A Conflict of Interest?

.
This is just disgusting.

"Sununu Sits on TARP Oversight Panel, and on Board of Bank That Administers TARP"

• John Sununu, who serves on the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the government's bailout progam, has joined the board of a subsidiary to Bank of New York Mellon -- a firm that, in addition to receiving bailout funds, has been hired by the Treasury Department to administer the program.
• Given that the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) is charged broadly with assessing how the TARP program is working, in order to help Congress determine whether to continue injecting capital into the financial sector, the arrangement would appear to create a significant conflict of interest for the former New Hampshire GOP senator.
• Sununu's conflict, then, appears clear.

Is there no end to the, the, the -- I don't have a word to go here. Inbred? Illegal? Unethical? Corrupt? Unscrupulous? Wrong? Greedy? (Well, that goes without saying.)

My vocabulary-- and my thesaurus -- have failed me.

Who is paying attention? And why is this being allowed?
.

Principles for America's Health Care System

.
In the budget released Thursday, President Obama offers a set of principles for transforming and modernizing America's health-care business:

• Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.
• Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste, and other inefficiencies that consume money with no added health benefits.
• Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.
• Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.
• Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan.
• Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking — as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.
• Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.
• Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.
  

Well, my gentle snowflakes, it sounds pretty good to me--all except the part of "Guarantee Choice" that says, "They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan."

If some are carved out into another pool, how "universal" (see "Aim for Universality) is the system going to be?

Unless everyone is in the same risk group, the costs are not going to be spread far and wide enough. We will end up with s0me getting better coverage, that is actually paid for, than others.

With the rising unemployment, and more and more people losing whatever coverage they may have had through their employers, it seems there is a real opportunity to throw the mess that tries to pass for a health care system into the trash and start over. Do it right. Get the insurance companies, with their 20-30% overhead and their automatic denial of coverage, out of the picture once and for all.

Medicare for All has got to be the answer.

Words For the Ages

.
Teddy Roosevelt said "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."

"White House Summit Must Spare Social Security and Medicare."

.
God, I love Sen Bernie Sanders ! !

• "During the last decade, the wealthiest people in our country have become wealthier while working people have struggled desperately to keep their heads above water. It would be a betrayal of the needs of the middle class of this country if we lowered Social Security benefits or raised the retirement age for Social Security eligibility" said Sanders, a member of the Senate Budget Committee.
• Medicare finances are in trouble, the senator allowed. "There is a financial crisis in Medicare, but that is directly related to the disintegration of our entire health care system -- the most costly and wasteful in the world. The way to address that crisis is to join the rest of the industrialized world and create a national health care program guaranteeing health care for all," he said. (Emphasis added.)

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post Robert Kuttner tells you everything you need to know to battle the fiscal conservatives when they say (and they will) that the "unfunded liabilities" will bankrupt this country and rob our children's future.

• Since the early 1980s, Peter G. Peterson has been warning that future entitlement deficits would crash the economy. Yet when the crash came, the cause was not deficits but wild speculation on Wall Street.
• The overall bottom line? The economy we bequeath to our children has everything to do with getting growth back on track and almost nothing to do with imagined future deficits.
• We need to increase public spending and debt now to restore economic growth and then gradually reduce the debt ratio once recovery comes. Social Security has little to do with this challenge. Nor does Medicare, if we reform our overall health system.

I wrote my opinion on this topic back on 28 Jan 2009.

• I am getting concerned about Social Security.
• Bush 43 tried to put it into Wall Street. Aren't we glad that failed?
• ...as the years passed, and more and more old people began to receive SS benefits, the quality of life of the older population increased dramatically. Their lives regained some dignity.

I have not changed my position.

Medicare for All.

And leave Social Security benefits ALONE.
.

Clean Energy

.
OK, I've been listening to the National Governor's Association conference meeting about energy -- you know, T. Boone Pickens and John W. Rowe of Exelon Energy, both speaking to his own self-interest. I do agree that the main thing to do very, very soon is get off our dependence of foreign (read Arabian Gulf produced) oil.

Ole' T. Boone waxed poetic as always. "Natural gas is the answer." No matter what the question, "Natural Gas is the answer." Of course, T, Boone owns the rights to a REALLY big chunk natural of gas properties and stands to make another couple or 3 billion if he can convince the powers that be that he is right.

But maybe we should look past that. T. Boone has spent his whole life making money and shows no signs of not wanting to make even more. But maybe he really does have the interest of the country at heart. Maybe.

Now, I tend to agree that natural gas can certainly be part of the solution. But my agreement is more in line with Mr. Rowe than ole' T. Boone. I think more electricity should be generated using natural gas as the fuel of choice. And, I don't believe that we will ever be able to burn coal in a clean fashion.

Most of all, though, I think both those gentlemen are missing the boat because they are both "big solution" kind of guys.

I think we need to think smaller in order to think even bigger.

Each house/home/building should be a source of electrical generation. Instead of investing HUGE amounts of money in large wind farms or big mirror arrays that tend to be far removed from the need for the electricity generated, the government money could go into retro-fitting every building with a combination of solar and wind generators--small units. Check here and here and here and here and here.

Perhaps the best part of this idea is that it could put thousands of people to work fairly quickly.

The Vocational-Technical schools could be subsidized to train citizens locally to do installation and maintenance. Many of those no longer working in home construction because of the downturn in the housing market could be cross-trained, with pay, for solar and wind systems. The newly trained could then be paid from a government fund (think the WPA) while all this retro-fitting is going on.

But this will take time, you say. Well, that is true.

But U.S. manufacturers will need that time to gear up their assembly lines to meet the demand for their products. Manufacturers would also require additional employees to make the systems. And since there are only a few manufacturers, the trucking industry will need more drivers and more rigs to move the newly produced systems around the country. We are really getting folks back to work now.

As an added benefit, as more and more units are installed the prices should plummet. With more and more units in operation, R&D would learn more and more about functionality and improved efficiency.

Finally, with all those systems pouring energy into the grid, black-outs (or even worse, the dreaded brown-outs) should be greatly reduced. The energy is largely consumed exactly where it is created. Any "left-over" is put out on the grid. Areas in greatest need at any time will be supplemented by those areas with less need.

As recovery takes place and new houses are starting to be built again, the installations can be mandated to be incorporated into the new construction.

Next, we can get busy figuring out what to do about vehicle emissions.
.

The Next Irish Import?

.
Seen on a sign in during a protest march in Dublin on Sunday:

Tax the GREEDY not the needy !

The Wisdom of Maxine

.
Maybe it IS a man's world...........

Would a woman leave this kind of mess?
.......................................................................

Ponder that my gentle snowflakes.
.

Since You May Not See This --

.
Ian Millhiser, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center & blogger, writes a really good article at Huffington Post that more people (that means you, my gentle snowflakes) need to see.

So I will do my part:

• Over a quarter of a million heart patients were implanted with Sprint Fidelis leads, wires connecting the heart to a device that slows dangerously fast heartbeats. In many patients, however, the leads were defective and electrocuted them from the inside. Fractures in the leads caused these patients to suffer painful and unnecessary shocks, injuring or killing many of them.
• Yet when these victims tried to hold the leads' manufacturer accountable for these injuries, the judge tossed them out of court. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision---decided exactly one year ago today---that grants almost total lawsuit immunity to the manufacturers of dangerous medical devices, the judge declared that he was powerless to help the many people electrocuted by a device intended to save their lives.
• This case is not an isolated incident; it is only the most recent skirmish in a campaign by medical device manufacturers, drug companies and health insurers to ensure that, no matter how wrongful or illegal their actions, no person injured by such a company will ever be able to hold it accountable in court. Moreover, in many cases these companies have achieved such immunity by convincing judges to misinterpret laws Congress intended to protect patients, consumers and the insured.
• In the 1970s, for example, a contraceptive device known as the Dalkon Shield caused numerous infections and deaths. Congress responded by requiring the FDA to approve new medical devices. Even though Congress enacted this law to protect consumers from dangerous devices, the Supreme Court recently held that the law prevents state tort suits against medical device manufactures. In other words, even though every state's common law obligates defective device manufacturers to compensate people injured by the defect, the Court held that states are powerless to enforce such law.
• Similarly, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or "ERISA" to ensure workers could rely on their pensions and employer-provided health plans. Yet instead of reading ERISA as Congress intended--to protect workers who receive employee benefits such as health insurance--the Supreme Court has transformed ERISA into a shield protecting health plans which wrongfully deny lifesaving coverage to such workers.
• Consider the case of Phyllis Cannon, who died of leukemia after her insurer refused to cover an essential transplant, or that of James Lind, a construction manager with Multiple Sclerosis who was able to continue working, until his insurer suddenly refused to pay for the prescription that kept his MS at bay. Cannon, Lind and many like them were told the same thing by the courts: it does not matter if your insurer broke the law; we cannot help you.
• When courts permit the health care industry to ignore the law, the public's health suffers. If insurers know that they are free to deny lifesaving but expensive coverage to their customers, they have no reason to keep their promises to sick patients. Similarly, if manufacturers of faulty devices can continue to market them without consequence, nothing prevents them from injuring future patients.
• Thanks to their wildly successful campaign for total lawsuit immunity, health insurers and medical device manufacturers have profited at the public's expense. The new Congress, however, already has a blueprint which will allow it to roll back some of the Supreme Court's worst decisions protecting the health care industry. With progressives now dominating both houses of Congress, the time is ripe to revive the Patients' Bill of Rights, which restores the ability of people like Phyllis Cannon and James Lind to hold rogue health plans accountable in state court. Congress can also ensure the safety of medical devices like the Sprint Fidelis leads by enacting the Medical Device Safety Act, which revives the states' authority to protect their citizens against dangerous medical devices. Indeed, as Congress prepares to consider the President's ambitious health care plan, both bills deserve to be part of their agenda.
• Yet, as Cannon and Lind know all too well, the mere fact that Congress intends to protect sick patients does not guarantee that the courts will read the law as Congress intended. Ultimately, the best solution for bad judging is good judges. President Obama must not forget this when he names his first appointments to the bench.

This country needs, nay, demands a single payer system--without any involvement from insurance companies.

What else can I say?
.

Collected Items.........

.
I just ran across these again recently, they stirred something in me. A little laughter, a little "Amen," a bit of "Was no one listening?" a little shake of the head & "What were they thinking?"

Any emphasis is mine.

"In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." H.L. Mencken

There is a wonderful line written into a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 by Judge Damon Keith: “Democracies die behind closed doors.”

Long ago, Abraham Lincoln wrote, "Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in few hands and the republic is destroyed. [WOW, such prescience.]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those that are cold and not clothed." -President Dwight Eisenhower [I weep.]

We had better start to listen.
.

The Great Cell Phone Adventure

.
Now, I am probably one of the last 7 people on the North American continent who does NOT own a cell phone. That is because I do not and did not want one. Just another gadget to rule my life. Just more money going out of my pocket each month.

So, of course, yesterday I bought one -- for my 90 year old mother.

Why, you ask. Well, I had recently checked my mother into what we used to call a rest home. (That, in itself has been eventful to say the very, very least.)

The cell phone purchase was quite an experience. But it seemed to be the least expensive and quickest way to get phone service for Mother.

This is important because Mother has only one living relative of her generation left--a cousin with whom Mother was raised and who lives 240 miles away. So an in-person visit is probably out of the question. But these two have a tradition of speaking on the phone each Saturday for an hour or hour and a half. That has not been happening since Mother went into the rest home. I wanted that to change.

I entered the cell phone purchase thing with quite a few apprehensions (that are still not allayed) and I learned a few things:

1. I am very glad I live in a small, small town with a local store dedicated to all things cell phone.
2. I was very lucky that I encountered a patient, understanding, helpful salesperson.
3. Even though I had listened carefully to my family and friends talk about what they liked and didn't like about their cell phones/plans, I still did not ask ALL the questions I should have asked. (I probably don't even know them yet.)
4. There are never enough questions asked. So don't sweat it. (Boy, I hope that is true.)
   
5. I have a lot to learn about the damn thing. But that is the easy part. I have to learn it all well enough to explain it to Mother so that she can apply what I have learned.

Well, I am still among the last 7 people on the North American continent who does not carry a cell phone. A girl has got to maintain her standards.
.

I Am Sick at Heart

.
At Harper's Scott Harper has piece -- well, you just have to go read it for yourself.

• Army Private Brandon Neely served as a prison guard at Guantánamo in the first years the facility was in operation. With the Bush Administration, and thus the threat of retaliation against him, now gone, Neely decided to step forward and tell his story.
• Neely describes the arrival of detainees in full sensory-deprivation garb, he details their sexual abuse by medical personnel, torture by other medical personnel, brutal beatings out of frustration, fear, and retribution, the first hunger strike and its causes, torturous shackling, positional torture, interference with religious practices and beliefs, verbal abuse, restriction of recreation, the behavior of mentally ill detainees, an isolation regime that was put in place for child-detainees.

CHILD-DETAINEES ? ? When/how did I miss that? Did you know? There were "child-detainees?"

What constitutes a "child-detainee?" My God.

But wait, there's more: [Emphasis added in the following is mine.]

• The Nelly account shows that health professionals are right in the thick of the torture and abuse of the prisoners—suggesting a systematic collapse of professional ethics driven by the Pentagon itself. He describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners.
  
• This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.
• Neely’s account demonstrates once more how much the Bush team kept secret and how little we still know about their comprehensive program of official cruelty and torture.

Christ, any "health professional" who would take part in systematic torture is no better than Josef Mengele.

All the "health professionals" who served at Guantanamo should be stripped of any licenses they hold. They should never come close to touching another person in any medical fashion.

Can they suddenly be transformed from a torturer back into a caring person? How? PLEASE TELL ME HOW?

Would you want one of them to treat or care for your mother, your child, yourself?

I wouldn't want any of them even to touch my mother's dog.

Maybe they should not even be allowed in our communities. Leave them at Guantanamo. They, too, can be declared "Enemy Combatants."

Disgusting, rotters, all.

And, so, the list grows.
.

Enemy Combatants, Revisited

.
The ACLU has gotten it's hands on a truly smoking gun memo which was written for then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Which document shows that those Rumsfeld had tasked with beating information out of suspected terrorists had not just tortured them, but tortured some of them, to death. That is, they murdered them.

Then the USA Today/Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans favor investigations into the Bush Administration. Even 44% of Republicans want to see the use-of-torture allegations investigated.

It was beginning to look like a perfect storm for something meaningful happening.

However, Obama seems to want to try to keep it all secret. I find this disconcerting in the extreme.

After viewing the documents that prove the torture was committed, the Obama administration will have constructive knowledge of felonies. That in itself is a crime under US law.

I guess I am just too vindictive because I still say, as I did in my post on 21 January 2009, that we just declare the members of the Bush43 administration "ENEMY COMBATANTS." Problem solved. Fast. Extra-ordinary rendition. No habeas corpus necessary.

But if you lack my violent streak and you just want to delve a little deeper into the mess, visit bushproject.com. Check any of the document drawers on the left side of the page.
.

Tired

.
I am tired. I just can't do this anymore.

My head hurts. My thoughts are constantly swimming.

I cannot stop them even to form a coherent sentence, let alone a fully formed argument.

It is just too much.

Is that what they are counting on? Do they want us to throw up our hands in despair? And go away?

Will we do that? Just throw up our hands and walk away in despair?

I don't know.

Bush 43: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

.
O M G !

The Peanut Corp of America, the company linked to the distribution of the salmonella infested peanuts to schools, day care centers, other institutional kitchens, many corporate bakeries, is headed by a man who served on the Peanut Standards Board of the FDA.

He was a Bush appointee; first appointed in 2005. Re-appointed in October 2008 for a term that will not end until June 2011. However, he was removed from the Board last week.

Needless to say, when he was called to testify before Congress -- he took the fifth (video at this site) -- to every question.

Such a wonderful legacy Bush 43 has left us.
.

Debt Crisis vs Credit Crisis

.
Blogger James Boyce has a few questions that need to be answered before an economic stimulus package is passed.

• What are the underlying long term economic trends that set the stage for the current crisis?
• What were the short term economic events that triggered the crisis?
• What are the short term programs that can cushion the impact of the crisis?
• What are the longer term programs and plans that can prevent the crisis from happening again?

Because, like the wise old philosopher said -- first you have to understand what the problem truly is, not just the symptoms the problem is exhibiting.

I agree with Boyce, it is not a credit crisis. So, no matter how much money is simply thrown at the banks, it will not solve the problem. We have already seen that -- the banks just give bigger bonuses to the creeps that helped cause this thing in the first place.

Boyce feels this is a debt crisis. In that, I believe, he has nailed it.

• Too much house debt -- using your home to finance your "lifestyle" is an idiot move.
  
• Too much credit card debt -- if you can't pay it off in 3 months, don't charge it (you probably have too much "stuff" already); better yet, pay it off every month.
  
• Too much car loan debt -- you really don't need a new car every other year.

See my post from 17 January 2009. I have already sounded off about excess before. So, I will try not to get off on a rant here again.

What needs to be done? This would really jump start the economy, but I have decided the amount probably should be more, maybe $3000-4000 on each debit card.

Then, unemployment benefits should be vastly expanded and it should go back and pick up the people who have just given up looking for work. Even Wal-Mart announced lay-offs this week. There are simply too few jobs out there. And the jobs there are do not exist where there are people looking for work.

Food stamps have got to expand benefits. Children are going hungry. And that is unacceptable.

After that, some of those magnificent construction & improvement projects should be up and running.

HURRAY ! ! ! News You Can Use

.
If the bank is coming for your home, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur has a plan for you.

Just squat, she says.

From the House floor, Representative Marcy Kaptur told the American people "stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave, because I will tell you what. If you had a smart lawyer like those banks up there on Wall Street can get, they would take you into court and they couldn't find the mortgage. They couldn't find the mortgage."

I think I want to move to Toledo just so I can vote for this woman.

Apparently, she gave this speech last year. I watch an inordinate amount of C-Span, HOW did I miss it?

Good advice, though. Stay in your home.
.

Dick Cheney ?

.
Following Dick Cheney's warning on Wednesday (4 Feb 2009) that there is a

• “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and [that] he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

BuzzFlash & Elliot D. Cohen, PhD, a political analyst, offer:

• Dick Cheney’s recent warning of a future “9-11 type” terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland was quickly dismissed by some mainstream media pundits [Keith Olbermann had a Special Comment.] as just another benign and misguided attempt by the former Vice President to frighten us. But perhaps he should be taken more seriously.
  
• What facts, if any, about an impending attack did Bush and Cheney know prior to 9-11? Were these attacks merely a convenient excuse to invade Iraq or was there some even more ominous connection? What stake does Cheney now have for trying to frightening the Obama administration into carrying out the mandates of the Bush administration? Merely assuming that Cheney is now just trying to save face is not sufficient and even appears to be inconsistent with his persistent, blatant disregard for the public’s perception of him. [Emphasis mine.] The media, no less than the Obama administration itself, should be investigating these matters instead of making assumptions.
  
• By simply dismissing Cheney as misguided rather than dangerous, the media fails to do its job. Cheney was more than just wrong when he waged a bloody war against Iraq based on phony intelligence. He was not just wrong when he sponsored rendition, torture, and deprivation of due process. He was most probably responsible for outing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in an effort to punish her husband for exposing his fraudulent claim about Saddam Hussein’s attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake. These and other aggressive acts suggest that Cheney may be willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
• A wake up call from the annals of history is also in order. Cheney was the principle in the formulation of the military strategy that came to be called “The Bush Doctrine.” Stripping away all pretence, this doctrine advocates attacking sovereign nations for purposes of amassing geopolitical power. It is Machiavellian to the core and Cheney’s “Project for the New American Century” even countenanced a “new Pearl Harbor” as a catalyst for taking America into the “New American Century.”

Much as we would like to dismiss Cheney as part of a bad, eight year nightmare, perhaps we do need to think about why he said the things he said.

Did he hide something -- some intelligence briefing perhaps -- from the incoming Obama administration? Could he really be that convoluted? That evil? That dangerous? That willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants?

Oh, yes, my gentle snowflakes, oh, yes.
.

John McCain

.
LA Times has an article by Janet Hook showing John McCain for what he is: a partisan, rhetorical, political hack.

• As a candidate, McCain cast himself as a uniter of the two parties, willing to buck his GOP colleagues and reach across the aisle to build compromises on immigration, campaign finance and other hot-button issues.
• "I have that record and the scars to prove it. ..." he said during the campaign, referring to his bipartisan streak.
• But this week, with Barack Obama in the White House and McCain back in Congress, the Arizona senator has played a prominent and uncompromising role in rallying Republican opposition to the Democratic majority and its stimulus plan.
• McCain's actions in the stimulus debate make for a different leadership profile than he touted during the presidential campaign.
• McCain did not join the small group of centrists from both parties who worked this week to put together a compromise to let the stimulus bill move forward.

And Ellis Weiner lets us see the Republicans for what they are:

• What was the GOP's great accomplishment last week, about which they openly admitted they felt good? A show of "unity" enough to block the first stimulus package. That's what put a spring back in their step: obstructing a desperately-needed solution to a problem rooted in their political philosophy. "Yes, we helped cover your house with gasoline, and we paid private contractors to shoot flaming arrows at it, yes. But we don't believe in Socialism, so we got the gang together--which wasn't easy!--and had everyone stand in the street to keep the fire trucks away. Yay us! We feel good!"

Hey, John, you did not put country over party and get something done - which is what you promised during your campaign. In your first test of your campaign promise, you failed. So, now, you need to remember, you lost the election and, more importantly, you are to blame for your loss. You ran a lousy campaign -- in terms of message, logistics, ideas and choice of running mate.

You need to keep quiet, John McCain, and do what you promised, work for the good of the country. But instead, you have not shut up about nor worked for the stimulus package. Instead, you pushed -- in a speech from the well of the Senate -- for a Republican alternative that was heavier on tax cuts and offered less government spending than President Obama wants.

John McCain: just another super-rich Republican shill who can only deal with spending bills that stimulate the Dow and inflate the Pentagon. Not anything for the common citizen: nothing for Main Street.

You gotta shut up, John. You gotta shut up.
.

A Stimulus Plan From the People, For the People

.
Now, here is a GOOD idea to stimulate the economy. A plan that will surge the spending of the American consumer.

In a Washington Post opinion piece, Dan Newman, who opened a retail food store in Seattle five years ago, suggests, not a tax rebate check--much of the last one got saved or paid down credit card debt, not a tax cut that only works if I pay taxes, not a reduction in sales taxes that present a logistic nightmare with all the different states involved, but a simple debit card.

• By sending every taxpayer a $2,000 debit card, the government stimulates spending directly. ...and with a defined expiration time, perhaps a year, the program could help precisely while other programs get underway.
• The American Gift Card could bear a picture of Lady Liberty, since it may be used for whatever taxpayers wish: smarter clothes, dinners out, a weekend away, a new heater. And as gift cards tend to be used in person, they are of particular interest to local businesses.
• Such cards allow people to spend where they find it most valuable, obviating debate about where the government "should" spend money.
• Best of all, the program could be implemented with all speed at the very time we need it most, helping America while the necessary other programs develop.

I knew there were people out there doing innovative thinking. Now, how do we get Congress to listen?
.

What Is Wrong with theTruth?

.
I did not know, did you?

The Pentagon is spending at least $4.7 billion this year (OK, my gentle snowflakes, that is BILLION) on "influence operations" and has more than 27,000 employees devoted to such activities.

• On Dec. 12, the Pentagon's inspector general released an audit finding that the public affairs office may have crossed the line into propaganda. The audit found the Department of Defense "may appear to merge inappropriately" its public affairs with operations that try to influence audiences abroad. It also found that while only 89 positions were authorized for public affairs, 126 government employees and 31 contractors worked there.

The Pentagon is "spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law"?

A chill just went up my spine -- and back down again.

This is my money. .... And I object.

What is wrong with the plain, unvarnished truth?
.

When Debt Collectors Disrupt Dinner

.
Helpful hints brought to you by the Old Feminist............

• What to Say, and Not Say, When They Call About the Credit Card
• By Mark Henricks
  Special to the Washington Post
  Sunday, February 1, 2009

• If the phone rings at dinnertime, the odds are greater now that a credit card debt collector will be on the other end.
• With card delinquencies rising, debt collectors are jangling more Americans' phones. Some 4.79 percent of credit card accounts, approaching one in 20, were delinquent toward the end of 2008, according to the Federal Reserve. As recently as 2006, the rate was 3.95 percent, or about one in 25. And when card accounts go delinquent, defined as being 30 days past due, that's one of the primary triggers for a call from the credit card company.
• The calls can be disconcerting. Even when the caller only wants to politely notify you that your payment has not been received, the questions can swirl inside a strapped consumer's head. Will I be sued? What if I lose a judgment? How will I cover attorneys' fees? Will my wages get garnished? In these difficult times, it's important to know your rights.
• Borrowers need to remember that it may not be their fault that they've gotten a call. Some issuers may call for reasons unrelated to late payment. They may want to discuss why a borrower has exceeded a credit limit, suffered a sudden deterioration in a credit score or is late on a payment on another account. The credit card issuer may have taken some action leading to the call. For instance, many card issuers are raising interest rates, which can cause payments to increase, perhaps beyond a borrower's ability to pay.
• "People are struggling under their debts, and debt payments are being missed and sent in late," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington-based industry group. "The calls are a natural part of that contract. Secondly, the industry is tightening up credit. That might kick you into missing a payment or having an overage fee."
• Several large banks that issue credit cards declined to comment on reasons they call borrowers or the volume of calls they make. But there is little doubt, based on the higher delinquency rates, that the number of calls has increased. "When an account becomes past due or delinquent, a consumer will be contacted," said Robert Markoff, a Chicago attorney and president of the Chicago-based National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys. "It's always been that way. The only change is that more consumers are delinquent."
• By the time the phone rings with a call about a credit card problem, it may already be too late to take the smartest first step. That is, to call the company first. "When you start to get in trouble, call your lender and say, 'I'm in trouble; let's talk about options,' " Talbott said. "They're very willing to talk with you." It may be easier to successfully request a lower interest rate, have late or over-limit fees waived or otherwise improve your situation if the borrower makes the first move.
• If that opportunity is past, do not simply ignore the calls. After an account goes more than 90 days past due, the lender may have the debt collected by a third-party debt collection agency. That's not all bad, because consumers have greater legal protections when dealing with third-party debt collectors. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides a host of restrictions on collectors.
• The act doesn't apply, however, to the original lender. And if the original creditor sells the debt to another company, Talbott said, the law treats the new owner the same as the original lender. In either of these cases, collectors have wide latitude in how and when they contact borrowers.
• Although burdened by fewer restrictions, credit card companies are less likely than third-party agencies to be unreasonable or unpleasant. For the most part, the original lender will want to keep the borrower as a customer. "If you've missed three or four payments and your account has been turned over to a debt collector, it's going to be much more difficult to work something out," said Sally Hurme, who works on consumer protection efforts as senior project manager of financial security for AARP in Washington.
• When talking with a caller about a debt, caution is the watchword. While it's essential to be completely truthful, a consumer cannot be forced to answer any questions. Some experts advise avoiding even acknowledging owing the debt. And there are some things that should never be said.
• For instance, do not agree to a payment plan you cannot handle. "If you tell a collector of any sort that you're going to pay $1,000 tomorrow and you can't do that, you're only asking for more phone calls," said Markoff.
• Also be careful about providing personal financial information. Some collectors will ask for your bank account number and bank routing number, warned Gail Cunningham of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. But that is not a request borrowers should cooperate with.
• "If bad goes to worse, and the collector gets a judgment against you, they'll have all the information they need to start dipping into your account to pull funds," she said.
• While being careful about information released, consumers should be obsessive about collecting information about the caller, especially when they know or suspect they are dealing with a third-party debt collector. Start by trying to identify the caller's company. Credit card issuers will usually be forthright; collection agencies may try to hide their identity. It is best to get the name and mailing address of the company. The reason: A written request to stop calling must, under the federal debt collection act, be honored by a third-party collector.
• Another request that must be honored by a third-party collector is a demand for verification that the borrower actually owes the amount. "You have the right by law to request documentation of this debt," Cunningham said. Often older debts may have been sold and resold several times. It's not unusual for a collector to be unable to document that a borrower has actually borrowed the money, in which case collection will be difficult.
• Borrowers should always remember that they talk to collectors only on their own volition. No one can be forced to talk. If court action is mentioned or appears likely, borrowers should consult with their attorney, Markoff said. Once an attorney has been retained, collectors can no longer contact the borrower, only the attorney.
• And if a borrower files for bankruptcy, then all collection efforts must cease.
• Simply refusing to talk, however, probably won't end the matter. "The consumer will still owe the debt," Cunningham said, "so failure to work out a repayment plan may result in legal actions such as wage garnishment or a judgment being filed." In addition to filing a lawsuit against the borrower, collectors may try to collect from any co-guarantors.
• Consumers willing to talk usually get more favorable repayment terms and, most of the time, end up paying less than the original balance, Talbott said. The card issuer may restructure the debt, or refer the borrower to a consumer credit counseling company to set up a debt management plan. Lenders may forgive interest and lower interest rates. However, federal regulations say lenders cannot forgive principal unless it is paid in full within 3 months. "This is very onerous," observes Talbott, who said his group is lobbying to relax these restrictions.
• While consumers currently have significant protections, especially against third-party collectors, they are likely to receive more before long. "There is going to be a consumer protection wave, which we support, that will sweep through Congress," predicted Talbott.
• And, already, any time a call about a credit card problem occurs, no matter the time or place or caller, ending the call is always an option. "A consumer has a right to terminate a phone call," Markoff said. "If a collector demands something you can't do, you have a right to say, 'No, thank you. Goodbye.' "

.

Hope vs Fear

.
The entire history of American political debate can, in one sense, be described as the argument between the hope of progressives and liberals for a better future vs. the fear of conservatives who want to protect the way things are now.

• Fear has been a staple of every generation of conservatives .... Fear of the democratic mob. Fear of the freed slave. Fear of the liberated woman destroying the traditional family. Fear of freethinkers destroying religion. Fear of communism. Fear of gays and lesbians. Fear of hippies, "free love," and the drug culture. Fear of the immigrant. In a bizarre twist, Social Darwinism gave us fear of the weak, and in the modern version of Social Darwinism, Reagan gave us fear of the poor on welfare. Post-9/11, you can now add in the ever-potent fear of terrorism. (from The Progressive Revolution by Mike Lux)
  

George Gerbner, who headed the Annenberg School for Communication for 25 years, noted:

• "Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures. … They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their insecurities."

How frightened and insecure do you have to be to deliberately choose the lowest mediocrity for your government?

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would vote to vest the entire government in the hands of a group of people who don't believe in government and who do their best to see to it that government does not function well. And, that, my gentle snowflakes, means the conservative Republicans.

Remember, the great God of the conservative Republicans, Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." Then Bush 43 came along and seemingly set out to prove just how badly government could function--Katrina for possibly the single most outstanding example.

So, I ask you, what drives people to embrace stupidity, aggression, recklessness, destruction and contemptuousness as national policy, especially when they have other choices?

Democrats/Liberals/Progressives know what wonderful, important contributions American can make when properly motivated. We are ready for hope - not fear - to be out guiding principle. For "What if?" - not "What happened?" - to be our next national question.

We know we all live here. We know we need a government that functions as well as possible with the least possible intrusions into any aspect of our lives. But, maybe most importantly, we know that we do need a government.

The Liberal Agenda

.
Guess what my gentle snowflakes--there is a liberal agenda. Oh yes, there really, really is.

The great liberal agenda, the object of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, is to make life better for every individual in this country.

The Liberal Agenda is based on a truly simple concept, one that every American can understand with no interpretation whatsoever.

We're good neighbors.

Very simply, we want the best not only for ourselves, but for everyone around us. We want this because we believe that every person deserves a life in which they can be healthy, free, and happy. (Those three ring a bell for anyone--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?)

And this causes the liberal run business community to labor under a great financial disadvantage, due to the fact that a true liberal mindset is impelled to pay its employees enough money to actually support a family. While the conservative mindset will pay only an impecunious, piddling sum thereby extracting the largest portion for themselves. And, on an even larger scale, the conservative is also willing, with no thought except for himself, to offshore production facilities in order to get the cheapest labor the market will offer in order to make a larger profit which is then used to increase the power structure of the conservative aspect of the business community.

So here is the basic problem of any politician who allows his/her rhetoric to be guided by his/her fears of failure. You can't spread the gospel if you're afraid to speak it. It seems like Democrats forgot James Carville's basic lesson of political summer school: "It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth.

Remember, it is a deeply offensive sleight of hand that would allow the repackaging of the Founding Fathers, Abolition and the Civil Rights Movement into right wing victories. In fact, they were not. These movements all fought against right wing orthodoxy.

Freedom-Fighters and Hell-Raisers

.
Molly Ivins left a large portion of her estate to the American Civil Liberties Union. I did not know this.

In a letter for the ACLU, she says: “Every time someone down the line is irreverent about authority, I’ll have my monument. Every time some kid who was born a nigger, a kike, a wop, a Polack, a gook, a gimp, a fag, or just a plain maverick lifts up her head and dares anyone to stop her, I’ll have my monument. Every time they peaceably assemble to petition their government for redress of a grievance, I’ll be there. Whenever they worship as they please (or not at all), I’ll be there. Whenever they speak up and speak out and raise hell, I’ll be there. And every time some blue-bellied, full-blooded nincompoop who holds elected office is called to the floor for deciding to keep us safe by rewriting the Constitution, or by suspending due process and holding a citizen indefinitely without legal representation, I’ll be there. Now that is immortality. I don't have any children, so I've decided to claim all the future freedom-fighters and hell-raisers as my kin. I figure freedom and justice beat having my name in marble any day. Besides, if there is another life after this one, think how much we'll get to laugh watching it all."

Pure Molly at her ever-lovin' best.

In her column on Jan. 20, 2006, she said: "It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief. If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator ... with the guts to do it."

She always signed her books and her letters with, "Raise more hell."

I'm trying, Molly, I'm trying.
.

...So They Can Get Back in the Game

.
It is not enough that we send them into battle to be killed, maimed, turned into the walking dead emotionally or worse into a walking time bomb of emotionality.

It is not enough that the Army suicide rate has now reached a 27-year high.

• According to preliminary military data released by the Associated Press, at least 128 Army soldiers committed suicide in 2008, compared to 115 in 2007. These numbers do not include suicides among veterans, for whom suicide is a growing problem. According to the VA records from 2002 to 2006, at least 254 Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans have killed themselves.

It now turns out we are destroying their bodies even if they are never wounded.

• Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
• "You can't hump a rucksack at 8,000 to 11,000 feet for 15 months, even at a young age, and not have that have an impact on your body..." (Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army''s vice chief of staff)
• Individual Marine combat loads -- including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water, food and communications gear -- range from 97 to 135 pounds.
• In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions.
• Carroll W. McInroe, a former VA primary-care case manager in Washington state, said he has seen such injuries in hundreds of veterans from today's wars. "Our infantry should not be going into battle carrying 90 to 100 pounds on their backs," he said. "The human muscular-skeletal system is simply not designed for that much weight, and it will break down over time."

And as you read clear to the very last line: "We refer to soldiers as tactical athletes. You want to help take care of them early so they can get back in the game." (Lt. Col Nikki Butler, a senior Army rehabilitation specialist)

Now, I realize that the armed forces look on life in a different way from the rest of us. BUT we had better worry when they start to refer to war as a "game."

Am I the only one appalled here?
.

Obama Should Push for Universal Health Care Now

.
Krugman is right and I say, "Right on."

As you read Krugman's commentary, remember that he won a Nobel Prize in Economics in October 2008. No slouch he.

I suspect that he might know what he is talking about.

• The whole world is in recession. But the United States is the only wealthy country in which the economic catastrophe will also be a health care catastrophe — in which millions of people will lose their health insurance along with their jobs, and therefore lose access to essential care.
• Which raises a question: Why has the Obama administration been silent, at least so far, about one of President Obama’s key promises during last year’s campaign — the promise of guaranteed health care for all Americans?
• Let’s talk about the magnitude of the looming health care disaster.
• Just about all economic forecasts, including those of the Obama administration’s own economists, say that we’re in for a prolonged period of very high unemployment. And high unemployment means a sharp rise in the number of Americans without health insurance.
• After the economy slumped at the beginning of this decade, five million people joined the ranks of the uninsured — and that was with the unemployment rate peaking at only 6.3 percent. This time the Obama administration says that even with its stimulus plan, unemployment will reach 8 percent, and that it will stay above 6 percent until 2012. Many independent forecasts are even more pessimistic.
• Why, then, aren’t we hearing more about ensuring health care access?
• Now, it’s possible that those of us who care about this issue are reading too much into the administration’s silence. But let me address three arguments that I suspect Mr. Obama is hearing against moving on health care, and explain why they’re wrong.
• First, some people are arguing that a major expansion of health care access would just be too expensive right now, given the vast sums we’re about to spend trying to rescue the economy.
• But research sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund shows that achieving universal coverage with a plan similar to Mr. Obama’s campaign proposals would add “only” about $104 billion to federal spending in 2010 — not a small sum, of course, but not large compared with, say, the tax cuts in the Obama stimulus plan.
• It’s true that the cost of universal health care will be a continuing expense, reaching far into the future. But that has always been true, and Mr. Obama has always claimed that his health care plan was affordable. The temporary expenses of his stimulus plan shouldn’t change that calculation.
• Second, some people in Mr. Obama’s circle may be arguing that health care reform isn’t a priority right now, in the face of economic crisis.
• But helping families purchase health insurance as part of a universal coverage plan would be at least as effective a way of boosting the economy as the tax breaks that make up roughly a third of the stimulus plan — and it would have the added benefit of directly helping families get through the crisis, ending one of the major sources of Americans’ current anxiety.
• Finally — and this is, I suspect, the real reason for the administration’s health care silence — there’s the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis. But if history is any guide, this argument is precisely wrong.
• Don’t take my word for it. Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, has declared that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Indeed. F.D.R. was able to enact Social Security in part because the Great Depression highlighted the need for a stronger social safety net. And the current crisis presents a real opportunity to fix the gaping holes that remain in that safety net, especially with regard to health care.
• And Mr. Obama really, really doesn’t want to repeat the mistakes of Bill Clinton, whose health care push failed politically partly because he moved too slowly: by the time his administration was ready to submit legislation, the economy was recovering from recession and the sense of urgency was fading.
• One more thing. There’s a populist rage building in this country, as Americans see bankers getting huge bailouts while ordinary citizens suffer. [Emphasis mine.]
  
• I agree with administration officials who argue that these financial bailouts are necessary (though I have problems with the specifics). But I also agree with Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who argues that — as a matter of political necessity as well as social justice — aid to bankers has to be linked to a strengthening of the social safety net, so that Americans can see that the government is ready to help everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
• The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Boy, I wish I had said. Oh, wait, I did, and I did. Just not quite as well.
.