WASHINGTON – Health industry groups are promising to reduce the growth of spending by $2 trillion over 10 years by improving coordination, focusing on efficiency and embracing better technology and regulatory reform.
Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors have told President Barack Obama in a letter that they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years. It's a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now do not have it.
So, president OB14me is sitting down with CEOs, corporate benefits officers, union leaders and state and local health officials to talk about health care reform. On the surface it looks good to this progressive eye but, as with many things I see in this new administration it's a lot of the same shit different day. Much like Obama's handling of the financial industry crisis by surrounding himself and listening to those who helped create the problem, he now is seeking advice from Health industries biggest for profit CEO's in order to improve the health care system. WTF?!
Technology and regulations are not the problem with our system of health care.
The number one problem with our current health care system is the for profit middle men known as Insurance companies. Number two problem are the Drug companies that spent billions over the past 10 years lobbying congress in order to prevent the U.S. from buying cheaper drugs from Canada and to prevent alternative home grown drugs, (pot) from becoming legal. The number three reason our health care system is broke is due to the deregulated for profit hospitals. When 40% of your health care dollar goes to a medical industry CEO's bonus check, stock benefit, or newly purchased private jet, understand that your health is not their main concern.
Whenever health care insurance or providers are "for profit" organizations the cost of seeing a doctor, treatments, and prescriptions are going to cost nearly twice that of a single payer system. We all need to be able to buy into medi-care. Period end of sentence. With a cost of about 3% of every health care dollar spent for administration costs. No, executive bonuses, funding for lobbyist, private jets, share holders, etc. etc. If we do away with all the profit motive we could have true affordable quality health care. As with everything else that was deregulated in the 1980's, greed and stock share value replaced customer service and company longevity. No longer did a company need loyal customers to survive, only clever and shrewd manipulators of the stock market. This is why the majority of insurance companies (if not all) pay millions and millions for their top executives. Customers may provide millions of dollars in revenue but, a good CEO can rise the price of stock shares that'll make the company billions. With a "B".
Where are the single payer advocates in these meetings with Obama? Not one of the participants in these discussions will even mention it. Why? It would put most of them out of business. That's why all they are saying is "reform." "Reform" is the corporate buzz word meaning lip service and superficial changes to the existing system. This way even the most conservative CEO can appear to be for the common man by calling for "reform" without endorsing the logical solution that is single payer health care. A national health insurance program like those in every other industrialized country in the world is the only way those of us who aren't in congress, the senate, or have a few million in the bank will ever be able to acquire quality health care. The folks sitting down with Obama know this but will never suggest it. They will only talk of reduction in their spending. Streamlining the health system as long as they get to do the streamlining. The 2 trillion they say they'll cut from their spending will be in the way of reducing patient coverages, higher deductibles, and denying patient benefits.
Please OB14me, stop with the same old wine in a different bottle routine. Bring some voices from the far left into the room while trying to come up with these solutions. as of now, you're listening to the right, the far right, and a few moderates. You were elected by the majority of center, left of center and far left American voters who believed that you weren't going to do business as usual. You were going to get the troops out of Iraq but, I see they're still there. Wall Street gets bailed out again and again while the tax payer's foot the bill. Labor union's and labor must make concession after concession while the manufacturers executive's receive bonus after bonus. Now, you have a chance to fix our broken health care system and the Democratic Socialists are exactly the kind of people you need to listen to. Bernie Sanders and his ilk are at your beckoned call, sir. Please utilize their experience and common sense approaches to healing what ails this country.
DaG Out
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Don't worry Be Happy . . .
World's Happiest Places
A new report reveals where people feel most positive about their lives
By Lauren Sherman
Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?
According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The United States did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.
The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?
To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.
Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.
Why did the northern European countries come out looking so good? Overall economic health played a powerful role, says Simon Chapple, senior economist from the Social Policy Division of the OECD, which put together the report.
While the global economic crisis has taken a toll on every nation, the countries that scored at the top still boast some of the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Denmark, which got the highest score, is not only a wealthy country, it's also highly productive, with a 2009 GDP per capita of $68,000, according to the International Monetary Fund. The United States' GDP per capita, by contrast, is $47,335. Though the U.S. got an above-average score of 74, it did not break the top 10.
Wealth alone does not bring the greatest degree of happiness. Norway has the highest GDP per capita on the list — $98,822 — yet it ranked ninth, not first. On the other hand, New Zealand's happiness level is 76.7 out of 100 on the OECD list, but its 2009 GDP per capita is just $30,556.
According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and written by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe.
The OECD data shows that another important factor is work-life balance. While Scandinavian countries boast a high GDP per capita, the average workweek in that part of the world is no more than 37 hours. In China, which got a low score of just 14.8, the workweek is 47 hours and the GDP per capita is just $3,600.
Low unemployment also contributes to happiness. "One thing we know for sure," says the OECD's Chapple, "not having a job makes one substantially less satisfied." Denmark's unemployment rate is just 2 percent, according the C.I.A.'s World Factbook. Norway's is just 2.6 percent. The Netherlands: just 4.5 percent. Many economists concur that a 4 percent unemployment rate reflects a stable economy. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently 9 percent.
DaG Out
A new report reveals where people feel most positive about their lives
By Lauren Sherman
Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?
According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The United States did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.
The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?
To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.
Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.
Why did the northern European countries come out looking so good? Overall economic health played a powerful role, says Simon Chapple, senior economist from the Social Policy Division of the OECD, which put together the report.
While the global economic crisis has taken a toll on every nation, the countries that scored at the top still boast some of the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Denmark, which got the highest score, is not only a wealthy country, it's also highly productive, with a 2009 GDP per capita of $68,000, according to the International Monetary Fund. The United States' GDP per capita, by contrast, is $47,335. Though the U.S. got an above-average score of 74, it did not break the top 10.
Wealth alone does not bring the greatest degree of happiness. Norway has the highest GDP per capita on the list — $98,822 — yet it ranked ninth, not first. On the other hand, New Zealand's happiness level is 76.7 out of 100 on the OECD list, but its 2009 GDP per capita is just $30,556.
According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and written by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe.
The OECD data shows that another important factor is work-life balance. While Scandinavian countries boast a high GDP per capita, the average workweek in that part of the world is no more than 37 hours. In China, which got a low score of just 14.8, the workweek is 47 hours and the GDP per capita is just $3,600.
Low unemployment also contributes to happiness. "One thing we know for sure," says the OECD's Chapple, "not having a job makes one substantially less satisfied." Denmark's unemployment rate is just 2 percent, according the C.I.A.'s World Factbook. Norway's is just 2.6 percent. The Netherlands: just 4.5 percent. Many economists concur that a 4 percent unemployment rate reflects a stable economy. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently 9 percent.
DaG Out
Saturday, May 9, 2009
My Bank Failed the Stress Test and I pay the price. ( Part One)
Up until yesterday failing banks and their subsequent bail outs had no personal financial implications for me, other than my tax money being given to millionaires' bonus checks. But that was just great fodder for a ranting blog entry, it really didn't hurt my credit status. My interest rate didn't shoot up as so many others have and the matter seemed somewhat distant to me.
That all changed as of yesterday, when I received a letter from my bank which shall remain nameless but whose initials are B. of A. The letter came from the credit department with whom I have one of my two credit cards. Yes that's right, I only have two, not the 3 to 5 that most Americans carry. The two I carry are with major companies and I do not own a single department store, gasoline, or any other high interest type card. A year or so ago I had more cards but no balances on them and two of them were with B of A. I had heard somewhere that having several open credit cards accounts with zero activity or balances was bad for your credit rating so, I wanted to close them but, you never know when an emergency might pop up and you need some credit.
Enter B of A's marketing department. They solicit me with a valued customer type card that carries a credit limit of $15,000 with a 12% APR. Ah Ha! That one card's limit is equal to the two card's combined limit. Perfect! I can sign up for the new and improved card and close my account on the other two. Hooray!
This was about a year ago. Over the past year I have used the card twice ( purchases that were both a little less than $100) and paid the balance off at the end of the month. As with my only other card, I am very diligent about paying off any balance at the end of the month. Those of you who used to have American Express cards know all about that practice.
Anyway I digress, I was informed by letter (which by the way, was in an envelope that looks very similar to the junk mail letters we receive from credit card solicitations everyday.) that the credit limit I had sign up for was being decreased, literally cut in half! "What?!", I shouted in my living room.
I immediately called the customer service number listed to speak with an agent regarding this matter. In an unprecedented turn of events, a live person answered the phone. It took me a minute to regroup, I was prepared to go through the barrage of computer prompts, button pushes before actually getting to speak to a human being. After identifying myself and verifying my Identity, (interestingly enough their records show that I'm 2 years younger than I really am, if I were a woman I'd be flattered) She says, "How can I help you?"
I tell the nice lady about the letter and ask why this happened. I'll paraphrase: "The reason we lowered your credit limit was based on the usage of your card. It wasn't because of your credit score, it was simply because you don't use the limit you were afforded. And we here are lowering the credit limit of those who aren't using the credit. I hope that explains things for you."
"But what if an emergency arises and I do need that credit that your company solicited from me?" I ask.
"Well sir, you can always put in a request for a higher credit limit."
She's right you can do that but, if you do, it can adversely affect your credit score, the request is may take a day or two while under review, and THE REASON I ACCEPTED THE CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT LIMIT!!! I explained to her that I have been this banks customer in good standing for 20+ years, I explained that I've never had a late payment, over extended my limit, or even had too many credit cards with high balances. All I've done is play by the rules. Now I realize that somewhere in the many pages of small print there is a caveat that allows the credit card company to do what they have done, so they've broken no law here. However, there is also no law against a throwing a raw steak in front of a seeing eye dog helping a blind person cross the street at a busy intersection. Reasonable people just wouldn't do it.
It was very apparent that the agent wasn't going to restore my limit and I was running late for work so, I couldn't really press the matter by speaking to a supervisor. I was very polite, probably too polite but, I know that the paid by the hour telephone agent had nothing to do with some account executive's decision to screw me and several thousand others. So I just asked her to make a notation on my account that I am a very disgruntled customer. (Ooooh! That'll scare 'em.)
However, this isn't over. I'm getting my ducks in a row for the follow up call when I will speak to a supervisor and a higher up if possible. I will explain to whoever listens that 30% of a person's credit score is in direct correlation to how close their balance is to their spending limit. By the bank's action if I need to charge plane fare and hotel accommodations to attend a funeral or visit a sick friend etc. etc. . . . my credit score /rating will take a hit. With the original credit limit I signed up for, this would not be a factor unless I attended several funerals or visited a lot of sick friends.
Not to mention (but I will), the lowering of my score with the big 3 credit reporting companies and the probable raising of my interest rate on my other card.
Contacting the bank again will most likely do no good whatsoever and I may end up just having to switch banks but, not before some one in authority knows that my checking, savings, CDs, and credit card business will be going elsewhere. I know that this bank and some others are going through some tough times right now, and are in dire need of capital but, who's fault is that? ? None of the banks financial woes are any of my doing. Here's a thought: Hold those accountable who did get you into this mess. Whenever I'm short of cash I don't mug the paper boy or some other innocent to tide me over. B of A's board of directors should choose the executive they like the least, and deduct my $7,500 from his or her million dollar bonus check?
DaG out (for now)
That all changed as of yesterday, when I received a letter from my bank which shall remain nameless but whose initials are B. of A. The letter came from the credit department with whom I have one of my two credit cards. Yes that's right, I only have two, not the 3 to 5 that most Americans carry. The two I carry are with major companies and I do not own a single department store, gasoline, or any other high interest type card. A year or so ago I had more cards but no balances on them and two of them were with B of A. I had heard somewhere that having several open credit cards accounts with zero activity or balances was bad for your credit rating so, I wanted to close them but, you never know when an emergency might pop up and you need some credit.
Enter B of A's marketing department. They solicit me with a valued customer type card that carries a credit limit of $15,000 with a 12% APR. Ah Ha! That one card's limit is equal to the two card's combined limit. Perfect! I can sign up for the new and improved card and close my account on the other two. Hooray!
This was about a year ago. Over the past year I have used the card twice ( purchases that were both a little less than $100) and paid the balance off at the end of the month. As with my only other card, I am very diligent about paying off any balance at the end of the month. Those of you who used to have American Express cards know all about that practice.
Anyway I digress, I was informed by letter (which by the way, was in an envelope that looks very similar to the junk mail letters we receive from credit card solicitations everyday.) that the credit limit I had sign up for was being decreased, literally cut in half! "What?!", I shouted in my living room.
I immediately called the customer service number listed to speak with an agent regarding this matter. In an unprecedented turn of events, a live person answered the phone. It took me a minute to regroup, I was prepared to go through the barrage of computer prompts, button pushes before actually getting to speak to a human being. After identifying myself and verifying my Identity, (interestingly enough their records show that I'm 2 years younger than I really am, if I were a woman I'd be flattered) She says, "How can I help you?"
I tell the nice lady about the letter and ask why this happened. I'll paraphrase: "The reason we lowered your credit limit was based on the usage of your card. It wasn't because of your credit score, it was simply because you don't use the limit you were afforded. And we here are lowering the credit limit of those who aren't using the credit. I hope that explains things for you."
"But what if an emergency arises and I do need that credit that your company solicited from me?" I ask.
"Well sir, you can always put in a request for a higher credit limit."
She's right you can do that but, if you do, it can adversely affect your credit score, the request is may take a day or two while under review, and THE REASON I ACCEPTED THE CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT LIMIT!!! I explained to her that I have been this banks customer in good standing for 20+ years, I explained that I've never had a late payment, over extended my limit, or even had too many credit cards with high balances. All I've done is play by the rules. Now I realize that somewhere in the many pages of small print there is a caveat that allows the credit card company to do what they have done, so they've broken no law here. However, there is also no law against a throwing a raw steak in front of a seeing eye dog helping a blind person cross the street at a busy intersection. Reasonable people just wouldn't do it.
It was very apparent that the agent wasn't going to restore my limit and I was running late for work so, I couldn't really press the matter by speaking to a supervisor. I was very polite, probably too polite but, I know that the paid by the hour telephone agent had nothing to do with some account executive's decision to screw me and several thousand others. So I just asked her to make a notation on my account that I am a very disgruntled customer. (Ooooh! That'll scare 'em.)
However, this isn't over. I'm getting my ducks in a row for the follow up call when I will speak to a supervisor and a higher up if possible. I will explain to whoever listens that 30% of a person's credit score is in direct correlation to how close their balance is to their spending limit. By the bank's action if I need to charge plane fare and hotel accommodations to attend a funeral or visit a sick friend etc. etc. . . . my credit score /rating will take a hit. With the original credit limit I signed up for, this would not be a factor unless I attended several funerals or visited a lot of sick friends.
Not to mention (but I will), the lowering of my score with the big 3 credit reporting companies and the probable raising of my interest rate on my other card.
Contacting the bank again will most likely do no good whatsoever and I may end up just having to switch banks but, not before some one in authority knows that my checking, savings, CDs, and credit card business will be going elsewhere. I know that this bank and some others are going through some tough times right now, and are in dire need of capital but, who's fault is that? ? None of the banks financial woes are any of my doing. Here's a thought: Hold those accountable who did get you into this mess. Whenever I'm short of cash I don't mug the paper boy or some other innocent to tide me over. B of A's board of directors should choose the executive they like the least, and deduct my $7,500 from his or her million dollar bonus check?
DaG out (for now)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Stupid Texans ruined this country.
Ed was a right wing conservative. Ed's political views were so far to the right that they would make Rush and Hannity look like liberal hippies. In one of his letters to his younger brother, Ed scolded him for not being more outspoken against the evils of Big Government's social programs like social security and unemployment insurance. Ed also made it clear that the constitution is the end all be all for the way this country should be run. He warned his sibling of the dangers of a strong central government and the lackadaisical way this country approaches the threat of communism. Ed went on to bemoan the fact that his kid brother's foreign and domestic policy beliefs were no different than that of the Democratic socialists.
The younger brother wrote back:
Dear Ed,
I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce." But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true. Both Administrations levied taxes, both maintained military establishments, customs officials, and so on.
But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits.
You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.
No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.
A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world. You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.
This being true, how can anyone be so unaware of what is happening as to say that this Administration has conducted foreign affairs under the same policies as did the former Administration? As a matter of fact, if you will press any individual who brings to you all these strictures and comments, I venture that your experience will be the same as mine. That experience is that these individuals have no idea of what the "foreign policy" of the previous Administration was and what the present one is. They have heard certain slogans, such as "give away programs." They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity. Moreover, they have no idea whatsoever as to comparative size of them now as compared to even two or three years ago.
You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.
You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be--although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
Finally, I must assure you again that I am delighted to get your own honest criticisms, particularly if you will only take the trouble to lay down the facts on which you reach what seem to me to be some remarkable conclusions. But the mere repetition of aphorisms and political slogans and newspaper headlines leaves me cold.
I am sorry you are not going to be at Abilene. It would be easier to tell you these things than to write them--except that by this method I hope to make you do a little thinking rather than devote yourself just to the winning of a noisy argument.
As ever,
Dwight
Document #1147; November 8, 1954 To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
If the republicans of today would embrace the policies of this Republican president instead of the policies of a B movie actor who was under the complete control of those "Stupid Texans" this country would be in a lot better shape.
DaG out
The younger brother wrote back:
Dear Ed,
I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce." But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true. Both Administrations levied taxes, both maintained military establishments, customs officials, and so on.
But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits.
You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.
No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.
A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world. You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.
This being true, how can anyone be so unaware of what is happening as to say that this Administration has conducted foreign affairs under the same policies as did the former Administration? As a matter of fact, if you will press any individual who brings to you all these strictures and comments, I venture that your experience will be the same as mine. That experience is that these individuals have no idea of what the "foreign policy" of the previous Administration was and what the present one is. They have heard certain slogans, such as "give away programs." They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity. Moreover, they have no idea whatsoever as to comparative size of them now as compared to even two or three years ago.
You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.
You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be--although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
Finally, I must assure you again that I am delighted to get your own honest criticisms, particularly if you will only take the trouble to lay down the facts on which you reach what seem to me to be some remarkable conclusions. But the mere repetition of aphorisms and political slogans and newspaper headlines leaves me cold.
I am sorry you are not going to be at Abilene. It would be easier to tell you these things than to write them--except that by this method I hope to make you do a little thinking rather than devote yourself just to the winning of a noisy argument.
As ever,
Dwight
Document #1147; November 8, 1954 To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
If the republicans of today would embrace the policies of this Republican president instead of the policies of a B movie actor who was under the complete control of those "Stupid Texans" this country would be in a lot better shape.
DaG out
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Outrageous!
Ladies and gentlemen! I give H.R. 1106 and (S 896) -- Helping families save their homes act of 2009.
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Here's some of the text from the bill:
SEC. 100. DEFINITION.
Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (43) the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
‘(43A) The term ‘qualified loan modification’ means a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan as implemented March 4, 2009, that--
1‘(A) reduces the debtor’s payment (including principal and interest, and payments for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners’ association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) on a loan secured by a senior security interest in the principal residence of the debtor, to a percentage of the debtor’s income in accordance with such guidelines, without any period of negative amortization or under which the aggregate amount of the regular periodic payments would not fully amortize the outstanding principal amount of such loan;
1‘(B) requires no fees or charges to be paid by the debtor in order to obtain such modification; and
1‘(C) permits the debtor to continue to make payments under the modification agreement notwithstanding the filing of a case under this title, as if such case had not been filed.
I won't bore you with the rest of the text but, it essentially sides with the homeowners and not the banks who made the loans. Bankruptcy law currently bars modifications on primary residences, while allowing modifications for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts. The amendment would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure the debt on home mortgages by reducing the principal owed, extending the repayment period, and reducing interest rates. Under the bill, eligibility is limited to homeowners with mortgages originated before 2009 that are worth less than $625,000, 60 days delinquent, and subject to a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced.
Extending the same bankruptcy protections to primary residences that currently apply to luxury yachts and vacation homes is not only fair, but would reduce foreclosures by about 20%, according to Credit Suisse, and benefit about 800,000 households, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Strengthened bankruptcy protection is also beneficial to middle-class families who are not themselves facing foreclosure: the 2.4 million subprime foreclosures that the Center for Responsible Lending predicts will occur in 2009 will result in a $352 billion decline in property values for homes in neighborhoods surrounding those foreclosures, with an average decrease in property value per home of $8,667.
So, this sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It's not the end all be all but it's a step in the right direction. In a time when the populous is just about ready to take up pitch forks and storm the Bastille, who in their right mind would vote against this bill? Oh, would you believe every single Republican and 12 Democrats in the Senate?
An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that similar legislation would avoid 600,000 foreclosures and thus maintain $72.5 billion in wealth for families not facing foreclosure. As we all know the foreclosing of 1 home in a neighborhood brings the entire neighborhoods property value down. So, how could this have happened? How could those elected to represent their constituents vote against something so beneficial to their constituents? The answer is simple. A Senate that is bought and paid for by the financial institutions that we gave 750 billion dollars to. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."
These Senators need to lose their jobs.
Max Baucus (MT)
Michael Bennett (CO)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Tester (MT)
A few actually expressed their reasoning for voting "No":
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed." ( Well, that's sounds like a logical well thought out reason, Senator.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court." (Really? You would rather have the very people who got us into this mess by predatory lending methods continue to ruin property values and receive billions from tax payers rather than let a not for profit legal authority negotiate a reasonable solution.)
Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage." (Oh okay! But you don't have a problem with the Banks that change their credit card terms and rates without just cause, do you Senator?)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well." (This one really hurts DaG. I was impressed with this guy early on. Mr. Tester, while yes in a perfect world, if you made your bed then you must lie in it, but sir, we do not. and this bill did not benefit one mortgage holder while forsaking another, it helped all.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks." (Yeah. It's very apparent whose health and well being you're concerned with, Senator.)
Isn't it interesting that the newly converted Arlen Specter voted "No" on this bill?
This is nothing more than the Financial institutions multi billion dollar lobby at work. If only the citizens of this country could afford that kind of lobby pressure (Definition of Lobby pressure = Greased palms and campaign contributions) As I've written before, greed knows no party loyalty. Neither do those with deep pockets. Trans national corporations and the "New World Order" of financial institutions simply write the checks to whichever party is in control.
Until the time comes when lobbyist are no longer allowed access to our elected officials, this kind of legislative atrocity will continue. It is clear that the corruption of our legislative body is so wide spread and entrenched that a complete overhaul is needed. Along with campaign funding reforms. As long as an incumbent senator or congress person needs to raise $10,000 a day in order to compete in the next election, or as long as challengers to their seat are allowed infinite campaign contributions . . . our politicians will be bought and paid for.
Ah, the sad truth.
Short of standing guard at capitol hill with pitch forks in hand, taring and feathering any approaching lobbyist, true change for the better will never come. I'm not one of those radical "Tea Party" time for armed revolution types but, it seems to me that we who are not very wealthy will be reduced to little more than indentured servants. Slowly by allowing the status quo and quickly if we revolt.
DaG Out
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Here's some of the text from the bill:
SEC. 100. DEFINITION.
Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (43) the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
‘(43A) The term ‘qualified loan modification’ means a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan as implemented March 4, 2009, that--
1‘(A) reduces the debtor’s payment (including principal and interest, and payments for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners’ association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) on a loan secured by a senior security interest in the principal residence of the debtor, to a percentage of the debtor’s income in accordance with such guidelines, without any period of negative amortization or under which the aggregate amount of the regular periodic payments would not fully amortize the outstanding principal amount of such loan;
1‘(B) requires no fees or charges to be paid by the debtor in order to obtain such modification; and
1‘(C) permits the debtor to continue to make payments under the modification agreement notwithstanding the filing of a case under this title, as if such case had not been filed.
I won't bore you with the rest of the text but, it essentially sides with the homeowners and not the banks who made the loans. Bankruptcy law currently bars modifications on primary residences, while allowing modifications for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts. The amendment would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure the debt on home mortgages by reducing the principal owed, extending the repayment period, and reducing interest rates. Under the bill, eligibility is limited to homeowners with mortgages originated before 2009 that are worth less than $625,000, 60 days delinquent, and subject to a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced.
Extending the same bankruptcy protections to primary residences that currently apply to luxury yachts and vacation homes is not only fair, but would reduce foreclosures by about 20%, according to Credit Suisse, and benefit about 800,000 households, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Strengthened bankruptcy protection is also beneficial to middle-class families who are not themselves facing foreclosure: the 2.4 million subprime foreclosures that the Center for Responsible Lending predicts will occur in 2009 will result in a $352 billion decline in property values for homes in neighborhoods surrounding those foreclosures, with an average decrease in property value per home of $8,667.
So, this sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It's not the end all be all but it's a step in the right direction. In a time when the populous is just about ready to take up pitch forks and storm the Bastille, who in their right mind would vote against this bill? Oh, would you believe every single Republican and 12 Democrats in the Senate?
An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that similar legislation would avoid 600,000 foreclosures and thus maintain $72.5 billion in wealth for families not facing foreclosure. As we all know the foreclosing of 1 home in a neighborhood brings the entire neighborhoods property value down. So, how could this have happened? How could those elected to represent their constituents vote against something so beneficial to their constituents? The answer is simple. A Senate that is bought and paid for by the financial institutions that we gave 750 billion dollars to. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."
These Senators need to lose their jobs.
Max Baucus (MT)
Michael Bennett (CO)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Tester (MT)
A few actually expressed their reasoning for voting "No":
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed." ( Well, that's sounds like a logical well thought out reason, Senator.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court." (Really? You would rather have the very people who got us into this mess by predatory lending methods continue to ruin property values and receive billions from tax payers rather than let a not for profit legal authority negotiate a reasonable solution.)
Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage." (Oh okay! But you don't have a problem with the Banks that change their credit card terms and rates without just cause, do you Senator?)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well." (This one really hurts DaG. I was impressed with this guy early on. Mr. Tester, while yes in a perfect world, if you made your bed then you must lie in it, but sir, we do not. and this bill did not benefit one mortgage holder while forsaking another, it helped all.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks." (Yeah. It's very apparent whose health and well being you're concerned with, Senator.)
Isn't it interesting that the newly converted Arlen Specter voted "No" on this bill?
This is nothing more than the Financial institutions multi billion dollar lobby at work. If only the citizens of this country could afford that kind of lobby pressure (Definition of Lobby pressure = Greased palms and campaign contributions) As I've written before, greed knows no party loyalty. Neither do those with deep pockets. Trans national corporations and the "New World Order" of financial institutions simply write the checks to whichever party is in control.
Until the time comes when lobbyist are no longer allowed access to our elected officials, this kind of legislative atrocity will continue. It is clear that the corruption of our legislative body is so wide spread and entrenched that a complete overhaul is needed. Along with campaign funding reforms. As long as an incumbent senator or congress person needs to raise $10,000 a day in order to compete in the next election, or as long as challengers to their seat are allowed infinite campaign contributions . . . our politicians will be bought and paid for.
Ah, the sad truth.
Short of standing guard at capitol hill with pitch forks in hand, taring and feathering any approaching lobbyist, true change for the better will never come. I'm not one of those radical "Tea Party" time for armed revolution types but, it seems to me that we who are not very wealthy will be reduced to little more than indentured servants. Slowly by allowing the status quo and quickly if we revolt.
DaG Out
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wolf in sheep's clothing?
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – WASHINGTON –
Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that also will push Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority. (Or make damn sure they don't get it.)
"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.
President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the decision to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you," according to a White House official. Spurned Republicans said his defection was motivated by ambition, not principle.
Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved, added the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details.
With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.
Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, whom Specter defeated in a close primary race in 2004, is expected to run again.
______
That's the AP story but, methinks the real story lies in the motivation.
He seems to vote out of both sides of his mouth:
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
On this issue it appears that he either saw the light or discovered that someone very close to him was gay:
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (1996)
Oppose gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
But here's where he marches lock step with conservative Republican ideology:
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003
What astounds me is the public out cry on the right for term limits for life long politicians when we already have them. They're called elections. If the citizens of a state wish to change their representation they only need vote he or she out of office and Voila! Their term has been limited. It seems to me that those who cry loudest about term limits just can't get enough voters to vote for the candidate of their choosing and are pissed about it. So they want the government to pass a law! Hmmmm, that's funny. I thought the conservatives didn't like the government sticking it's nose into the affairs of state. Free market/free choice and all that.
(The AP report continues) Specter has publicly acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall's presidential election.
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.
Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, "I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me."
Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama's economic stimulus legislation. Then, he proved it once more, pivoting not long afterwards to say he did not support legislation making it easier to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority in the current Congress.
In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. "He should give them the option," Gleason said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement: "Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.
As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
"Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.
"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.
A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him "you have my full support" and that the Democratic Party is "thrilled to have you."
____
Well, maybe I'm being a little too judgemental. Maybe he's not such a wolf in sheep's clothing after all. He did think the Repubs were being stupid for going after the impeachment of Clinton. He did vote against the "Surge", and introduced legislation that flew directly in the face of presidential signing statements. The bill would allow Congress to bring lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Bush's signing statements. So for now, I guess I'll join OB14me in welcoming the Senator to the Democratic party even though I don't consider myself a Democrat. I just like parties.
DaG Out
Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that also will push Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority. (Or make damn sure they don't get it.)
"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.
President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the decision to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you," according to a White House official. Spurned Republicans said his defection was motivated by ambition, not principle.
Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved, added the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details.
With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.
Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, whom Specter defeated in a close primary race in 2004, is expected to run again.
______
That's the AP story but, methinks the real story lies in the motivation.
He seems to vote out of both sides of his mouth:
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Rated 21% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
On this issue it appears that he either saw the light or discovered that someone very close to him was gay:
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (1996)
Oppose gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
But here's where he marches lock step with conservative Republican ideology:
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003
What astounds me is the public out cry on the right for term limits for life long politicians when we already have them. They're called elections. If the citizens of a state wish to change their representation they only need vote he or she out of office and Voila! Their term has been limited. It seems to me that those who cry loudest about term limits just can't get enough voters to vote for the candidate of their choosing and are pissed about it. So they want the government to pass a law! Hmmmm, that's funny. I thought the conservatives didn't like the government sticking it's nose into the affairs of state. Free market/free choice and all that.
(The AP report continues) Specter has publicly acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall's presidential election.
"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.
Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, "I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me."
Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama's economic stimulus legislation. Then, he proved it once more, pivoting not long afterwards to say he did not support legislation making it easier to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority in the current Congress.
In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. "He should give them the option," Gleason said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement: "Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.
As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
"Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.
"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.
A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him "you have my full support" and that the Democratic Party is "thrilled to have you."
____
Well, maybe I'm being a little too judgemental. Maybe he's not such a wolf in sheep's clothing after all. He did think the Repubs were being stupid for going after the impeachment of Clinton. He did vote against the "Surge", and introduced legislation that flew directly in the face of presidential signing statements. The bill would allow Congress to bring lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Bush's signing statements. So for now, I guess I'll join OB14me in welcoming the Senator to the Democratic party even though I don't consider myself a Democrat. I just like parties.
DaG Out
Sunday, April 19, 2009
It's probably just coincidence
At a “Great Conversations” event at the University of Minnesota [Monday] legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh may have made a little more news than he intended by talking about new alleged instances of domestic spying by the CIA, and about an ongoing covert military operation that he called an “executive assassination ring.”
The evening of great conversation, featuring Walter Mondale and Hersh, moderated by Jacobs and titled “America’s Constitutional Crisis,” looked to be a mostly historical review of events that have tested our Constitution, by a journalist and a high government officials who had experience with many of the crises. And it was mostly historical, and a great conversation, in which Hersh and Mondale talked about the patterns by which presidents seem to get intoxicated by executive power, frustrated by the limitations on that power from Congress and the public, drawn into improper covert actions that exceed their constitutional powers, in the belief that they can get results and will never be found out.
Despite a few references to the Founding Fathers, the history was mostly recent, starting with the Vietnam War with much of it arising from the George W. Bush administration, which both men roundly denounced.At the end of one answer by Hersh about how these things tend to happen, Jacobs asked: “And do they continue to happen to this day?” Replied Hersh: “Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen."Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ..."Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths."
Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us."It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized."In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people."I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee.?’" But they’re not gonna get before a committee.”
Hersh, the best-known investigative reporter of his generation, writes about these kinds of issues for The New Yorker. He has written often about JSOC, including, last July that:“Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.”(“Finding” refers to a special document that a president must issue, although not make public, to authorize covert CIA actions.) ( “The contempt for Congress in the Bush-Cheney White House was extraordinary.” Said Mondale of his successor, Cheney and his inner circle: “they ran a government within the government.” Hersh added: “Eight or nine neoconservatives took over our country.” Mondale said that the precedents of abuse of vice presidential power by Cheney would remain "like a loaded pistol that you leave on the dining room table.")
So let's do a little review of 6 questionable deaths over the past 10 years:
1. Missouri's former governor Mel Carnahan, who was killed in a plane crash 3 weeks before the 2000 elections for the Senate. He was running against John Ashcroft and was leading in all the poles when his plane went down. When the election was over John Ashcroft still lost to a now deceased Mel Carnahan. His wife wife was appointed to hold the senate seat, but since it was only an appointment she could only hold it for 2 years instead of 4. Bush in an unprecedented act of sympathy for Ashcroft chose him for his Attorney General. ( Laugh Now)
2. Senator Paul Wellstone: Wellstone emerged as the strongest, most persistent, most articulate and most vocal Senate opponent of the Bush administration. In 2003, in a senate that is one heartbeat away from Republican control, Wellstone was more than just another Democrat. He was often the lone voice standing firm against the status-quo policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. As such, he earned the special ire of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, who made Wellstone's defeat that party's number one priority this year. Despite being outspent and outgunned, however, polls show that Wellstone's popularity surged after he voted to oppose the Senate resolution authorizing George Bush to wage war in Iraq. He was pulling ahead of Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race and moving towards a victory that would have been an embarrassment to the Bush Administration. (Norm Coleman, most recently in the news as the guy Al Franken defeated in the past election. The same guy who has flip flopped on counting votes. . . When the first tally showed he had won the election by the narrowest of margins, he publicly stated that Franken should concede for the good of the country and cease any petition for a recount. Failing to prevent the recount, Coleman has done just the opposite of what he asked Franken to do. Funded by deep pockets in the GOP, Coleman is holding up Franken's confirmation with law suits and appeals. His despicable tactics are transparent and an obvious way to prevent the senate from having another pro Obama vote. )
One of the oddest events that transpired after the death of Wellstone and Coleman's subsequent election victory was that Coleman was placed in charge of the Senate Investigations Committee. That is an extraordinarily sensitive responsibility to be placed upon a freshman senator with no previous experience. My guess would be that it has never happened before, but the reasoning behind it may not be that difficult to fathom: Would anyone be less inclined to pursue the Wellstone death?
The balance in the Senate for years 2002 to 2004 was 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and one independent. If both Wellstone and Carnahan had not been killed, and Wellstone had gone on as projected to win his race, the balance would have been 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one independent. This would have significantly changed what happened in Congress and in the US, where the presidency and both houses of Congress were Republican controlled over those two years.
3. Ken Lay: Enron CEO Lay, 64, faced the prospect of the rest of his life in prison after his conviction May 25, 2006 of fraud and conspiracy in one of the biggest debacles in American corporate history. Lay was very much tied in with Texas energy companies, Dick Cheney, and the Bushes, was a key player in the demise of Cal. Gov Gray Davis. California's electricity costs had skyrocketed and Gov. Davis begged the Bush Administration for some kind of cap on what Energy companies could charge their customers. He was told "no." . . . That regulation caused the rate hike and that he (Davis) needed more deregulation in order to to fix the problem.
2 years prior in a Beverly hills hotel, Ken Lay met with Gubernatorial prospect Arnold Schwarzenegger along with L.A. mayor Richard Riordan, and Junk Bond King Michael Milken. In May 2001, the PBS news program “Frontline” interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Lay met with privately a month earlier and later along with several other energy company executives literally wrote our energy policies. Cheney was asked by a correspondent from Frontline whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California. Of course Cheney said there was no cartel and that Gov. Davis' lack of deregulation led to the crisis. Ken Lay while vacationing in Aspen supposedly dies of heart failure, according to Dr. Robert Kurtzman, Mesa County Coroner. (The only person to have reportedly seen Ken Lay's dead body . . .I can find no verification of those officers on the scene.) 2 problems I have with this,
Number 1. The guy was convicted of fraud to the tune of 60 billion and just about to be sentenced to do some serious prison time yet, he's allowed to leave the state to vacation in Aspen Colo.?
Number 2. Where's the body? There was not one photograph of his corpse. Not one. The coroner said he performed the autopsy and the body was cremated. This guy is a billionaire and you want me to believe that he didn't just make a few calls, pay off a few people in authority, and jet out of the country to some tropical paradise with no extradition laws? Yeah right.
4. Dr. Bruce Ivins : After the government spent 4 years wrongly accusing an Army scientist in a costly false trial that ended up being settled out of court for more than $5 million. The FBI turned their attention to a new suspected mastermind. A Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a Red Cross volunteer and amateur juggler who had won the Defense Department’s highest civilian award in 2003, was a dramatic turn in one of the largest criminal investigations in the nation’s history. After learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on murder charges, Dr. Ivins, a 62-year-old father of two, took an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. He died in a Frederick hospital on Tuesday, leaving behind a grieving family and uncertainty about whether the anthrax mystery had finally been solved.
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."But bentonite was never found in the anthrax, and Greenwald says ABC News didn't acknowledged this until 2007, and only after Greenwald's "badgering them about this issue."
Dr. Ivins and his law team professed his innocence til the day he died and the trial would have entered into the record a lot of testimony that may or may not have cleared his name but, we will never know. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories . . .they can rarely if ever be dis-proven.
5. A small plane, carrying the co-founder of Venezuelan voting machine company Smartmatic,crashed earlier this week shortly after take-off from the Caracas airport, killing two employees of the company, and several others on board and on the ground. The initial reports from a foreign paper indicated that the cause of the crash may have been the unusual failure of both engines on the small plane.
6. Mike Connell, Karl Roves IT Guru , dies in a plane crash days before he was due to testify before a Senate committee on election machine fraud. Connell was also considered "vital to uncovering the truth" about the missing White House emails considered a critical link to the Justice Department and White House's involvement in the firings of nine US attorneys.
Now, let me take off this aluminum foil hat, it's making my head sweat. No police authority, FBI spokesman, or government agency has deemed any of these deaths anything but, mechanical failure, heart failure or suicide. All investigations seem to rule out foul play of any kind, but the timing of each unexpected death it is at the very least . . . curious.
DaG Out
The evening of great conversation, featuring Walter Mondale and Hersh, moderated by Jacobs and titled “America’s Constitutional Crisis,” looked to be a mostly historical review of events that have tested our Constitution, by a journalist and a high government officials who had experience with many of the crises. And it was mostly historical, and a great conversation, in which Hersh and Mondale talked about the patterns by which presidents seem to get intoxicated by executive power, frustrated by the limitations on that power from Congress and the public, drawn into improper covert actions that exceed their constitutional powers, in the belief that they can get results and will never be found out.
Despite a few references to the Founding Fathers, the history was mostly recent, starting with the Vietnam War with much of it arising from the George W. Bush administration, which both men roundly denounced.At the end of one answer by Hersh about how these things tend to happen, Jacobs asked: “And do they continue to happen to this day?” Replied Hersh: “Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen."Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ..."Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths."
Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us."It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized."In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people."I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee.?’" But they’re not gonna get before a committee.”
Hersh, the best-known investigative reporter of his generation, writes about these kinds of issues for The New Yorker. He has written often about JSOC, including, last July that:“Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.”(“Finding” refers to a special document that a president must issue, although not make public, to authorize covert CIA actions.) ( “The contempt for Congress in the Bush-Cheney White House was extraordinary.” Said Mondale of his successor, Cheney and his inner circle: “they ran a government within the government.” Hersh added: “Eight or nine neoconservatives took over our country.” Mondale said that the precedents of abuse of vice presidential power by Cheney would remain "like a loaded pistol that you leave on the dining room table.")
So let's do a little review of 6 questionable deaths over the past 10 years:
1. Missouri's former governor Mel Carnahan, who was killed in a plane crash 3 weeks before the 2000 elections for the Senate. He was running against John Ashcroft and was leading in all the poles when his plane went down. When the election was over John Ashcroft still lost to a now deceased Mel Carnahan. His wife wife was appointed to hold the senate seat, but since it was only an appointment she could only hold it for 2 years instead of 4. Bush in an unprecedented act of sympathy for Ashcroft chose him for his Attorney General. ( Laugh Now)
2. Senator Paul Wellstone: Wellstone emerged as the strongest, most persistent, most articulate and most vocal Senate opponent of the Bush administration. In 2003, in a senate that is one heartbeat away from Republican control, Wellstone was more than just another Democrat. He was often the lone voice standing firm against the status-quo policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. As such, he earned the special ire of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, who made Wellstone's defeat that party's number one priority this year. Despite being outspent and outgunned, however, polls show that Wellstone's popularity surged after he voted to oppose the Senate resolution authorizing George Bush to wage war in Iraq. He was pulling ahead of Norm Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race and moving towards a victory that would have been an embarrassment to the Bush Administration. (Norm Coleman, most recently in the news as the guy Al Franken defeated in the past election. The same guy who has flip flopped on counting votes. . . When the first tally showed he had won the election by the narrowest of margins, he publicly stated that Franken should concede for the good of the country and cease any petition for a recount. Failing to prevent the recount, Coleman has done just the opposite of what he asked Franken to do. Funded by deep pockets in the GOP, Coleman is holding up Franken's confirmation with law suits and appeals. His despicable tactics are transparent and an obvious way to prevent the senate from having another pro Obama vote. )
One of the oddest events that transpired after the death of Wellstone and Coleman's subsequent election victory was that Coleman was placed in charge of the Senate Investigations Committee. That is an extraordinarily sensitive responsibility to be placed upon a freshman senator with no previous experience. My guess would be that it has never happened before, but the reasoning behind it may not be that difficult to fathom: Would anyone be less inclined to pursue the Wellstone death?
The balance in the Senate for years 2002 to 2004 was 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and one independent. If both Wellstone and Carnahan had not been killed, and Wellstone had gone on as projected to win his race, the balance would have been 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one independent. This would have significantly changed what happened in Congress and in the US, where the presidency and both houses of Congress were Republican controlled over those two years.
3. Ken Lay: Enron CEO Lay, 64, faced the prospect of the rest of his life in prison after his conviction May 25, 2006 of fraud and conspiracy in one of the biggest debacles in American corporate history. Lay was very much tied in with Texas energy companies, Dick Cheney, and the Bushes, was a key player in the demise of Cal. Gov Gray Davis. California's electricity costs had skyrocketed and Gov. Davis begged the Bush Administration for some kind of cap on what Energy companies could charge their customers. He was told "no." . . . That regulation caused the rate hike and that he (Davis) needed more deregulation in order to to fix the problem.
2 years prior in a Beverly hills hotel, Ken Lay met with Gubernatorial prospect Arnold Schwarzenegger along with L.A. mayor Richard Riordan, and Junk Bond King Michael Milken. In May 2001, the PBS news program “Frontline” interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Lay met with privately a month earlier and later along with several other energy company executives literally wrote our energy policies. Cheney was asked by a correspondent from Frontline whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California. Of course Cheney said there was no cartel and that Gov. Davis' lack of deregulation led to the crisis. Ken Lay while vacationing in Aspen supposedly dies of heart failure, according to Dr. Robert Kurtzman, Mesa County Coroner. (The only person to have reportedly seen Ken Lay's dead body . . .I can find no verification of those officers on the scene.) 2 problems I have with this,
Number 1. The guy was convicted of fraud to the tune of 60 billion and just about to be sentenced to do some serious prison time yet, he's allowed to leave the state to vacation in Aspen Colo.?
Number 2. Where's the body? There was not one photograph of his corpse. Not one. The coroner said he performed the autopsy and the body was cremated. This guy is a billionaire and you want me to believe that he didn't just make a few calls, pay off a few people in authority, and jet out of the country to some tropical paradise with no extradition laws? Yeah right.
4. Dr. Bruce Ivins : After the government spent 4 years wrongly accusing an Army scientist in a costly false trial that ended up being settled out of court for more than $5 million. The FBI turned their attention to a new suspected mastermind. A Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, a Red Cross volunteer and amateur juggler who had won the Defense Department’s highest civilian award in 2003, was a dramatic turn in one of the largest criminal investigations in the nation’s history. After learning that federal prosecutors were preparing to indict him on murder charges, Dr. Ivins, a 62-year-old father of two, took an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. He died in a Frederick hospital on Tuesday, leaving behind a grieving family and uncertainty about whether the anthrax mystery had finally been solved.
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."But bentonite was never found in the anthrax, and Greenwald says ABC News didn't acknowledged this until 2007, and only after Greenwald's "badgering them about this issue."
Dr. Ivins and his law team professed his innocence til the day he died and the trial would have entered into the record a lot of testimony that may or may not have cleared his name but, we will never know. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories . . .they can rarely if ever be dis-proven.
5. A small plane, carrying the co-founder of Venezuelan voting machine company Smartmatic,crashed earlier this week shortly after take-off from the Caracas airport, killing two employees of the company, and several others on board and on the ground. The initial reports from a foreign paper indicated that the cause of the crash may have been the unusual failure of both engines on the small plane.
6. Mike Connell, Karl Roves IT Guru , dies in a plane crash days before he was due to testify before a Senate committee on election machine fraud. Connell was also considered "vital to uncovering the truth" about the missing White House emails considered a critical link to the Justice Department and White House's involvement in the firings of nine US attorneys.
Now, let me take off this aluminum foil hat, it's making my head sweat. No police authority, FBI spokesman, or government agency has deemed any of these deaths anything but, mechanical failure, heart failure or suicide. All investigations seem to rule out foul play of any kind, but the timing of each unexpected death it is at the very least . . . curious.
DaG Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)