Corporate theives? You Decide.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

When Rep.John Boehner, R-Ohio, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-V, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, continue to puke out phrases like: 'The American People don't want the Government Take Over of Health Care I have to wonder if any of them have actual spoke to any of The American People like The L'Esperances ? I doubt it. They are NOT working for The American People, They are doing the bidding of their Corporate Overlords....much like Renfield, the insect-eating slave mindlessly did the bidding of Count Dracula. I use that metaphor because that's the mental picture I get every time I see them on TV.

When healthcare coverage is insurance in name only - latimes.com

Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 07:11:06 AM PST

The Internet is a chaotic and random place, much like the human mind. And in my mind this early, early AM are some random thought processes that are forming into solid thoughts. Kind of like the rain bands that materialized over SoCali yesterday and drenched us yet again.

This piece is borne from the BBC News story about new police officers in Mexico, an article quote of Nagin and New Orleans being a 'chocolate city', and a random sampling of my many thoughts and personal observations about the Drug War.

Perhaps the fact that I never assembled any type of narrative or complete, written reaction to my experiences in '08-09 (which include almost 10 months of lockup for cannabis charges) has inspired me to keep reaching for intellectual higher ground, upon which I can view the wreckage of our society's health, judiciary, and woefully corrupt law enforcement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

change the Be's diary :: ::

On one side of the border, a geographic dichotomy as it were, you have opposite, mirroring situations. There's the USA, where inmates walk the halls of LA County Jail, past the murals of John wayne on every floor and 6-foot portraits of dead cops. then there's mexico, where the populace at large is terrorized by drug cartels while also glamorizing them at times as rebels.

How is it that in Mexico there can be narco-ballads and drug lords like this:

Joachin Guzman Loera, better-known as El Chapo - Shorty - is one of the world's biggest drug barons and, ostensibly, Mexico's most wanted man.
So one wonders why he feels safe enough to frequent local restaurants in his home county of Sinaloa and to stage a lavish, well-publicised ceremony in the mountains there to celebrate his marriage to an 18-year-old Mexican beauty queen.

Whereas over her in the USA, tv shows like 'Weeds' are considered rebellious, and our 'good' citizens gobble up drugs from Mexico, Central, and South America while paying taxes to a 'good' government that blows the money on fighting the 'evil' drug dealers. End result: lost lives, govt. sponsored price supports for drug dealers, wasted taxpayer money, incarcerated innocents, and little treatment for addicts.

I am not exempt from these mind games. When I think of the police, insecure American cops come to mind, not courageous and heroic women like Blanca Del Rio--drug cartel thugs killed her husband, and she refuses to do nothing. She proves the cop stereotypes wrong, while also reinforcing the notion that drug cartels are evil, not rebellious good guys. Because the drug cartels are both at the same time- they are a reaction to the Puritanical drug policies of Uncle Sam and a result of oppression of Latin America, both economically and militarily.

But they are not merely economic or political rebels like the guerrillas in Colombia...the Mexican drug cartels are more like American Corporations because of their unrivaled greed and wanton lack of interest in their fellow humans' welfare.

For every friendly pot dealer (my old job) out there, there's also a skeezed-out coke/meth dealer. So when you look closely at the Drug war, you find it is like politics, business, or any sector of Life: it is not possible to permanently distinguish who is 'good' or 'bad'. It's all mixed in together. Kurt Vonnegut would call it the human condition.

On scales small and large, we see humans try to separate themselves from 'evil', while also marginalizing others for being 'evil'. We see it now with Saxby Chambliss accusing gays of bringing "alcoholism" and "fraternization" and loose behavior to the military, which would be a good way to describe heterosexuals in the military as well (I know plenty of examples from back home down South). We see this dynamic in racism, whether it's in the South or the North, where Americans discriminate against the 'darker' peoples and their inherently 'evil' ways.

New York City is just as guiltyas Birmingham when it comes to filling jail cells with young black men on petty drug cases these days. Why? Because racism isn't regional. It's ignorance, and ignorance is universal. Socrates argued that what we call evil is really the same as ignorance.

The good/evil dichotomy, as my Derrida-loving high school English prof would say, is welded into humanity's perception of so many things in life. It is part of our human nature, which Western civilization for so long split into dualism- good vs evil, rational vs creative, mind vs body, etc etc. Carl Jung said evil was the "dark side of God". Kids play cops and robbers, a good vs evil game. Then those kids get older, and get caught up in the worldwide game of cops vs robbers, which has become the War on Drugs/Minorities/Civil Rights.

The Drug War is our ongoing nightmare intended to sustain a military-esque police/prison infrastructure. It is an perpetual injustice that fills an authoritarian void left by so many things in our American past: Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, the KKK, segregation, McCarthyism, Salem witch hunts. Of course, Freud would point out the fetish for power many cops/judges/Puritans have, derived from their own mental diseases,inadequacies, and imperfections. We see this played out every day online in the news; constantly we read of cops brutalizing victims, or even sexually assaulting them.

But I digress, albeit intentionally so. In a diary that will be read by 10-20 folks, liberties will understandably be taken with digressions.

Here's the dichotomy in Mexico these days, thanks to Americans:

"Plata o plomo," is the local saying. "Silver or lead," you either work for the cartels or they kill you.

Danger: Falling Middle Class

By Tula Connell

February 5, 2010 - 9:06am ET

Facebook9	E-mail

Popular This Week

Taking Elections Back From the Corporations and the Constitution Back from the Gang of Five

by Robert Borosage

February 03, 2010

The Stupid Party

by Robert Borosage

February 04, 2010

Check Out The Movement: Move Your Money

by Philip Palij | February 05, 2010

Colorado Springs: Conservatism's Shining City

by Terrance Heath | February 05, 2010

They've Already Waited Too Long

by Isaiah J. Poole | February 05, 2010

Goldman Sachs and the Republicans

by OurFuture.org Staff | February 05, 2010

Jack Cafferty at CNN this week asked viewers one of his seemingly routine questions. But the responses to: "How has definition of 'middle-class American' changed?" reveal a cataclysmic shift in our nation's economic identity.
Gary from El Centro, Calif., summed up the vast majority of the nearly 200 responses when he replied:

You should ask this question of the three or four people in the country still remaining in the middle class.

The comments reflect more than the run-of-the-mill griping about taxes or middle-aged discontent. They demonstrate a visceral understanding of the deep forces underlying the dramatic change that in recent decades has eroded the solid financial footing of America's working families—America's middle class.

In short, the American public knows what most lawmakers in Washington and policymakers around the country have yet to figure out: The nation is losing its middle-class backbone and bifurcating into a have/have not country.

As Karen from Idaho Falls writes on Cafferty's site:

In my world, there is no middle class–only the very rich, the rich, the poor, and the very poor. Most of us are hanging on to being "poor" by our fingernails and hoping that we won't join the ever growing "very poor" class. Somewhere along the line, "middle class" disappeared.

The not-so-Great Recession is just the latest and loudest part of the long decline of the middle class.

From the end of World War II to the early 1970s, wages grew along with productivity. But since then, wages have been stagnant or declining—while productivity skyrocketed. The decline in a family's earning power was offset by the entrance of vast numbers of women in the labor market—and then by wage-earners holding multiple jobs. By the late 1990s, debt—from second mortgages or credit cards—kept the middle class afloat.

And now what is revealed is a middle class held together by nothing more than string.

One of the most consequential but least recognized aspects of the current economic disaster is the growing length of time workers are without jobs. In December, the average jobless worker had been unemployed for 29.1 weeks. In contrast, when the recession began in 2007, the average unemployed person had been out of work for 16.5 weeks.

At Economix blog, Catherine Rampell points out in an tellingly titled post, "A Growing Underclass," that the longer unemployed workers stay out of work, the less likely they may be to find work.

First, their skills may deteriorate or become obsolete—especially if they are in a dynamically changing industry like high technology.

Second, the stigma—both internal and external—of their unemployment grows. Studies have linked job loss to declines in self-worth and self-esteem, meaning these people will probably make less compelling job candidates.

So, even if there were jobs available—there are now more than six unemployed workers for every one job—getting one becomes harder and harder the longer you're out of work. Jobs are so few, in fact, even a weekly columnist at Forbes had this to say:

For many, many Americans there are no jobs and few prospects. For them the Great Recession is not a cute aphorism but a major cataclysm.

Long-term joblessness is one more nail in the middle class coffin. As Working-Class Perspectives describes it:

Unlike in past business cycles, the middle class has not been able to recover so far, despite increases in productivity and stock prices. In “America Without a Middle Class,” Elizabeth Warren documents how the de facto unemployment rate, credit debt, “underwater” mortgages, increased use of food stamps, personal bankruptcies, and the loss of pensions and health care have all dramatically increased. Middle-class households have depleted their savings and are increasingly accruing debt to pay for college, health care, and other expenses.

Some experts believe that the decline in jobs will only continue. For example, Alexandra Levit predicts significant losses in a number of key industries between 2008 and 2018: semiconductor manufacturing (33.7 percent), apparel manufacturing (57 percent), newspaper publishers (24.8 percent)….Corporations are moving many of these jobs offshore or replacing them with technology rather than paying middle-class wages and benefits. The economists are right that new jobs are being created in place of these. But as Jack Metzgar discussed last week, most of the new jobs offer even lower wages and benefits and require less education.

Jobs are offshored while the jobs that remain in the United States are low-wage, with little affordable health care or retirement options. Meanwhile, the smooth of face and soft of hand financial wizards who turn their noses up at the industrial manufacturing sector fail to realize that when the United States loses its ability to make things, it also loses the research and development power that fueled the nation to greatness. And it loses something a lot more. Louis Uchitelle interviews Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) about the humiliation of building a new World Trade Center with no glass made in the United States:

“Imagine China,” he said in an interview, “building a huge structure intended to be an important national symbol and importing glass from the United States to build it. There is no way the Chinese would do that.”

And a low-wage job nation fuels income inequality. This from a stunning report by economist John Schmit at the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

From a peak just before the 1929 stock market crash through the early 1950s, wage and income inequality, broadly measured, were declining.

From the early 1950s through the late 1970s, inequality was flat, or even falling slightly. Since the late 1970s, however, inequality has skyrocketed, climbing back to levels last seen in the 1920s. In 1979, for example, the top one percent of all U.S. taxpayers received about 8 percent of national income; by 2007, the top one percent received over 18 percent. If we include income from capital gains in the calculation, the increase in inequality is even sharper, with the top one percent capturing 10 percent of all income in 1979, but over 23 percent in 2007.

Back at Cafferty's site, Chad from Los Angeles knows why:

The middle class has turned into the "peasant class." We have been taken over by a few wealthy people who control our politicians and government. We have become an Aristocracy. Except the ones in control are not royalty, they are businessmen hiding behind a cloak of deception that is Corporate America.

In the short term, critical steps must be taken for immediate relief. The first is getting the Senate to extend unemployment insurance (UI) for the long-term unemployed. As usual, the House already has acted, extending UI in December, while senators dither. (Click here to tell your lawmakers it’s time to act.) Extending UI is part of the jobs initiative the AFL-CIO is pushing for immediate relief for jobless workers.

But before the current crisis fades, the nation must begin to reverse the more than 40-year trend in which the gap widens between rich and poor and the middle class falls out of the bottom.

Silas from Boston—a city not unfamiliar with fomenting revolutions—offers an intriguing insight:

We've allowed the "upper" class to become too big to fail. As a result, the middle class is an endangered species which has to bail out the class that got us into this mess to begin with. This is how the French Revolution started.

This is a cross-post from the Firedoglake blog.

Is $675,000 a year not a lot of money? You decide.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Think Progress » Steele: ‘Trust Me, After Taxes A Million Dollars Is Not A Lot Of Money’

RNC Chairman Michael Steele and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) held a joint appearance Thursday night at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. When the debate turned to President Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on families making over $250,000, Steele “joke[d]” that that wasn’t very much money:

The two often traded jokes, especially when Steele panned President Barack Obama’s long-stated plan to let income tax rates return to higher levels for families making more than $250,000 a year.
“Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money,” Steele said.
Ford later asked the audience of mostly college students, “Who in here makes a million dollars a year?”
“How many of you want to make a million dollars a year?” Steele quickly responded when no hands were raised.
Of course, to most Americans, $250,000 — let alone a million — is “a lot of money.” The median household income is about $52,000 and only two percent of Americans make $250,000 or more. Fewer than half-a-percent make more than a million dollars. “After taxes,” someone making a million dollars can still expect to keep about $675,000.
Yet Steele is not alone in his out-of-touch assertion. Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh — who reportedly makes about $50 million a year — also recently argued that “$250,000 is not wealthy.” And like Limbaugh, we can “trust” Steele about high income. In addition to his $223,500-a-year RNC post, Steele charges between $8,000 and $20,000 for personal speaking engagements. Indeed, the University paid Steele and Ford a combined $40,000 for Thursday’s event.
Steele’s claim reflects a larger conservative attempt to falsely claim that tax hikes for the very wealth will hurt the middle class.

The People Have Spoken

Friday, February 5, 2010

Commentary: Republicans got what they wanted from health care overhaul

Isaac Bailey | The Myrtle Beach Sun

last updated: February 02, 2010 02:38:02 PM

With all this talk about the need for more bipartisanship in Washington, the public might be surprised to learn that the U.S. Congress has already passed a bipartisan health care bill.

It began in the Senate Finance Committee. Six senators — Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Chairman Max Baucus — worked together for several weeks last summer.

Negotiations began breaking down during the August recess with the hyper-partisan town hall meetings.

Snowe was so alarmed by the distortions she asked President Obama to rebut some of the conservative allegations, according to the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, most of those distortions and scare tactics stuck.

The group of six senators never decided on a compromise after Grassley began talking about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma." But their work provided the foundation for what came out of the Senate during a contentious party-line vote, solidifying in the public's mind that it was a liberal product.

But the bill was bipartisan even if it was passed by a partisan vote.

Republicans said they didn't want a single-payer or Medicare-for-all system or any form of a public option.

Democrats went along with the GOP even though most Democrats and most of those polled wanted a government-run option.

Republicans wanted Americans to have the ability to buy health insurance across state lines. Democrats kept that GOP priority in the final bill.

Republicans said they didn't want a bill that would increase the deficit. The Senate bill could reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans said they didn't want an expansion of Medicare to those as young as 55 years old. Most Democrats were in favor of the expansion but went along with the GOP.

Republicans agreed that insurance companies should no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Democrats wanted the provision but knew it wouldn't work without an individual mandate, so they included both.

Republicans didn't get another of their priorities, tort reform. But the CBO has studied the issue and said it would bring down costs by only 1 percent to 2 percent. A recent study by Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research came to the same conclusion.

To recap: Republicans in the early 1990s helped block health care reform and did not take up the issue during the 12 years the GOP had control of Congress. Tens of thousands of uninsured people died unnecessarily every year during the GOP reign, premiums began doubling, thousands of companies had to drop insurance for employees, medical emergencies became the top reason for personal bankruptcies, and rising health costs forced a continued ballooning of the federal deficit.

A decade and a half later, Republicans got much of what the party wanted in the Senate bill and still refused to endorse reform and now is demanding an end to the debate or a shift to a modest proposal that won't deal with the heart of the problems that have been developing over the past several decades and will continue to worsen.

Republicans, even our own Sen. Lindsey Graham, are misleadingly saying reform will add to the deficit - CBO says it could cut it by $1.3 trillion - and is a government takeover of health care, even though the single-payer proposal was tossed early in the debate. The reform is not a government takeover of a sixth of our economy.

That is a factual inaccuracy.

Many of those who opposed reform in the '90s because they were happy with their insurance are among the millions today struggling to find affordable coverage.

Many of them are hardworking Americans shut out of an uneven, inefficient system.

The same story will repeat itself in the coming years for more middle-class Americans if health reform dies again.

Republicans say we can't afford it. But every serious expert who has studied the system says we can't afford to not have reform.

If the nation is ever threatened by bankruptcy, out-of-control health care costs - not earmarks or defense spending - will be the culprit.

I wish more in my industry would become more concerned with conveying that reality than monitoring which party is better at playing political games of chicken.

Why haven't any Wall Street tycoons been sent to the slammer?

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: February 01, 2010 11:12:55 PM

WASHINGTON — More than a year into the gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression, millions of Americans have seen their home values and retirement savings plunge and their jobs evaporate.

What they haven't seen are any Wall Street tycoons forced to swap their multi-million dollar jobs and custom-made suits for dishwashing and prison stripes.

There are plenty of civil and class-action lawsuits from aggrieved investors angered by the losses in their mortgage bonds, hedge funds or pensions.

Regulators have stepped up their vigilance after the fact. But to date, no captain of finance tied to the crisis has walked the plank.

There have been some high-profile arrests and federal convictions of financial giants — such as Ponzi scheme king Bernard Madoff and Stanford Financial Group chairman Robert Allen Stanford. They weren't among the causes of the financial meltdown, however, just poster boys for an era of lax enforcement, weak regulation and devout faith in free markets.

"A lot of people who are responsible (for the crisis) seem to have gotten awfully rich in the process," said Barbara Roper, the director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America.

The absence of what many would call justice stands out all the more because past financial crises always had their villains. The depression-era had electricity and railroad magnate Samuel Insull, who partly inspired the movie "Citizen Kane." The savings and loan crisis of the 1980's had banker Charles Keating. Energy giant Enron Corp.'s spectacular collapse offered the late CEO Kenneth Lay, a Texas crony of President George W. Bush.

Yet there's no such poster child for the Great Recession, as today's crisis is now called.

One may yet emerge. The FBI has more than 580 large-scale corporate fraud investigations under way. At least 40 of them are scrutinizing players in sub-prime mortgage lending, which was the first domino to fall and triggered a global financial crisis.

"The investigations are very complex; it's not something that's going to turn overnight," said Bill Carter, a spokesman at FBI headquarters. "They are labor intensive. They involve a review of records."

To date, the closest thing to a prosecution of a major actor in the financial meltdown is a civil fraud case that the Securities and Exchange Commission brought on June 4 against Angelo Mozilo, the perma-tanned CEO of mortgage-lending giant Countrywide.

The SEC, in documents filed in a federal courtroom in central California, accuses Mozilo of "deliberately misleading investors" by misrepresenting the risk that Countrywide posed. The SEC also accused him of insider trading because he sold large shares of company stock and options ahead of what he allegedly knew was a coming collapse of mortgage lending.

Unless the Justice Department brings corresponding criminal charges, however, Mozilo could be hit with penalties and a ruined reputation if convicted — but he wouldn't see the inside of a jail cell.

Another big trial is imminent, however. On Oct. 13, a Brooklyn jury will begin hearing the federal prosecution of former Bear Stearns investment fund founder Ralph Cioffi and his fund manager Matthew Tannin.

Two of their hedge funds, offered to mega-wealthy investors and heavily weighted with investments in mortgage bonds backed by sub-prime loans to the weakest borrowers, collapsed in June and August of 2007. Their collapse signaled a gathering storm in mortgage finance that culminated in March 2008 with the government-brokered fire sale of their bank to JP Morgan Chase.

Both men were charged on June 19, 2008, with defrauding investors, passing off as safe the investment in mortgage bonds even though they described the market for sub-prime mortgages as "toast" in their own e-mails. Cioffi also faces charges of insider trading.

Lawyers for both men declined comment to McClatchy, but when their clients were arrested they called the pair scapegoats for the broader financial crisis.

Court documents filed in August show attorneys for the two are trying to suppress evidence that the executives' special trading notebooks have disappeared. The government suspects that Cioffi and Tannin, or someone helping them, made them disappear to cover their tracks.

Cioffi's attorneys also asked in August that the presiding judge quash the use of evidence that points to their clients' lavish lifestyle, including mansions and Ferraris. The documents accused federal prosecutors of "improper appeal to class prejudice." Tannin's attorneys joined the motion on Sept.15.

Class prejudice against bankers is what many Americans feel, evident in the death threats made against some former or current executives at insurer American International Group and other financial firms earlier this year. Wall Street switchboard operators at some institutions no longer provide addresses to phone callers.

Americans are angry because the suffering on Main Street is a spillover from the excessive risk taking and lavish compensation of executives who invested on behalf of the ultra-wealthy. Investors seeking outsized "alpha" returns turned to Wall Street, both seeking to make a short-term killing even if doing so eventually brought the near collapse of the financial system.

President Barack Obama alluded to this on Sept. 14 in a New York speech to commemorate the anniversary of the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers, which sent off a global financial panic.

"We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses," Obama said, promising new rules. "Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences."

There are persistent but unconfirmed reports that the FBI and grand juries are looking at the e-mails of executives of failed institutions such as Bear Stearns, which pioneered the process of pooling sub-prime loans for sale to investors, and Lehman Brothers, which was a leader in these toxic products when it collapsed.

Records from AIG, which the Federal Reserve saved from collapse on Sept. 17, 2008, are also thought to be under review. The FBI reportedly is also looking at rating agencies Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's to determine if they knowingly gave pools of sub-prime mortgages AAA investment-grade ratings, the best possible, despite evidence to the contrary.

Carter, the FBI spokesman, declined comment on ongoing investigations.

The lack of any prosecution to date doesn't mean authorities aren't investigating, added Ian McCaleb, a spokesman for the Department of Justice.

"There are ongoing cases. But from a prosecution standpoint, it takes a significant amount of time to develop these things. Most financial fraud cases are very complex and it could take a while to unravel the specifics of each case," he said. "I would characterize financial fraud as one of our top priorities."

Another possibility is that a new politically appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission could turn up something that leads to prosecution. The 10-member panel, created by Congress this month, began probing the origins of the crisis, has subpoena power and could compel testimony. This could, however, lead to conflicts with ongoing legal investigations.

Another reason that there've been no arrests of the perpetrators of the financial meltdown is that agencies such as the SEC, which regulates trading in stocks and bonds, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the trading of contracts for future delivery of energy and farm products, lack powers of criminal prosecution.

They can bring civil charges that result in fines or pass information to federal prosecutors or the FBI, which under the Bush administration was reorganized to focus less on white-collar crime and more on national security matters and crimes against children.

Legislation introduced in the House and Senate would make it easier for the CFTC to prosecute, especially allegations of market manipulation. Measures would lower the current high threshold for determining manipulation. In 35 years, the agency has won only a single manipulation case, and it's under appeal. The bills also would give commodities regulators powers to bring criminal cases.

"Folks who do the crime shouldn't just pay a fine, but do the time," said Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner who's championed the need for prosecutorial powers.

Because it saves time and money, regulators traditionally have negotiated settlements with bad actors, and fines often amount to a business cost.

That, too, may be changing, however. The SEC on Sept. 14 was hit with a stinging judicial rebuke for its half-hearted efforts to punish Bank of America for alleged disclosure failures in the government-brokered purchase of investment bank Merrill Lynch.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff tossed out a $33 million settlement between the SEC and Bank of America, effectively calling it a fig leaf. The agency, he said, looked as if it was enforcing the law while the bank and its CEO, Kenneth Lewis, got away with a slap on the wrist.

"It is not fair, first and foremost, because it does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality, in that it proposes that the shareholders who were the victims of the bank's alleged misconduct now pay the penalty for that misconduct," Rakoff wrote in a scathing 12-page opinion that ordered the complaint to proceed to trial.

Single Payer Solution for Obama

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

by MN Senator John Marty

"If anyone...has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
-- President Obama, State of the Union
January 27, 2010

An open letter in response to President Obama's State of the Union request for a better approach to health care reform:

Dear President Obama,

During your State of the Union address, you explained why you are fighting for health care reform, expressed frustration at the lack of success, and invited others to suggest a better approach.

I'm taking you up on that invitation and offer a bold suggestion:

Take a look at our Minnesota Health Plan -- a proposal that covers everyone, saves money, and creates a logical health care system to replace the dysfunctional non-system which currently exists. It is a proposal that would provide health care to everyone, not merely health insurance for many.

Our MN Health Plan (mnhealthplan.org) could be readily adapted as a nation-wide plan. It would meet each of the five requirements you mentioned in your State of the Union request:

Bring Down Premiums. Most Americans would see a big reduction in premiums because the plan would be significantly cheaper than our current health care non-system. Because the premiums for the MHP would be based on ability to pay, everyone's premiums would be affordable.

Some would pay more, but overall, costs would go down. Most people would save money, while getting the care they need and deserve. The total costs for the plan would be less than we now are paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and taxes for medical programs.

Bring Down the Deficit. By keeping people healthier and by delivering quality health care efficiently, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars for the federal government, and even more for states. For example, by covering chemical dependency treatment and providing comprehensive mental health services, it would cut crime and human service costs (such as out-of-home placement of children), some of the biggest and fastest growing expenses facing state and local governments.

Cover the Uninsured. It would cover the uninsured and the under-insured. In fact it would cover everyone -- 100% of the public.

Strengthen Medicare for Seniors (and everyone else). It would cover prescription drugs -- with no "doughnut hole." It would cover long term care, in-home care, dental, eye care, physical therapy, and medical supplies -- it would cover all medical needs. And, they would have their choice of doctor, hospital, clinic, dentist -- complete freedom to choose their medical providers.

Stop Insurance Company Abuses. There would be no "pre-existing conditions" to worry about, no underwriting, no denials of coverage, no "out of network" problems. I like to use the analogy of police and fire protection. When you return home to find a burglary in process and call 911, the police dispatcher does not ask if you qualify. They do not ask if you have police insurance. They do not ask whether your policy covers home burglary. They don't ask if you have pre-existing conditions that would disqualify you. They don't waste time and money having you fill out forms so your insurance company can be billed. The police response does not depend on your insurance status. Everyone is treated equally. It's the American way. It is time to treat health care the same way.

As a 23 year member of the Minnesota Senate, let me comment briefly on the politics of this proposal:

The MHP is a single payer proposal. You have acknowledged that single payer is the only way to cover everyone. Seven years ago you said that single payer health care is "what I'd like to see. But... we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Now that we have taken back the White House and the Congress, it is time to act.

I recognize, as you do, that you do not have the votes to pass truly universal health care at this time. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries contribute so much to members of Congress -- they control the debate -- so health care for everyone isn't even on the table.

This, however, is your opportunity for leadership. If you propose and fight for health care for all, as FDR did with Social Security in 1935, the voters would respond. If you don't win this year, ask the American people to elect candidates who will stand with you. Make it the issue of the campaign: Health Care for All vs. Health Insurance for Some. Instead of losing Democratic members of Congress this year -- as Massachusetts illustrates -- you would gain votes and could actually pass the bill next year.

Dr. Martin Luther King stated, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

Almost a half century later, we still have not addressed the injustice in health care that Dr. King described as the most inhumane. Ignoring this injustice is immoral and it is economically unsustainable. People are hurting, some are literally dying, businesses are folding, and it is crushing our national economy.

Please, restore the Hope that you raised in all of us, bring back the inspiration that made the American people so excited by your inauguration. I urge you to step back, reconsider, introduce a health care plan that is truly universal, and fight for it.

Justice requires no less.

Respectfully,
John Marty

John Marty is a state Senator from Minnesota, who is currently a Democratic candidate for governor. John currently chairs the Minnesota Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. He is author of the Minnesota Health Plan, a bold single-payer health plan that would cover all Minnesotans for all their medical needs, including mental health and chemical dependency. He has been successful in gaining the support of one-third of the state's legislature as co-authors.

The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

by kos

Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 08:58:03 AM PST

As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

It's a long poll, so the results are summarized below the fold. For a direct link to the poll's crosstabs, click here.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/20-31. Self-identified Republicans. MoE 2% (No trend lines)
OBAMA and AMERICA

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

For what? Who the heck knows. Who needs high crimes or misdemeanors when...

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

That's the power of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, after one year of relentlessly claiming Obama is the second coming of Lenin ... and Hitler!

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22

We still have over a half of Republicans who don't think Obama was born in the US or think it's a matter open to debate.

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

Not just a quarter of Republicans believe this ludicrous premise, but another third think it's a matter open to debate. How do you negotiate with a party whose rank and file are that divorced from reality? And speaking of divorced from reality...

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55

One in five Republicans think ACORN is so powerful as to magically make 10 million votes appear. Another 55 are open to the theory. In other words, just 24 percent of Republicans have an even passing relationship with reality.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?
Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33

Sigh...

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

I bet more people think Obama is racist, but were too afraid to tell a live operator the truth.

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19

42 percent of Republicans aren't really patriotic. They pretend to love America only when they approve of the president. These traitors don't believe in democracy, in our nation's founding ideals, or in our flag. To them, those colors run. They are cowards.

Note, secession sentiment is MUCH stronger in the South than elsewhere -- 33 percent want out, compared to just 52 percent who want to stay. In the Northeast, "just" 10 percent want out, in the Midwest, its 18 percent, and in the West, it's 16 percent. Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbfuckistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?
ISSUES

Should Congress make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions?
Yes 7
No 68
Not Sure 25
Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?
Favor 26
Oppose 59
Not Sure 15
Do you support the death penalty?
Yes 91
No 4
Not Sure 5

GAYS

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19
Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16
Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21
Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Oof. That's some serious neanderthal action going on. Gays can't serve their country, teach children, get married, or even have civil unions. That's the GOP agenda for gays, which makes the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans that much more of a mystery.
SCHOOLS

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?
Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7
Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

In all of these questions, respondents from the South are slightly crazier, and those from the Northeast slightly less crazier, than the average. In these two questions, the differences are particularly exaggerated. In the South, the sex-ed question comes out 39-56, compared to 47-45 in the Northwest. For the creationism question, it's 82-9 in the South, compared to 70-23 in the Northwest.
I must admit, however, that I expected fewer Republicans to back sex ed. Another big surprise:
WOMEN

Are marrigiages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?
Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11
Should women work outside the home?
Yes 86
No 4
Not Sure 10

Phyllis Schlafly is crying. That looks a lot more enlightened than I expected, likely because the economic reality is that few people can get away with single-income homes. But whatever the reason, on this front, there's progress. But that's where the progress ends:

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13
Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18
Do you consider abortion to be murder?
Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16

Over a third of Republicans believe the birth control pill is abortion, which explains why nearly a third of them want contraceptive use outlawed. This is so wingnutty, it's hardly believable. But it's true, just a bare majority oppose outlawing contraceptives.
What we didn't ask was whether the 76 percent who consider abortion to be murder would advocate executions for women who have them. Since 91 percent of respondents support the death penalty.
One last question:

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18

Two-thirds of Republicans assume anyone that is not a Christian is going to hell. It certainly makes it easier for them to dehumanize their enemies, either real or perceived.

The Poor Are Enslaved In American Prisons

Monday, February 1, 2010

Dissident Voice : The Poor Are Enslaved In American Prisons

Prisons For Profit

by Nancy Lockhart, M.J. / January 1st, 2009

America turns its head to those who are incarcerated, especially those considered as brutal and thoughtless. The average American believes that the justice system is perfect and would never incarcerate those who are innocent. This line of logic is grossly inconsistent with reality, as thousands of formerly incarcerated inmates have been freed by DNA-evidence only. Our justice system is failing day by day, minute by minute. One wrongful conviction is one-too-many, and numbers are escalating well into the tens of thousands. Adequate legal representation is available to those who are able to pay; those who cannot, however, suffer. Consequently, inadequate legal representation mostly leads to an inevitable unjust verdict.
As a legal analyst, I’ve observed the legal processes in depth over the years, and watched those with money, resources and networks receive justice within a system allegedly designed to serve all. I’ve observed the poor and unknowledgeable suffer, as finances, resources, and networks are very limited or void!
It is our right under the Constitution to petition our courts for justice. What does this say for a Nation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — Inalienable Rights?
Slavery Is Alive and Flourishing In America
Poor people are enslaved in America’s Prison Industrial Complex. Indigent legal representation unfolds as inexperienced, underpaid and overworked lawyers provide inadequate representation to the poor – resulting in wrongful convictions; thus, enslavement to the prison industrial complex increases. The use of felonious, unethical, and often, illiterate witnesses is an increasing vehicle for wrongful convictions. The financially disempowered are the burden barriers for society’s ills, but those with money and corporate networks never experience this enslavement.
As the poor suffer, prosecutors and law enforcement officers are becoming even more corrupt in their policies. America incarcerates more individuals, especially minorities, than any other nation in the world. Wrongful convictions are on the rise and corruption is escalating. Slavery is alive and flourishing in America. In my years of service to the community, I’ve come across two distinct cases that yield inconsistencies from the onset.
The case of Ali Khalid Abdullah is one of them. Ali Khalid Abdullah was released from prison on August 1, 2008 and has had multitudes of problems dealing with a new society, ever since. Ali describes his experience as “being freed from Prison but not free.” Ali served 19 years in prison for taking action against a drug dealer who had molested an 11-year old. How does a government release prisoners with no assistance, financial or social, and expect positive results? My opinion is, they do not. They expect and hope for recidivism as it is the key to maintaining The Prison Industrial Complex.
The other case is that of two sisters, Jamie and Gladys Scott. In 1994, Jamie and Gladys Scott were wrongfully convicted in the state of Mississippi. A corrupt sheriff used coercion, threats, and harassment to convict the Scott Sisters of armed robbery. The case of the Scott sisters is an intriguing one, with transcripts stating that perhaps 9, 10, or 11 dollars was stolen, at most. It’s important to note that no one was murdered or injured. One of the state’s witnesses, a 14 year old, testified that he did not have an attorney present when signing a statement prepared by the sheriff. Jamie and Gladys Scott have served 14 years of double-life sentences, thus far. That’s Double Life Each! The absurdity of their sentencing reaches new heights with the reality that neither of the Scott sisters had prior convictions. Sadly, the cases of Mr. Abdullah and the Scott sisters are becoming an accepted phenomenon in our society.
The Prison Industrial Complex is the 21st century slave master in the minority community, and unless we are made aware and trained to take action, the enslavement will continue to fester more and more rapidly in years to come.
Don’t Wait Until It Happens To You!
For more on the case, see Jamie & Gladys Scott and Black Commentator.

Michael Douglas's Son Faces More Time Than a Murderer or a Rapist for a Non-Violent Drug Charge

Who benefits from Cameron Douglas getting at least 10 years in prison? No one does. But the govt. is hell bent on punishing him for the crime of being an addict.

January 31, 2010 |

Cameron - the son of Academy Award winner Michael Douglas - took a guilty plea this week for dealing drugs that will land him in prison for at least 10 years to a maximum of life. This stems from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation based on information from unidentified informants who were methamphetamine users and drug dealers. In other words, these rats gave Cameron up to save their own hides. In exchange for agreeing to be cooperating witnesses against Cameron, they were allowed to plead guilty to lesser charges.

I am mad has hell! Why? In the 1980s, I faced a similar fate that led to my 15-to-life sentence for a first time, nonviolent drug sale in New York. So I know too well the routine the DEA went through to rope Cameron into a corner forcing him to take a plea deal. They scared the living crap out of him, telling him he would never see the light of day if he went to trial. Why would anyone in their right mind plead out to a ten year minimum sentence? In the U.S., this type of behavior is standard in procuring drug convictions of low level drug offenders who wind up doing more time than a murderer or rapist.

I talked to a good friend of Cameron Douglas who told me he was a drug addict who has been hooked on heroin for the last several years. Why else would he compel his girlfriend to bring over a toothbrush containing 20 bags of dope while he was under house arrest several months ago? He needs drug treatment not a decade or more of hard time in prison.

The U.S. is obsessed with punishing individuals like Cameron. I think the imprisonment of Cameron is immoral and counterproductive to public safety. By locking up Cameron and those like him, our government is wasting resources that could otherwise be used to stop violent crime.

Today, there are over 500,000 Americans locked up for nonviolent drug law violations. The cost of incarcerating such individuals is draining state and federal budgets and producing idiotic solutions by politicians to make up for its burgeoning costs - like the recent cuts in health care, education, and other social service programs.

It will cost tax payers an estimated $45,000 a year to keep him in prison. His family and friends will no doubt mourn their loss while Cameron rots away in a federal prison for being a nonviolent drug addict.

Should we treat drug addiction as a criminal matter or a medical problem? For most people, treatment is much more effective way to overcome addiction, yet our prisons are full of drug addicted individuals. Nonviolent drug offenders should be given an opportunity to receive treatment, not jail time, for their drug use. This would be a more effective and much more affordable solution for the individual and the community.

Thanks to the war on drugs, and especially mandatory minimum sentencing policies, average drug offenders like Cameron Douglas are sentenced to extraordinary amounts of time in prison. We need to end these draconian drug laws by offering drug-addicted individuals treatment instead of prison.

Anthony Papa, author of 15 To Life: How I Painted My Way To Freedom, is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance.

	yes
5%	1 votes
	no
70%	12 votes
	maybe-depending on what insoucious comments the diarist makes in comments below
23%	4 votes

For The People By the People: You Decide.

Archives