up of Rubinastas. Obama is said to like a clash of ideas; he won't have any with this presennt outfit.

In addition, I am concerned about bailing out banks. I do understand that they are the lifeline of capitalism and should be rescued, but why don't we have any conditions on their future behavior forced before they're bailed out. I have no doubt that Citibank was given federal assistance because of ties to Rubin.

If we cannot ask restructuring from these financial institutions, and brings the offenders who did this to book, how can we ask these actions of Detroit? It seems a two-faced policy to me.

Big 3 bailout should link to banking bailout

Northside — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:44:38 EST

Auto rescue plan has to be linked to some credit crisis solution.

In thinking about this Big 3 bailout, I am not sure if I’m for it or against it. We can’t have millions of people out of work due to these 3 companies going under, however if a company will run out of cash in a matter of months, I’m not sure what an extra 25 billion will do to help the situation in the long run. I assume that government people and insiders have more information than I do. Reorganization of these companies’ operations is not really enough to get them to long term profitability. Banks are raising borrowing requirements to a point were probably millions of people would not get a loan anyway. So it is now harder to create revenues to cover existing expenses and liabilities, let alone the 25 billion dollar bridge loan. If we do give the 25 billion it will have to not only be tied to reorganization of the big 3, but also a plan to get consumer lending in general, or auto lending in particular, back to a healthy level again. I don’t think the former can survive without the later.

I think that a chapter 11 could work if the government would guarantee service agreements and warranties of any chapter 11 company; this way people may not be afraid to purchase new cars from these companies while they are initially in chapter 11. But there also needs to be support for auto lending in order for just about any reorganization plan to work in the long term. The fastest way I see of doing this is funding bank departments and lenders that deal in financing of the auto industry as a whole (inventory, car purchases, etc). Or, if there are bad assets on the books of these banks and financial institutions, that part of the 700 billion bailout purchases those assets; with the understanding that more approvals, with certain good credit scores and the actual ability to pay, must take place. I still think that the purchasing of bad assets is the best way to get lending moving again because just giving capital to companies does not make lenders, investors and consumers trust that those bad assets will not hurt those companies later. But maybe you can tie the purchase/auction of bad assets held by companies whose auto industry lending makes up a large percentage of their business. The money for the big three to reorganize/ retool plus removal of assets to allow auto industry lending to return to normal is the only way I see the 25 billion doing them any long term good.

Also I’m not sure this is feasible or may already be going on but for this industry human resources will keep them from making big transitions with large amounts of capital quickly. Is it possible that the unions take over most or all of the human resource management? So that in a way the big 3 out-sources its physical labor to the unions for a certain set amount of money (which should be less than what they are paying now). The unions then earn their money from the out sourcing money minus the cost to provide labor and services to its members? If the unions are organized efficiently, all admin and officers should get salaries for handling union issues and human resource management. I would need a lot more information to really show this as plausible. if the unions gave up job banks, and left head quarters in charge of hiring enough pay roll and benefit management people (probably from big 3 HR departments) it might be an option to lower the cost of revenue permanently. Also It would force the unions to be responsible for aiding in the retraining of employees for these new energy efficient cars when the time comes. This would mean that all labor employees for big 3 would be union, but it could eliminate cost, and force unions to deal with training of current members for hybrids, and alternative fuel engine and car building.

Also another shot in the dark intuitively speaking is, breaking up the big three into valuable product lines and selling them off. If GM wanted to get rid of certain car product lines because they are costing them more than the others, maybe they could sell them to a company, investors, or hedge funds types that deal with distressed assets. The smaller new car company may be able to change direction faster because it does not have Big 3 obligations and debt from the start. These new owners would know how to organize this company from the beginning, and could create it from scratch to be cost effective, and ready to accept the new technology of alternative fuel cars faster then car companies can now. Plus its should be easier for smaller M&A deals to get lending than some of the mega deals of the old days. It’s a stretch in theory, but there is some pragmatism in the idea and if they will really run out of cash by early next year it can’t be worse than not helping them at all.

But whatever business plan/reorganization structure the big 3 gives you; please test it against worse case sales scenarios. I would assume that income statement and many other financial statement items should be pro forma for a certain time period. Test pro forma amounts against what happens if banks only give car loans to people with a 725 credit score or if dealerships can only get lending for half the inventory they use to, etc. The problem with this crisis is that it’s hard to adjust your operations for what could be a marketing ‘desert’ anomaly in American consumption. But keeping them alive so the can help usher in eco friendly, alternative fuel cars would help make the transition to this new fuel economy more efficient later.

Harvey goes wild on Auto Bail Out

Food Fascist — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:42:31 EST

GM Must Re-Make the Mass Transit System it Murdered by Harvey Wasserman Bail out General Motors? The people who murdered our mass transit system? First let them remake what they destroyed. GM responded to the 1970s gas crisis by handing over the American market to energy-efficient Toyota and Honda. GM met the rise of the hybrids with "light trucks." GM built a small electric car, leased a pilot fleet to consumers who loved it, and then forcibly confiscated and trashed them all. GM now wants to market a $40,000 electric Volt that looks like a cross between a Hummer and a Cadillac and will do nothing to meet the Solartopian needs of a green-powered Earth. For this alone, GM's managers should never be allowed to make another car, let alone take our tax money to stay in business. But there is also a trillion-dollar skeleton in GM's closet. This is the company that murdered our mass transit system. The assertion comes from Bradford Snell, a government researcher whose definitive report damning GM has been a vehicular lightening rod since its 1974 debut. Its attackers and defenders are legion. But some facts are irrefutable: In a 1922 memo that will live in infamy, GM President Alfred P. Sloan established a unit aimed at dumping electrified mass transit in favor of gas-burning cars, trucks and buses. Just one American family in 10 then owned an automobile. Instead, we loved our 44,000 miles of passenger rail routes managed by 1,200 companies employing 300,000 Americans who ran 15 billion annual trips generating an income of $1 billion. According to Snell, "virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system." But GM lost $65 million in 1921. So Sloan enlisted Standard Oil (now Exxon), Philips Petroleum, glass and rubber companies and an army of financiers and politicians to kill mass transit. The campaigns varied, as did the economic and technical health of many of the systems themselves. Some now argue that buses would have transcended many of the rail lines anyway. More likely, they would have hybridized and complemented each other. But with a varied arsenal of political and financial subterfuges, GM helped gut the core of America's train and trolley systems. It was the murder of our rail systems that made our "love affair" with the car a tragedy of necessity. In 1949 a complex federal prosecution for related crimes resulted in an anti-trust fine against GM of a whopping $5000. For years thereafter GM continued to bury electric rail systems by "bustituting" gas-fired vehicles. Then came the interstates. After driving his Allied forces into Berlin on Hitler's Autobahn, Dwight Eisenhower brought home a passion for America's biggest public works project. Some 40,000 miles of vital eco-systems were eventually paved under. In habitat destruction, oil addiction, global warming, outright traffic deaths (some 40,000/year and more), ancillary ailments and wars for oil, the automobile embodies the worst ecological catastrophe in human history. Should current General Motors management be made to pay for the ancient sins of Alfred Sloan? Since the 1880s, American corporations have claimed human rights under the law. Tasking one now with human responsibilities could set a great precedent. GM has certainly proved itself unable to make cars that can compete while healing a global-warmed planet. So let's convert the company's infrastructure to churn out trolley cars, monorails, passenger trains, truly green buses. FDR forced Detroit to manufacture the tanks, planes and guns that won World War 2 (try buying a 1944 Chevrolet!). Now let a reinvented GM make the "weapons" to win the climate war and energy independence. It demands re-tooling and re-training. But GM's special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system---and ecological balance---it has helped destroy. Harvey Wasserman is co-author, with Bob Fitrakis, of four books on election protection which are available atwww.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. His HARVEY WASSERMAN's HISTORY OF THE US is atwww.harveywasserman.com along with SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030

www.Bloomberg.com: Obama Embrace of Wall Street Insiders Points to Politic Reforms

Eric — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:36:17 EST

Obama Embrace of Wall Street Insiders Points to Politic Reforms
By Heidi Przybyla

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg)

...

Just by being elected, even before he sets foot in the White House, Obama has changed the course of history. And starting in January, he'll have a rare chance to overhaul a financial regulatory system that failed to prevent the worst crisis in decades -- if he chooses to seize the opportunity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aWSz2kUxdTiU&refer=home

TheStar.com: Faltering economy jeopardizes health care and job creation plans

Eric — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:18:12 EST

U.S. POLITICS TheStar.com | USElection | America's ideological rift a threat to Obama Faltering economy jeopardizes health care and job creation plans
Nov 15, 2008 04:30 AM Olivia Ward
FOReIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER

...Barack Obama had barely won the presidential election when right-wing critics fumed that he would govern from the "ideological left."

But left-wing critics wrung their hands over Obama's call for unity, saying it would compromise his mandate for change.

...

"It's what I call `yo-yo economics,'" says Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute, an adviser to the Obama campaign. "It means `you're on your own.' But Obama has shown that the notion that government is always bad and private-sector markets are always good has been deeply disproved at great cost."

...

"But whether his plans will lead to radical change, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Depression-era New Deal is still unclear.

...

That's unsettling to those who demand far-reaching political and economic change.

"Progressives hope that the Obama administration, like the New Deal, will respond to the current economic and financial crisis by creating institutions, especially a universal health-care system, that will change the shape of American society for generations to come," says economist Paul Krugman, in a recent New York Times column.

He warned Obama should resist the error Roosevelt made in cutting back his spending plans after his 1936 election victory, eroding gains created by his early bold plans.

http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/537535