Good Source for differing points of view...
http://www.globalwarming.org/
The heat has really hit the fan on the Global Warming debate. But, Barbara Boxer isn't mincing theory, numerical equations or falsified data to fit the desired conclusion.
During the economic slump, behavioral changes of people out of work, resulted in a drop in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Period.
Boxer made the point that "the poor economy has been great for the climate."
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Former Treasury Department Economist Says Repubs Big Spenders
Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Actionand Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is: The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.
Excerpt:
Amazingly, leading Republicans still defend the drug benefit. Just the other day, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., celebrated its passage, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., berated me for criticizing it. In each case, their main argument was that it ended up costing a little less than originally projected. Somehow, I doubt that Frist or Thomas would feel the same way if their wives thought it was OK to buy a closet full of expensive new shoes just because they were on sale.
I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are any better when it comes to the deficit, although they have a better case for saying so based on the contrasting fiscal records of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.
It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term. As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt. Space prohibits listing all their names, but the final Senate vote can be found here and the House vote here.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Excerpt:
Amazingly, leading Republicans still defend the drug benefit. Just the other day, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., celebrated its passage, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., berated me for criticizing it. In each case, their main argument was that it ended up costing a little less than originally projected. Somehow, I doubt that Frist or Thomas would feel the same way if their wives thought it was OK to buy a closet full of expensive new shoes just because they were on sale.
I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are any better when it comes to the deficit, although they have a better case for saying so based on the contrasting fiscal records of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.
It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term. As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt. Space prohibits listing all their names, but the final Senate vote can be found here and the House vote here.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Saturday, November 14, 2009
PHL Guidelines
PHL Guidelines
PrairieHOMEliving's PHL Politico Blog- Post news and opinions. Guidelines-Comments seen here do not reflect the opinions of any advertisers or businesses. No foul language, bullying, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed to ensure that comments meet these standards. All viewpoints are welcome. Offensive Posts will be removed. PHL Staff
PrairieHOMEliving's PHL Politico Blog- Post news and opinions. Guidelines-Comments seen here do not reflect the opinions of any advertisers or businesses. No foul language, bullying, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed to ensure that comments meet these standards. All viewpoints are welcome. Offensive Posts will be removed. PHL Staff
Friday, November 6, 2009
GOP Repeats False Claims
The FactCheck Wire - The “Government-Run” Mantra
November 6, 2009
The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim.
For several months, we’ve been debunking assertions that Democratic health care bills call for a Canadian or British-type system in which everyone is insured, or insured and cared for, through the government. None of the bills being debated in Congress call for such a single-payer system. Conservative groups have also claimed that a federal health insurance plan would be the death knell for private insurance, offering a much cheaper alternative and eventually leading to "a government-run system." As we’ve written, how competitive the "public plan" would be depends greatly on how it’s structured. And the latest iteration in the revised House bill isn’t expected to have much of an impact on private insurers, according to the nonpartisan CBO and an independent analysis of this scenario.
But Republicans are still recycling "government-run" claims and old analyses that don’t pertain to the bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner was saying back in June that the House bill "is a complete government takeover of our health care system," and again last week, Boehner told Fox News that the revised House bill is "nothing short of a complete government takeover of our health care system." Boehner partly blamed the federal insurance plan for the takeover, saying, "you’re going to drive every private health insurance company out of business."
The congressional Republicans’ Web site further claimed that the House bill would create "a new government-run health plan" that "would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage," according to the Lewin Group. But that’s not what the Lewin Group said at all. The GOP cherry picks this number from a months-old Lewin Group study that’s based on an early version of the House bill (and the assumption that the "public plan" would be open to everyone). Lewin’s estimates of how many would leave private plans in favor of a federal option, structured as it is in the latest House bill (as well as the version that came out of the Energy and Commerce committee), are 90 percent lower than that. The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group but says it operates with "editorial independence."
The early House bill called for a federal insurance plan that would pay health care providers at Medicare rates, which are 20 percent to 30 percent less than what private plans pay on average, according to the Lewin Group. If this type of federal plan, which would be substantially cheaper than private insurance, were open to everyone within three years, it could lure as many as 114 million away from private insurance, Lewin estimated. The revised bill calls for a federal plan that pays negotiated rates, putting its premiums in line with those of private plans.
The Lewin Group has not released an analysis of the latest House bill, but it did model what would happen under a similar situation, with a federal plan paying negotiated rates. Lewin found that such a plan would result in 10.4 million to 12.5 million people moving off of private plans, in favor of the "public option." Why the big drop? Because those with private insurance wouldn’t save much money, if any, by switching to the federal plan.
CBO analyzed the revised House bill, and it came up with even lower numbers. CBO estimated that 6 million Americans total would join the so-called "public plan" by 2019 — and that premiums would be "somewhat higher" than the average private plan premiums offered through an insurance exchange. CBO said the plan would be most attractive to the less healthy members of the population, forcing premiums higher, despite the fact that the federal plan would save some money on administrative costs.
CBO: [A] public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)
In any case, whether 6 million people take up the "public plan" (CBO) or 12 million (the Lewin Group’s high-end estimate), neither number comes close to backing up the GOP claim that this bill would "drive every private health insurance company out of business" and result in "government-run" health care.
Posted by Lori Robertson on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire · Tagged with health care, health insurance, John Boehner
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/the-government-run-mantra/
November 6, 2009
The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim.
For several months, we’ve been debunking assertions that Democratic health care bills call for a Canadian or British-type system in which everyone is insured, or insured and cared for, through the government. None of the bills being debated in Congress call for such a single-payer system. Conservative groups have also claimed that a federal health insurance plan would be the death knell for private insurance, offering a much cheaper alternative and eventually leading to "a government-run system." As we’ve written, how competitive the "public plan" would be depends greatly on how it’s structured. And the latest iteration in the revised House bill isn’t expected to have much of an impact on private insurers, according to the nonpartisan CBO and an independent analysis of this scenario.
But Republicans are still recycling "government-run" claims and old analyses that don’t pertain to the bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner was saying back in June that the House bill "is a complete government takeover of our health care system," and again last week, Boehner told Fox News that the revised House bill is "nothing short of a complete government takeover of our health care system." Boehner partly blamed the federal insurance plan for the takeover, saying, "you’re going to drive every private health insurance company out of business."
The congressional Republicans’ Web site further claimed that the House bill would create "a new government-run health plan" that "would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage," according to the Lewin Group. But that’s not what the Lewin Group said at all. The GOP cherry picks this number from a months-old Lewin Group study that’s based on an early version of the House bill (and the assumption that the "public plan" would be open to everyone). Lewin’s estimates of how many would leave private plans in favor of a federal option, structured as it is in the latest House bill (as well as the version that came out of the Energy and Commerce committee), are 90 percent lower than that. The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group but says it operates with "editorial independence."
The early House bill called for a federal insurance plan that would pay health care providers at Medicare rates, which are 20 percent to 30 percent less than what private plans pay on average, according to the Lewin Group. If this type of federal plan, which would be substantially cheaper than private insurance, were open to everyone within three years, it could lure as many as 114 million away from private insurance, Lewin estimated. The revised bill calls for a federal plan that pays negotiated rates, putting its premiums in line with those of private plans.
The Lewin Group has not released an analysis of the latest House bill, but it did model what would happen under a similar situation, with a federal plan paying negotiated rates. Lewin found that such a plan would result in 10.4 million to 12.5 million people moving off of private plans, in favor of the "public option." Why the big drop? Because those with private insurance wouldn’t save much money, if any, by switching to the federal plan.
CBO analyzed the revised House bill, and it came up with even lower numbers. CBO estimated that 6 million Americans total would join the so-called "public plan" by 2019 — and that premiums would be "somewhat higher" than the average private plan premiums offered through an insurance exchange. CBO said the plan would be most attractive to the less healthy members of the population, forcing premiums higher, despite the fact that the federal plan would save some money on administrative costs.
CBO: [A] public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)
In any case, whether 6 million people take up the "public plan" (CBO) or 12 million (the Lewin Group’s high-end estimate), neither number comes close to backing up the GOP claim that this bill would "drive every private health insurance company out of business" and result in "government-run" health care.
Posted by Lori Robertson on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire · Tagged with health care, health insurance, John Boehner
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/the-government-run-mantra/
Fact Check.org Health Care/House Vote Tomorrow
Boehner Misrepresents FactCheck.org’s Findings
November 2, 2009
Last week House Republican Leader John Boehner’s office issued a "Leader Alert" titled "10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-Page Gov’t Takeover of Health Care."
It’s a partisan document containing misleading characterizations of the bill. But the bullet point that bothers us most is #2, which reads:
MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/boehner-misrepresents-factcheckorgs-findings/
November 2, 2009
Last week House Republican Leader John Boehner’s office issued a "Leader Alert" titled "10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-Page Gov’t Takeover of Health Care."
It’s a partisan document containing misleading characterizations of the bill. But the bullet point that bothers us most is #2, which reads:
MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/boehner-misrepresents-factcheckorgs-findings/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Pitt in his biggest role
From the Atlantic...
A sturdy bike is a good way to get around the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. The roads are still pretty rough, the distances between places tend to be too long to walk and too short to drive, and on a bike you can easily stop and chat with the residents who have returned. I moved to New Orleans about a year after Hurricane Katrina, and I’ve ridden my bike out here every month or two to see how the rebuilding has been faring. Also, I’ve heard that Brad Pitt likes to bike around when he’s in town. Folks tell me he’s a pretty regular guy. “Brad was here yesterday,” a woman sitting on the front steps of her new and very modern house told me one day last fall. “He was talking to everyone, just checking things out.”
Read More...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/curtis-architecture-new-orleans
A sturdy bike is a good way to get around the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. The roads are still pretty rough, the distances between places tend to be too long to walk and too short to drive, and on a bike you can easily stop and chat with the residents who have returned. I moved to New Orleans about a year after Hurricane Katrina, and I’ve ridden my bike out here every month or two to see how the rebuilding has been faring. Also, I’ve heard that Brad Pitt likes to bike around when he’s in town. Folks tell me he’s a pretty regular guy. “Brad was here yesterday,” a woman sitting on the front steps of her new and very modern house told me one day last fall. “He was talking to everyone, just checking things out.”
Read More...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/curtis-architecture-new-orleans
H1N1 Vaccine Useless?
From the Atlantic...
Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu. The CDC has recommended that some 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. In August, New York state required all health-care workers to get both seasonal and swine flu shots. To further protect the populace, the federal government has spent upwards of $3billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and to treat those who fall ill.
Also see:
Q&A: “Facts About Swine Flu”The authors answer practical questions about H1N1 diagnosis and immunity.
But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
Read more here...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu. The CDC has recommended that some 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. In August, New York state required all health-care workers to get both seasonal and swine flu shots. To further protect the populace, the federal government has spent upwards of $3billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and to treat those who fall ill.
Also see:
Q&A: “Facts About Swine Flu”The authors answer practical questions about H1N1 diagnosis and immunity.
But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
Read more here...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Recession Good For Our Health?
This article comes from NewsChannel5.com
"University of Michigan researchers looked at death rates during the Great Depression, the worst economic slump in the 20th century. From the stock market crash of 1929 through the early 1930s, economic activity fell sharply, dropping 14 percent in 1932, while unemployment hit 22.9 percent that same year.
Black and white images from the era of bread lines and migrant farmers make it easy to assume the economic misery would have affected public health.
But when the researchers looked at mortality rates among men, women and children from 1920 to 1940, they found death rates declined during years of falling economic activity and rose when times were better.
The study is in the Sept. 28 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
During the two decades spanning the 1920s and 1930s, overall life expectancy increased by 8.8 years. But it wasn't a steady rise, instead shooting up and falling back in a pattern that correlated with the rise and fall of economic activity.
Between 1921 and 1926, the so-called "Roaring 20s" and a time of robust economic growth, life expectancy for non-white men fell by 8.1 years. Yet between 1929 and 1933, the years of steepest economic decline, their life expectancy grew a similar amount.
What do you make of it?
The article goes on to say:
"The basic finding of the paper is that mortality rates tend to evolve in parallel to the economy," said lead study author Jose Tapia Granados, an assistant research scientist at University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. "When the economy goes up, mortality tends to go up. When the economy goes down, mortality rates tend to go down, too."
Researchers did find one exception. During the 1920s and 1930s, two-thirds of all deaths were caused by cardiovascular and renal diseases, cancer, influenza and pneumonia, tuberculosis, motor vehicle accidents and suicide.
All became less deadly during difficult economic times, with the exception of suicides. But suicides accounted for fewer than 2 percent of all deaths, not enough to alter the overall trend, the study authors added.
The country's climb out of the Great Depression began in 1933. The economy grew by more than 10 percent annually from 1933 to 1936. Mortality again peaked in 1936, four years after the worst year of the Depression, even for children under age 4.
The reasons make sense:
More economic activity means people have money to drive cars, meaning more die in auto wrecks, the researchers theorize. In the 1920s and 1930s, cars became objects of mass consumption.
As motor vehicle use increases, so does pollution. Recent studies have linked particulate matter from cars and trucks and carbon monoxide with heart attacks and strokes.
During periods of growth, people have more money to spend on alcohol and cigarettes. And more economic activity means more factory orders, meaning people are working harder and longer and sleeping less.
Still, this is not to say that losing a job is good for your health. The study looks at the bigger picture -- fewer cars, fewer people working overtime, less pollution -- and how it may benefit public health as a whole.
A similar pattern may be at work during the current downturn, the authors suggested.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11230024
"University of Michigan researchers looked at death rates during the Great Depression, the worst economic slump in the 20th century. From the stock market crash of 1929 through the early 1930s, economic activity fell sharply, dropping 14 percent in 1932, while unemployment hit 22.9 percent that same year.
Black and white images from the era of bread lines and migrant farmers make it easy to assume the economic misery would have affected public health.
But when the researchers looked at mortality rates among men, women and children from 1920 to 1940, they found death rates declined during years of falling economic activity and rose when times were better.
The study is in the Sept. 28 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
During the two decades spanning the 1920s and 1930s, overall life expectancy increased by 8.8 years. But it wasn't a steady rise, instead shooting up and falling back in a pattern that correlated with the rise and fall of economic activity.
Between 1921 and 1926, the so-called "Roaring 20s" and a time of robust economic growth, life expectancy for non-white men fell by 8.1 years. Yet between 1929 and 1933, the years of steepest economic decline, their life expectancy grew a similar amount.
What do you make of it?
The article goes on to say:
"The basic finding of the paper is that mortality rates tend to evolve in parallel to the economy," said lead study author Jose Tapia Granados, an assistant research scientist at University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. "When the economy goes up, mortality tends to go up. When the economy goes down, mortality rates tend to go down, too."
Researchers did find one exception. During the 1920s and 1930s, two-thirds of all deaths were caused by cardiovascular and renal diseases, cancer, influenza and pneumonia, tuberculosis, motor vehicle accidents and suicide.
All became less deadly during difficult economic times, with the exception of suicides. But suicides accounted for fewer than 2 percent of all deaths, not enough to alter the overall trend, the study authors added.
The country's climb out of the Great Depression began in 1933. The economy grew by more than 10 percent annually from 1933 to 1936. Mortality again peaked in 1936, four years after the worst year of the Depression, even for children under age 4.
The reasons make sense:
More economic activity means people have money to drive cars, meaning more die in auto wrecks, the researchers theorize. In the 1920s and 1930s, cars became objects of mass consumption.
As motor vehicle use increases, so does pollution. Recent studies have linked particulate matter from cars and trucks and carbon monoxide with heart attacks and strokes.
During periods of growth, people have more money to spend on alcohol and cigarettes. And more economic activity means more factory orders, meaning people are working harder and longer and sleeping less.
Still, this is not to say that losing a job is good for your health. The study looks at the bigger picture -- fewer cars, fewer people working overtime, less pollution -- and how it may benefit public health as a whole.
A similar pattern may be at work during the current downturn, the authors suggested.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11230024
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Science/Politics=intertwined
Hawking: Humans Entered New Stage of Evolution
Hawking: Humans Entered New Stage of Evolution
Stephen Hawking, the British theoretical physicist, says the human race has entered a new phase of evolution. He published this premise on his Facebook page and in a treatise called “Life in the Universe.” It's been in every science magazine and has been hashed over by believers and non-believers ever since...
The Internet has reacted and is a buzz with a lively discussion on human evolution and how differently we’ve evolved compared to other known species on earth.
Quite a bit different from the reception Galileo's scientific discovery received. The Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher came up with a different twist on an old belief and was denounced for declaring that earth was not the center of the Universe. He was warned by the Catholic Church to abandon his belief and was later tried by the Inquisition for publishing Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
In the 1600’s the populace residing in villages and towns were illiterate. Books were read by wealthy families and members of the Church. Consequently the overall learning curve was nil for most people.
Hawking, the author of the best-selling book "A Brief History of Time," has intentionally tried to make difficult concepts in physics more accessible to the public.
And that is the jist of Hawking’s contention: that we are more than the sum total of our genes; we are what we read. Hawking maps our human progression from ten thousand years ago as an internal record phase transmitted through our DNA.
He says we are more than just our genes because we can’t discount the external record of other long lasting forms of storage, like the knowledge obtained from external sources, as contributing to our evolution, i.e the web, books, movies, etc..
"At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information," Hawking said.
The knowledge we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years is scant, Hawking points out, compared to the last three hundred, this he says is what sets the human race apart.
"I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race," Hawking said.
Hawking points out that in the 18th century it was possible to read all the books written. Today it would take 15,000 years to read all the books in the British National Library. By that time many more books would be written.
Hawking says we have entered into a “self designed evolution” in which we will have the capability of changing our DNA. At first changes will happen to single genes that control diseases like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. Genes involved with intelligence are controlled by a larger number of genes which will be harder to identify. But, Hawking believes when they are identified both intelligence and behaviors, like aggression, can be modified.
This undoubtedly opens up an entire new area of disagreement between those who are against genetic modification, which makes this a political discussion as well as a scientific one.
Hawking says we have entered into a “self designed evolution” in which we will have the capability of changing our DNA. At first changes will happen to single genes that control diseases like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. Genes involved with intelligence are controlled by a larger number of genes which will be harder to identify. But, Hawking believes when they are identified both intelligence and behaviors, like aggression, can be modified.
This undoubtedly opens up an entire new area of disagreement between those who are against genetic modification, which makes this a political discussion as well as a scientific one.
Take a look at some of the dialogue happening on the Internet.
Tell us what you think .
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/03/2241207/Hawking-Says-Humans-Have-Entered-a-New-Stage-of-Evolution?from=rss
Here is Hawking’s Myspace Page at http://www.myspace.com/stephenhawking24
Read more at:
http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html
Tell us what you think .
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/03/2241207/Hawking-Says-Humans-Have-Entered-a-New-Stage-of-Evolution?from=rss
Here is Hawking’s Myspace Page at http://www.myspace.com/stephenhawking24
Read more at:
http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-evolution.html
Thursday, August 13, 2009
PHL Guidelines
PrairieHOMEliving's PHL Politico Blog- Post news and opinions. Guidelines-Comments seen here do not reflect the opinions of any advertisers or businesses. No foul language, bullying, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed to ensure that comments meet these standards. All viewpoints are welcome. Offensive Posts will be removed. PHL Staff
Health Care Reform Reality Check
www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
Eight ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
1.Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2.Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3.Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4.Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5.Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6.Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7.Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
Eight common myths about health insurance reform
1.Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2.We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3.Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4.Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5.Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6.Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7.You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make. Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
1.Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job.
2. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4.Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6.The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Eight ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
1.Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2.Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3.Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4.Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5.Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6.Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7.Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
Eight common myths about health insurance reform
1.Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2.We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3.Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4.Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5.Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6.Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7.You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make. Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
1.Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job.
2. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4.Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6.The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Sunday, August 9, 2009
HOSTILE TAKEOVER: A Movement, 2010 Election
Grassroots mobs, such as the "TaxDay TeaParty"ists, are coming to your town! Well, maybe they're already there?
They say they're bringing "non-partisan "defiance" into the political process.
They're donning so-called 'Patriot' wigs and reintroducing "Joe-the-Plumber" in what is clearly a 2010 campaign to reassert themselves over the majority party.
BTW the original Tea Partyists fought against taxes WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. These Tea Partyists are clearly against Obama's Health Care Reform, and government spending, and of course the majority party in Congress and the White House.
Where were Tea Partyists when GWB and his administration essentially commandeered a hostile takeover of the U.S. surplus and spent and borrowed billions, trillons?
They were around, but SILENT, when Bush/Cheney sold off the country's assets to the highest bidders, spent untold billions in government contracts to Iraq, tax cuts for the highest earners, the list is long, but the result has been the nation's worst deficit in history-- which President Obama inherited.
We wonder if any of them realize what the term "General Fund" means? Every time any of us take a flight, the taxes we pay provide for such things as Air Traffic Control, security and safety; our taxes pay for construction upgrades, such as bridge reconstruction, etc. , all out of the General Fund. On a city level our taxes pay for city services, water treatment, such as police, and operational costs. Without those taxes, our safety, security and quality-of-life are severely compromised.
Right now the national General Fund and city funds are running on empty, the result of the previous administration's spending is that States have less funding, hence the trickle down to counties and cities. Taxes are essential for running a nation, a state, or a city.
Government services like Medicare and Social Security come from our taxes. They are government run programs that are supposed to kick in when we need them. Those too have been running out of money long before President Obama took office.
"Give me liberty, not debt" is their chant. Why didn't we hear it when GWB was robbing the U.S. treasury for the last eight years?
President Obama has "put more money back into the pockets of hardworking Americans, cut their taxes, made it more affordable to buy a home, made it more affordable to send their kids to college, provided tax incentives for businesses to create jobs through things like clean energy..."
They're not talking about that, at all...
What did the U.S. Treasury have to borrow to bail out the nation under under Obama, Bush?
From the The Wall Street Journal, "The government also borrowed less in the second quarter than expected, issuing $343 billion in debt, compared with earlier estimates of $361 billion.
The Treasury was able to cut its expected borrowing because it ended the quarter with a cash balance of $318 billion, more than it expected because of the TARP repayments as well as fewer purchases of preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. have repaid more than $70 billion from the aid program. In last year's third quarter, the Treasury borrowed $530 billion as it pumped money into the flagging economy, which has recently shown some signs of stabilization." August 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934320579902975.html
From Bloomberg.com, 2006, "The U.S. Congress approved a $781 billion increase in the federal government's debt limit, the fourth time lawmakers have raised the cap since President George W. Bush took office. The Senate voted 52-48 to increase the legal limit on federal borrowing to $8.97 trillion, up from $8.18 trillion. The House approved the measure last year, meaning the legislation now goes to the president for his signature.
Treasury Secretary John Snow warned Congress in increasingly dire terms that the government couldn't keep paying its bills, and risked defaulting on its debt, without an immediate increase in the cap. The ceiling was lifted about 30 minutes after the Treasury postponed the scheduled announcement of the sale of three-month and six-month Treasury bills. An hour later Treasury said it would sell $37 billion in bills. " March 16, 2006
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aV04.D.whRXc&refer=us
A little less defiance, and a little more attention to current history, is definitely in order.
Who pays for the uninsured? We do, of course.
In 2008, the Brookings Institute's Henry J. Aaron, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies wrote,
"Covering the currently uninsured has been a political ‘non-starter’ for decades and remains a long-odds proposition not because it is costly—it isn’t—but because it requires massive shifts in who writes the checks to pay for health care and who cashes those checks. Furthermore, the identity of the gainers and losers depends sensitively on how coverage is extended. The debate about extending coverage is not primarily about finding $120 billion to cover the uninsured, but about whether and how to shift who pays and who receives the many hundreds of billions dollars already being spent to continue covering the insured.
For a real-life display of what is at stake, one need go no further than the health programs of the two presidential candidates. Health reform proposals of Senators McCain and Obama would, if enacted, shift hundreds of billions of dollars in payments by businesses and households for premiums, cost sharing, and taxes and reallocate incomes of physicians, insurers, drug companies, and others. All the plans would differ from the status quo, but in very different ways."
Arron wrote, "Achieving universal coverage is mostly about income redistribution—among politically and economically powerful payers and providers with stakes that dwarf those measured by the added system-wide cost of insuring everyone."
August 2008-
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0825_uninsured_aaron.aspx
Did you notice, none of these media outlets, Bloomberg, Brookings or the Wall Street Journal, used the word "Socialism."
They say they're bringing "non-partisan "defiance" into the political process.
They're donning so-called 'Patriot' wigs and reintroducing "Joe-the-Plumber" in what is clearly a 2010 campaign to reassert themselves over the majority party.
BTW the original Tea Partyists fought against taxes WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. These Tea Partyists are clearly against Obama's Health Care Reform, and government spending, and of course the majority party in Congress and the White House.
Where were Tea Partyists when GWB and his administration essentially commandeered a hostile takeover of the U.S. surplus and spent and borrowed billions, trillons?
They were around, but SILENT, when Bush/Cheney sold off the country's assets to the highest bidders, spent untold billions in government contracts to Iraq, tax cuts for the highest earners, the list is long, but the result has been the nation's worst deficit in history-- which President Obama inherited.
We wonder if any of them realize what the term "General Fund" means? Every time any of us take a flight, the taxes we pay provide for such things as Air Traffic Control, security and safety; our taxes pay for construction upgrades, such as bridge reconstruction, etc. , all out of the General Fund. On a city level our taxes pay for city services, water treatment, such as police, and operational costs. Without those taxes, our safety, security and quality-of-life are severely compromised.
Right now the national General Fund and city funds are running on empty, the result of the previous administration's spending is that States have less funding, hence the trickle down to counties and cities. Taxes are essential for running a nation, a state, or a city.
Government services like Medicare and Social Security come from our taxes. They are government run programs that are supposed to kick in when we need them. Those too have been running out of money long before President Obama took office.
"Give me liberty, not debt" is their chant. Why didn't we hear it when GWB was robbing the U.S. treasury for the last eight years?
President Obama has "put more money back into the pockets of hardworking Americans, cut their taxes, made it more affordable to buy a home, made it more affordable to send their kids to college, provided tax incentives for businesses to create jobs through things like clean energy..."
They're not talking about that, at all...
What did the U.S. Treasury have to borrow to bail out the nation under under Obama, Bush?
From the The Wall Street Journal, "The government also borrowed less in the second quarter than expected, issuing $343 billion in debt, compared with earlier estimates of $361 billion.
The Treasury was able to cut its expected borrowing because it ended the quarter with a cash balance of $318 billion, more than it expected because of the TARP repayments as well as fewer purchases of preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. have repaid more than $70 billion from the aid program. In last year's third quarter, the Treasury borrowed $530 billion as it pumped money into the flagging economy, which has recently shown some signs of stabilization." August 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124934320579902975.html
From Bloomberg.com, 2006, "The U.S. Congress approved a $781 billion increase in the federal government's debt limit, the fourth time lawmakers have raised the cap since President George W. Bush took office. The Senate voted 52-48 to increase the legal limit on federal borrowing to $8.97 trillion, up from $8.18 trillion. The House approved the measure last year, meaning the legislation now goes to the president for his signature.
Treasury Secretary John Snow warned Congress in increasingly dire terms that the government couldn't keep paying its bills, and risked defaulting on its debt, without an immediate increase in the cap. The ceiling was lifted about 30 minutes after the Treasury postponed the scheduled announcement of the sale of three-month and six-month Treasury bills. An hour later Treasury said it would sell $37 billion in bills. " March 16, 2006
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aV04.D.whRXc&refer=us
A little less defiance, and a little more attention to current history, is definitely in order.
Who pays for the uninsured? We do, of course.
In 2008, the Brookings Institute's Henry J. Aaron, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies wrote,
"Covering the currently uninsured has been a political ‘non-starter’ for decades and remains a long-odds proposition not because it is costly—it isn’t—but because it requires massive shifts in who writes the checks to pay for health care and who cashes those checks. Furthermore, the identity of the gainers and losers depends sensitively on how coverage is extended. The debate about extending coverage is not primarily about finding $120 billion to cover the uninsured, but about whether and how to shift who pays and who receives the many hundreds of billions dollars already being spent to continue covering the insured.
For a real-life display of what is at stake, one need go no further than the health programs of the two presidential candidates. Health reform proposals of Senators McCain and Obama would, if enacted, shift hundreds of billions of dollars in payments by businesses and households for premiums, cost sharing, and taxes and reallocate incomes of physicians, insurers, drug companies, and others. All the plans would differ from the status quo, but in very different ways."
Arron wrote, "Achieving universal coverage is mostly about income redistribution—among politically and economically powerful payers and providers with stakes that dwarf those measured by the added system-wide cost of insuring everyone."
August 2008-
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0825_uninsured_aaron.aspx
Did you notice, none of these media outlets, Bloomberg, Brookings or the Wall Street Journal, used the word "Socialism."
Snarking, Trolling, Un-moderated Public Spaces...on..
Political discourse and commentary have reached rock bottom.
In fact recent town halls indicate that the new reality in political give and take has been hijacked by anarchy. That's right.
The universal certainty that there is no difference between a fact and a fallacy, has been turned on its head.
"Your Voices" blog is no more. The Star Tribune's D. J. Leary has left the building or at least his unmediated space in cyber land.
In answer to David Brauer's post on MinnPost's Daily Glean, yes, other bloggers will set a standard and abide by it and then there are those who will mislead, make up stories, and treat reality as if it was irrelevant.
We believe the steady digression of political discourse in 2009 is a harbinger of what the 2010 Election will be like: based on the kind of zealousness and fervor that eliminates facts and replaces them with accusation and innuendo...to achieve its end.
In fact recent town halls indicate that the new reality in political give and take has been hijacked by anarchy. That's right.
The universal certainty that there is no difference between a fact and a fallacy, has been turned on its head.
"Your Voices" blog is no more. The Star Tribune's D. J. Leary has left the building or at least his unmediated space in cyber land.
In answer to David Brauer's post on MinnPost's Daily Glean, yes, other bloggers will set a standard and abide by it and then there are those who will mislead, make up stories, and treat reality as if it was irrelevant.
We believe the steady digression of political discourse in 2009 is a harbinger of what the 2010 Election will be like: based on the kind of zealousness and fervor that eliminates facts and replaces them with accusation and innuendo...to achieve its end.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
PolitiFact's Truth Meter on Health Care: Try It Out
A scorecard separating fact from fiction....
John Boehner
Amendment would prohibit use of federal funds for abortions
The Democrat-backed health care reform plan "will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."
FALSE
Liberty Counsel
Nothing like that in the bill
Page 992 of the health care bill will "establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"
FALSE
Paul Krugman
They were raucous in 2005, inside and out
During the 2005 fight over Social Security, "there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events,” and opponents were “not disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it."
FALSE
Bloggers
No mandate in the bills
Health care reform legislation is “likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”
FALSE
Club for Growth
There's no proposal to put a price on life
The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.
FALSE
More at...http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
John Boehner
Amendment would prohibit use of federal funds for abortions
The Democrat-backed health care reform plan "will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."
FALSE
Liberty Counsel
Nothing like that in the bill
Page 992 of the health care bill will "establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"
FALSE
Paul Krugman
They were raucous in 2005, inside and out
During the 2005 fight over Social Security, "there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events,” and opponents were “not disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it."
FALSE
Bloggers
No mandate in the bills
Health care reform legislation is “likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”
FALSE
Club for Growth
There's no proposal to put a price on life
The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.
FALSE
More at...http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
PhRMA helps Obama with Health Care Reform
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is a major player in helping Obama create health care reform.
According to Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, the partnership with the deep-pocketed drug industry is one of mutual self-interest, even though the two groups disagree on numerous issues. "We want to achieve coverage for everyone. For PhRMA, this would improve volume for prescription sales because everyone" would have better access to medicine, he said.
Any health care bill that makes it to Obama's desk is expected to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million who now lack it. That would mean a huge new pool of potential customers for drug companies and other health care providers. That, in turn, has created an incentive to offer concessions to the White House and lawmakers in hopes of shaping the bill, rather than simply opposing it."
Evidently PhRMA is rolling out a huge media campaign in the fall.
"Drugmakers were the first group to reach agreement with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announcing several weeks ago that they would absorb $80 billion in costs over a decade.
Even before the announcement, according to several individuals, the White House sought help from PhRMA in passing legislation.
Now, with the legislation under attack, the industry is providing key support during August as Republicans work to inflict a high-profile defeat on the president.
A significantly more ambitious advertising effort by PhRMA is expected to begin around Labor Day."
AP reports that a "staggering sum will dwarf attempts to derail Obama's plans."
Read the entire article at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_drugmakers
According to Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, the partnership with the deep-pocketed drug industry is one of mutual self-interest, even though the two groups disagree on numerous issues. "We want to achieve coverage for everyone. For PhRMA, this would improve volume for prescription sales because everyone" would have better access to medicine, he said.
Any health care bill that makes it to Obama's desk is expected to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million who now lack it. That would mean a huge new pool of potential customers for drug companies and other health care providers. That, in turn, has created an incentive to offer concessions to the White House and lawmakers in hopes of shaping the bill, rather than simply opposing it."
Evidently PhRMA is rolling out a huge media campaign in the fall.
"Drugmakers were the first group to reach agreement with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announcing several weeks ago that they would absorb $80 billion in costs over a decade.
Even before the announcement, according to several individuals, the White House sought help from PhRMA in passing legislation.
Now, with the legislation under attack, the industry is providing key support during August as Republicans work to inflict a high-profile defeat on the president.
A significantly more ambitious advertising effort by PhRMA is expected to begin around Labor Day."
AP reports that a "staggering sum will dwarf attempts to derail Obama's plans."
Read the entire article at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_drugmakers
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Road to Health Care Reform: Demonizing and Violence
From Palin's "evil" reference to Rush Limbaugh's comparison to Hitler, the President and Health Care Reform are feeling a concerted effort to squelch any change.
Take a look at these opinions on Politico.
http://www.politico.com/arena/
This is what's happening at Town Halls by those who oppose changes...
Bradley A. Blakeman, Republican strategist, consultant, entrepreneur:
I would advise my side to keep up the pressure on Congress and the White House. I would encourage citizens and third party groups to attend Congressional own Hall Meetings, telephoning, mailing, and emailing Members and the White House. More...
Dana Perino, Former White House Press Secretary:
Republicans have put the Democrats on defense this summer - exactly what you'd expect from an effective minority party. So, my advice:- keep doing what you're doing - the pressure has worked. The Democrats are all over the map and not inspiring confidence in their proposal- keep arguing on the merits -- the more you argue on the facts, the more defensive they get- stay above the partisan fray. Let the Democrats continue to attack Americans. Don't take the bait- find your voice to describe the reform you support - yes, it's complicated to explain, but work at it. Take a test: can you explain it to your neighbor in one go without any follow-ups? Keep at it until you can- reach out to independents, explain how you want to reform healthcare in real and sustainable ways, without raising taxes on the middle class and ballooning the deficit- take a few deep breaths and get some rest, for in the fall you will have to redouble your efforts!
This is what should happen...
Darrell M. West, Vice President, Governance Studies, Brookings:
August is the time to rally grass roots supporters and get them to write letters, make phone calls, and attend town hall meetings. Members will be paying close attention to what people back home think. With reports of fist fights, yelling, and speakers being shouted down, each side should be careful not to get blamed for anti-democratic behavior. Tactics matter as much as message during district events.
Julian E. Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton:
Each side has a fundamental question they need to answer in this debate. For supporters of reform, how will we pay for this? For opponents of reform, what will they do to fix a broken system? The side that offers a better answer will be in much stronger position come this fall.
Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown, co-editor Dissent:
"For the Democrats (at least those who really believe in an overhaul of our rickety system): Be clear about what the reform bills will do for most people and what they won't do (like promote euthanasia and force you to go to an MD chosen by a bureaucrat). Be clear about the perils of allowing insurance companies to continue running the system (which, except for Medicare and the VA, they do now). And remind people that the elements of the current system which they like -- particularly Medicare and the VA -- are public programs, even single-payer ones. Above all, get out of the wonkish policy weeds and talk about the moral imperative to put together a system which covers everyone without bankrupting the country."
Dean Baker, Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research:
Proponents of health care reform have to get the facts out and dispel the fears. The key facts are that the U.S. health care system is incredibly wasteful and that there are enormous opportunities to reduce costs in ways that don't jeopardize and might even improve the quality of care. More...
Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Law Professor at the Washington and Lee University:
I believe that we have to get health care reform done this fall and that the House bill and parts of the Senate HELP bill provide a sound platform for moving forward. It also is becoming apparent that delay is not helping, that we need to move forward to avoid failure. The strategy I would suggest would be:
1) Focus on the advantages that reform has for the ordinary insured American. Most Americans are insured through their employment, but 400,000 Americans are losing their health insurance every month. The reform legislation offers them health security no matter what happens to their job, or even if they decide to quit it to pursue their own entrepreneurial dream. It also limits the amount of premiums and cost-sharing that their employer can impose on them. In just one year between 2007 and 2008, deductibles for employment-based insurance went up 30% and Americans are increasingly facing unaffordable cost-sharing in their employment-related insurance. More...
2) Make sure that Medicare beneficiaries understand that the legislation improves their Medicare benefits. It is ironic that the greatest opposition to reform seems to be coming from seniors, who already have a public health insurance plan. But the House legislation would expand coverage for preventive services, limit cost-sharing under Medicare Advantage plans, gradually close the donut hole, and increase help for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. All the talk about cutting Medicare costs is making seniors nervous, but cuts will come out of provider and insurer payments, not from benefits.
3) Push back forcefully against the lies and misinformation--the claims of mandated euthanasia and abortion coverage, the end of private insurance arguments.
4) Remind waivering Democrats that it was the Democratic base that worked to get them elected, and that the Democratic base overwhelmingly favors getting this done. Those showing up at town meetings to oppose reform would not vote for them under any circumstances.
5) Serve notice on Senator Baucus and his conferees that they have another month max to get a bipartisan agreement. The Republicans on the Committee should not be allowed to stall reform indefinitely until they can kill it. The Republicans had no interest in bipartisanship when they passed their health reform bill in 1995, and very little when they passed the MMA in 2003 (remember the all-night vote).
6) Energize the base and get this done. Americans may be ambivalent about reform now, but when it is done they will be glad for it. An amendment in Energy and Commerce to recognize Medicare to be socialized medicine and a single-payer system and to abolish it immediately was opposed by every Republican on the Committee. When this is done people will be just as grateful for it as they are for Medicare.
Take a look at these opinions on Politico.
http://www.politico.com/arena/
This is what's happening at Town Halls by those who oppose changes...
Bradley A. Blakeman, Republican strategist, consultant, entrepreneur:
I would advise my side to keep up the pressure on Congress and the White House. I would encourage citizens and third party groups to attend Congressional own Hall Meetings, telephoning, mailing, and emailing Members and the White House. More...
Dana Perino, Former White House Press Secretary:
Republicans have put the Democrats on defense this summer - exactly what you'd expect from an effective minority party. So, my advice:- keep doing what you're doing - the pressure has worked. The Democrats are all over the map and not inspiring confidence in their proposal- keep arguing on the merits -- the more you argue on the facts, the more defensive they get- stay above the partisan fray. Let the Democrats continue to attack Americans. Don't take the bait- find your voice to describe the reform you support - yes, it's complicated to explain, but work at it. Take a test: can you explain it to your neighbor in one go without any follow-ups? Keep at it until you can- reach out to independents, explain how you want to reform healthcare in real and sustainable ways, without raising taxes on the middle class and ballooning the deficit- take a few deep breaths and get some rest, for in the fall you will have to redouble your efforts!
This is what should happen...
Darrell M. West, Vice President, Governance Studies, Brookings:
August is the time to rally grass roots supporters and get them to write letters, make phone calls, and attend town hall meetings. Members will be paying close attention to what people back home think. With reports of fist fights, yelling, and speakers being shouted down, each side should be careful not to get blamed for anti-democratic behavior. Tactics matter as much as message during district events.
Julian E. Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton:
Each side has a fundamental question they need to answer in this debate. For supporters of reform, how will we pay for this? For opponents of reform, what will they do to fix a broken system? The side that offers a better answer will be in much stronger position come this fall.
Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown, co-editor Dissent:
"For the Democrats (at least those who really believe in an overhaul of our rickety system): Be clear about what the reform bills will do for most people and what they won't do (like promote euthanasia and force you to go to an MD chosen by a bureaucrat). Be clear about the perils of allowing insurance companies to continue running the system (which, except for Medicare and the VA, they do now). And remind people that the elements of the current system which they like -- particularly Medicare and the VA -- are public programs, even single-payer ones. Above all, get out of the wonkish policy weeds and talk about the moral imperative to put together a system which covers everyone without bankrupting the country."
Dean Baker, Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research:
Proponents of health care reform have to get the facts out and dispel the fears. The key facts are that the U.S. health care system is incredibly wasteful and that there are enormous opportunities to reduce costs in ways that don't jeopardize and might even improve the quality of care. More...
Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Law Professor at the Washington and Lee University:
I believe that we have to get health care reform done this fall and that the House bill and parts of the Senate HELP bill provide a sound platform for moving forward. It also is becoming apparent that delay is not helping, that we need to move forward to avoid failure. The strategy I would suggest would be:
1) Focus on the advantages that reform has for the ordinary insured American. Most Americans are insured through their employment, but 400,000 Americans are losing their health insurance every month. The reform legislation offers them health security no matter what happens to their job, or even if they decide to quit it to pursue their own entrepreneurial dream. It also limits the amount of premiums and cost-sharing that their employer can impose on them. In just one year between 2007 and 2008, deductibles for employment-based insurance went up 30% and Americans are increasingly facing unaffordable cost-sharing in their employment-related insurance. More...
2) Make sure that Medicare beneficiaries understand that the legislation improves their Medicare benefits. It is ironic that the greatest opposition to reform seems to be coming from seniors, who already have a public health insurance plan. But the House legislation would expand coverage for preventive services, limit cost-sharing under Medicare Advantage plans, gradually close the donut hole, and increase help for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. All the talk about cutting Medicare costs is making seniors nervous, but cuts will come out of provider and insurer payments, not from benefits.
3) Push back forcefully against the lies and misinformation--the claims of mandated euthanasia and abortion coverage, the end of private insurance arguments.
4) Remind waivering Democrats that it was the Democratic base that worked to get them elected, and that the Democratic base overwhelmingly favors getting this done. Those showing up at town meetings to oppose reform would not vote for them under any circumstances.
5) Serve notice on Senator Baucus and his conferees that they have another month max to get a bipartisan agreement. The Republicans on the Committee should not be allowed to stall reform indefinitely until they can kill it. The Republicans had no interest in bipartisanship when they passed their health reform bill in 1995, and very little when they passed the MMA in 2003 (remember the all-night vote).
6) Energize the base and get this done. Americans may be ambivalent about reform now, but when it is done they will be glad for it. An amendment in Energy and Commerce to recognize Medicare to be socialized medicine and a single-payer system and to abolish it immediately was opposed by every Republican on the Committee. When this is done people will be just as grateful for it as they are for Medicare.
Twitter Attack World Micro
The Cossack Culture alive and performing ethnic cleansing in Russia
Russian politicos dragged down Twitter and its millions of users because of one antagonist who was dissing Russia over military conflicts in Georgia, the War in Abkhazia.
According to an article in the U.K. Register, the "torrent of traffic that brought the site to its knees wasn't the result of a traditional DDoS, or distributed denial of service attack, but rather people who clicked on a link in spam messages that referenced a well-known blogger called Cyxymu."
CYXYMU is the blog name of the Georgian antagonist the Russians wanted to silence.
Here is a link that retells what was endured years ago by fellow Georgians and also reveals the motivating force behind the fighting: Russia's desire to get Georgia to join the CIS.
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/29542/b5f1ff2ebdb92dabafda4b44e960db4c.htm
Here is CYXYMU's orginal post:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/20/the-war-in-abkhazia-cyxymu-remembers/
This kind of aggression on neighboring countries is as old as recorded history. But of course, the difference is the whole rest of the populated world knew about it within a short time frame; and we even became unwitting participants. PrairieHOMEliving's Twitter was down on Thursday...
Now, we can't help but become witnesses, recorders of the atrocities. In the 1870's when the Russian Cossacks pillaged and ransacked the shettels of poor Russian Jews, there were no International agencies or activists, witnesses, working on their behalf, other than those who helped them flee. Some of the oppressed were lucky to be able to immigrate, leaving behind their native country for a better life.. leaving behind the ethnic cleansing..
And with this micro view comes a responsiblity we all share to witness and speak out against injustices in any land...
Putin using old Cossack Strategies-
"Since the fall fo the Soviet Union and more prominently under President Putin, there has been a great revival (See Radio Free Europe’s Piece) of the Cossack culture and increasing political clout including a movement to reassert their role as a security/military instrument of the state. And already it seems like they are back to performing ethnic cleansing duties in Russia."
Read the entire article at:
http://www.strategyunit.net/2005/11/cossacks-revival-tool-of-the-imperial-state-and-ethnic-cleansing/
Russian politicos dragged down Twitter and its millions of users because of one antagonist who was dissing Russia over military conflicts in Georgia, the War in Abkhazia.
According to an article in the U.K. Register, the "torrent of traffic that brought the site to its knees wasn't the result of a traditional DDoS, or distributed denial of service attack, but rather people who clicked on a link in spam messages that referenced a well-known blogger called Cyxymu."
CYXYMU is the blog name of the Georgian antagonist the Russians wanted to silence.
Here is a link that retells what was endured years ago by fellow Georgians and also reveals the motivating force behind the fighting: Russia's desire to get Georgia to join the CIS.
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/29542/b5f1ff2ebdb92dabafda4b44e960db4c.htm
Here is CYXYMU's orginal post:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/20/the-war-in-abkhazia-cyxymu-remembers/
This kind of aggression on neighboring countries is as old as recorded history. But of course, the difference is the whole rest of the populated world knew about it within a short time frame; and we even became unwitting participants. PrairieHOMEliving's Twitter was down on Thursday...
Now, we can't help but become witnesses, recorders of the atrocities. In the 1870's when the Russian Cossacks pillaged and ransacked the shettels of poor Russian Jews, there were no International agencies or activists, witnesses, working on their behalf, other than those who helped them flee. Some of the oppressed were lucky to be able to immigrate, leaving behind their native country for a better life.. leaving behind the ethnic cleansing..
And with this micro view comes a responsiblity we all share to witness and speak out against injustices in any land...
Putin using old Cossack Strategies-
"Since the fall fo the Soviet Union and more prominently under President Putin, there has been a great revival (See Radio Free Europe’s Piece) of the Cossack culture and increasing political clout including a movement to reassert their role as a security/military instrument of the state. And already it seems like they are back to performing ethnic cleansing duties in Russia."
Read the entire article at:
http://www.strategyunit.net/2005/11/cossacks-revival-tool-of-the-imperial-state-and-ethnic-cleansing/
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Sotomayor Confirmed in a 68/31 Partisan Vote
Now there are two women on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The Wall Street Journal compared Sotomayor's confirmation with Alito who also won on a partisan vote, 58 to 42:
"During his 2005 confirmation hearings, Democrats criticized his membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group that was critical of affirmative-action efforts. This time, it was Republicans who criticized Judge Sotomayor for her former membership in a Latino advocacy group, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and for lectures in which her aspirations for Latinos crossed into "racism," as Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) charged.."
"Democrats said her 17 years of experience on the federal bench, where she compiled a conventional, if liberal-leaning, judicial record, coupled with her working-class background, would equip her to understand the real-world impact of judicial decisions. Republicans, however, seized on the word Mr. Obama used to describe a quality he had sought in selecting her -- "empathy" -- as evidence that he expected his nominee to skew legal cases to favor minorities."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124955682673110741.html
The Wall Street Journal compared Sotomayor's confirmation with Alito who also won on a partisan vote, 58 to 42:
"During his 2005 confirmation hearings, Democrats criticized his membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group that was critical of affirmative-action efforts. This time, it was Republicans who criticized Judge Sotomayor for her former membership in a Latino advocacy group, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and for lectures in which her aspirations for Latinos crossed into "racism," as Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) charged.."
"Democrats said her 17 years of experience on the federal bench, where she compiled a conventional, if liberal-leaning, judicial record, coupled with her working-class background, would equip her to understand the real-world impact of judicial decisions. Republicans, however, seized on the word Mr. Obama used to describe a quality he had sought in selecting her -- "empathy" -- as evidence that he expected his nominee to skew legal cases to favor minorities."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124955682673110741.html
Friday, July 31, 2009
Long-Term Generational Trends in Political Values
Pew Research did a study on the Long-Term Trends in Political Values
Referred to as Generation Y or Nexters, "they have much more positive attitudes about government -- they are more likely to see government as effective and efficient."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1245/gen-next-squeezed-recession-most-see-better-times-ahead
Another propensity is that those younger than 30 are more likely than older people to "say that every possible effort should be made to improve the position of blacks and other minorities "even if it means giving them preferential treatment."
Another inclination that is shared by young Americans is that they are far less conservative on traditional and social values -- including attitudes toward homosexuality, women's roles, censorship, and whether there are clear guidelines about good and evil. And the youngest generation's level of religious commitment is currently lower than any other age cohort's."
What's more the Nexters stand for less supportive and assertive approaches to national security. While support for an assertive national security policy has decreased for nexters, it has increased for older people since 2007.
Nexters are not uniformly liberal. They are not significantly more supportive of the social safety net than are older Americans. They also are likely to express pro-business attitudes; they're also no more likely to support environmental protection -- than older Americans.
Nexters are increasingly feeling that voting is important, particularly in the aftermath of the election.
In terms of social networking alone, 70% of Nexters do Facebook, Myspace or Twitter, and around 48% have a positive view of sharing personal info, while only 19% of those over age 65 agree that social networking is positive.
It's fascinating to think about how Nexters will influence future elections.
Referred to as Generation Y or Nexters, "they have much more positive attitudes about government -- they are more likely to see government as effective and efficient."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1245/gen-next-squeezed-recession-most-see-better-times-ahead
Another propensity is that those younger than 30 are more likely than older people to "say that every possible effort should be made to improve the position of blacks and other minorities "even if it means giving them preferential treatment."
Another inclination that is shared by young Americans is that they are far less conservative on traditional and social values -- including attitudes toward homosexuality, women's roles, censorship, and whether there are clear guidelines about good and evil. And the youngest generation's level of religious commitment is currently lower than any other age cohort's."
What's more the Nexters stand for less supportive and assertive approaches to national security. While support for an assertive national security policy has decreased for nexters, it has increased for older people since 2007.
Nexters are not uniformly liberal. They are not significantly more supportive of the social safety net than are older Americans. They also are likely to express pro-business attitudes; they're also no more likely to support environmental protection -- than older Americans.
Nexters are increasingly feeling that voting is important, particularly in the aftermath of the election.
In terms of social networking alone, 70% of Nexters do Facebook, Myspace or Twitter, and around 48% have a positive view of sharing personal info, while only 19% of those over age 65 agree that social networking is positive.
It's fascinating to think about how Nexters will influence future elections.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayer: Identity Politics Again
The barrier to justice for all is stymied by the confines of identity politics.
The Supreme Court recently ruled against the judgement of Sotomayer's federal appeals court's decision against the city of New Haven in a reverese discrimination case.
Sotomayer's judgement against the firefighters mirrors how Justice Souter would have voted.
The outcome of the case is said to have no discernable impact at the Sotomayer hearings.
The Supreme Court was split, voting 5 to 4:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Justice Anthony Kennedy
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Samuel Alito
The four who dissented:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice David Souter (who retires at the end of today)
Justice Stephen Breyer
Interesting to note that Justice Scalia, a conservative, joined the liberal justices in a 5-4 decision on the case Cuomo v. The Clearing House Ass'n. Reuters says the decisions "allows NY attorney general probe" of mortgage banks. This case did not involve identity politics.
Identity does matter-"In a recent interview with The New York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the current makeup of the high court — where she is the only current female member — "just doesn't look right in the year 2009.""I feel great," she said of her anticipation of Sotomayor's confirmation, "that I don't have to be the lone woman around this place."
"Having Ginsburg and the now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor — who broke the gender barrier in 1981 — on the court had "an immediate influence on gender discrimination cases," says Supreme Court historian Lucas Powe Jr., a University of Texas law professor and author of the recent The Supreme Court and the American Elite.
Powe dismisses the notion that a justice's identity could be left out of his or her decisions."It would be ridiculous," he says, "to imagine that one's identity can be stripped out. We are who we are."But just how much identity — Sotomayor's identity — would or should play out on a high court dominated since its founding by white men will get a thorough vetting this week.
And the Hispanic community will be watching its history play out."This is of tremendous significance," Rivera says. "It's about all of us feeling that the court has integrity and reflects our lives and who we are."
besternews.com
George Will writes, "Democrats compounded confusion by thinking of the court as a representative institution. Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law. "townhall.com
If the conservative majority didn't vote in lock-step than there would be some credence to this remark.
In 2007 the Washington Post, "THE SUPREME COURT last week concluded its first full term with President Bush's two nominees in place, and the outcome was simultaneously unsurprising and disappointing. The 2006-07 term was unsurprising because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. emerged as the reliably conservative justices that we expected them to be. There was little doubt that Justice Alito's replacing Sandra Day O'Connor would shift the court measurably to the right. But the term was also disappointing because of the unvarying, lock-step nature of the voting patterns of the two newest ...
Washington Post, July 3, 2007
Sotomayer is called a reverse racist by those who oppose her confirmation. The New York Times writes, "Of the 110 people who have served on the court, only four were not white males. Every president over the last generation has at least flirted with the temptation to name a “first” — or at least a second or third."From a single speech she gave at the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2001, which has attracted critisim, she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said.
In some of the justices rulings related to identity politics, it has been said that in 20 years or more their rulings might have been different.
Is it fair to have a court that is more representative of our nation?
As we consider at some point in the future the white population will not be the majority, and the court will be more diverse, will we then see more reverse discrimination cases?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ten Years Later Tobacco To Get More Regulation
At $600M a year, fees Big Tobacco will pay the Federal Government, the result will be more federal oversight, a separate center of the FDA with scientific and regulatory control, which will work toward making cigarettes less harmful and a reduction in the number of people who smoke.
There are quite a few camps of thought on the ten year old legislation that is soon to become law.
One supports the regulatory route giving the FDA unprecedented control over access to cigarettes and regulatory control over the products and advertising.
Others believe that the FDA is incapable of handling tobacco regulations and cite the agency's failure to address oversight on core functions such as food safety.
Than there are those who abhor anti-government control over businesses, they shouldn't grab for a Kleenex yet.
Whilst PMI is ready to take a hit to U.S. sales they have a business plan to jump-up global sales before U.S. restrictions take hold.
The newly formed Phillip Morris International (PMI) has launched seven new varieties of Marlboro alone to a growing European market.
With 129 lawsuits and a pariah image in the U.S., Phillip Morris has relocated its operations to Switzerland and is targeting countries with no regulations, like Indonesia.
Teenagers there sell cigarettes from vending carts along with sugary soda drinks and gum.
The CEO of PMI doesn't allow his own children to smoke. Yet, PMI targets sporting events and rock concerts to sell cigarettes to Indonesian youth.
Pressure anew has come from a twenty-four year old Indonesian activist who says that PMI has infused cigarette marketing with youthful themes and gone back on their word.
There are others who have not forgotten the old Phillip Morris and know that PMI is repeating their same old marketing strategies in new growing markets, targeting youth and impacting public health.
This new U.S. legislation is far from perfect. Would you believe while it orders the FDA to regulate, it withholds the power to ban menthol, the one brand most people smoke and it makes it really hard for people to sell less hazardous cigarettes.
Okay, now anti-regulation nuts can just throw the Kleenex away.
Philip Morris' partner and political cover, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit organization, helped craft the legislation.
Back when Phillip Morris was facing a $264M settlement and a lawsuit from 46 state attorney generals, they formed "Project Sunrise," which was an effort to craft the regulations.
Thus, there was a legislative compromise.
The bill denies the FDA the ability to require nicotine, the main addictive agent in cigarettes, to be eliminated and does not eliminate the menthol brand.
The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network released a statement on the bill saying, "Tobacco legislation that treats menthol differently from other flavoring additives is incomplete." This is in response to studies showing that menthol is far more addictive then other cigarettes and far harder to quit, no matter what race the smoker is."
Ironically many health groups are standing with Philip Morris in lobbying for the legislation, though some smaller companies oppose it.
The bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for "tobacco manufacturers to develop and introduce products that have the potential to reduce the risk of tobacco usage."
So, as usual, what we don't always condone, we don't always say no to. Or it's never really clear, just like the label on the package.
At $600M a year, fees Big Tobacco will pay the Federal Government, the result will be more federal oversight, a separate center of the FDA with scientific and regulatory control, which will work toward making cigarettes less harmful and a reduction in the number of people who smoke.
There are quite a few camps of thought on the ten year old legislation that is soon to become law.
One supports the regulatory route giving the FDA unprecedented control over access to cigarettes and regulatory control over the products and advertising.
Others believe that the FDA is incapable of handling tobacco regulations and cite the agency's failure to address oversight on core functions such as food safety.
Than there are those who abhor anti-government control over businesses, they shouldn't grab for a Kleenex yet.
Whilst PMI is ready to take a hit to U.S. sales they have a business plan to jump-up global sales before U.S. restrictions take hold.
The newly formed Phillip Morris International (PMI) has launched seven new varieties of Marlboro alone to a growing European market.
With 129 lawsuits and a pariah image in the U.S., Phillip Morris has relocated its operations to Switzerland and is targeting countries with no regulations, like Indonesia.
Teenagers there sell cigarettes from vending carts along with sugary soda drinks and gum.
The CEO of PMI doesn't allow his own children to smoke. Yet, PMI targets sporting events and rock concerts to sell cigarettes to Indonesian youth.
Pressure anew has come from a twenty-four year old Indonesian activist who says that PMI has infused cigarette marketing with youthful themes and gone back on their word.
There are others who have not forgotten the old Phillip Morris and know that PMI is repeating their same old marketing strategies in new growing markets, targeting youth and impacting public health.
This new U.S. legislation is far from perfect. Would you believe while it orders the FDA to regulate, it withholds the power to ban menthol, the one brand most people smoke and it makes it really hard for people to sell less hazardous cigarettes.
Okay, now anti-regulation nuts can just throw the Kleenex away.
Philip Morris' partner and political cover, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit organization, helped craft the legislation.
Back when Phillip Morris was facing a $264M settlement and a lawsuit from 46 state attorney generals, they formed "Project Sunrise," which was an effort to craft the regulations.
Thus, there was a legislative compromise.
The bill denies the FDA the ability to require nicotine, the main addictive agent in cigarettes, to be eliminated and does not eliminate the menthol brand.
The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network released a statement on the bill saying, "Tobacco legislation that treats menthol differently from other flavoring additives is incomplete." This is in response to studies showing that menthol is far more addictive then other cigarettes and far harder to quit, no matter what race the smoker is."
Ironically many health groups are standing with Philip Morris in lobbying for the legislation, though some smaller companies oppose it.
The bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for "tobacco manufacturers to develop and introduce products that have the potential to reduce the risk of tobacco usage."
So, as usual, what we don't always condone, we don't always say no to. Or it's never really clear, just like the label on the package.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Field of Partisans in Centrist Times
The field of candidates hoping to replace Pawlenty will need to seek their party's endorsement. Whoever they are, they are going to be caught between the ideological bent of their endorsing party and a considerably more centrist public tired of partisan bickering.
Would an Independent win in this anti-partisan climate? State Senator Terry Bonoff says both sides have "clear-the-field candidates." But, would they get endorsed?
Republicans are looking to balance the current Democratic tilt in the Minnesota Legislature, but it would seem Pawlenty did that with his Veto pen.
The novelty would be Ramstad running as an Independent. Would he get votes from the conservative Minnesota Republicans?
Right now the Legislature, big-city mayoral offices and the state's congressional delegation are all dominated by Democrats.
The state Republican pickings are pretty thin, according to Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College.
The Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidates begin with former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton to former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, who has already run one statewide campaign, to Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, so far the only woman to officially announce her candidacy.
Others, include House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, are all said to be weighing entry into the race.
Schier said in Twin Cities.com that "the GOP base active in party politics is more conservative than the state as a whole, and thus the endorsement process is "not reliably likely to produce a candidate who is electable statewide. "
Though it might be the Democrats' race to lose, at least one Democratic candidate warned against ruling out Republicans, pointing out that Democrats haven't won a governor's race since 1986.
Pawlenty painted a grim picture of DFLers controlling both the Legislature and the governor's office. But, if lawmakers proceed in 2010 to eliminate gubernatorial powers, a Republican Governor would be less able to overturn the tide of control.
In the meantime Pawlenty is getting ready to make $2.7B in spending cuts by July. Cities and organizations affected by the cuts are looking at the state statutes and a possible legal action against the Governor for abuse of power.
If there is a law-suit against Pawlenty, in what many deem as an unprecedented use of the process, it might impede the success of Republican candidates running in 2010.
It's ironic that after the session ended Pawlenty sought the suggestions of the public, who in fact, pay the salaries of all those legislators, Republican and Democrat alike, to make decisions on our behalf, Republican and Democrat, alike.
The message from Pawlenty was that the legislature ended on time and would not go into a special session. But the end result is that we paid our representatives to get the people's business done and that didn't happen.
Would an Independent win in this anti-partisan climate? State Senator Terry Bonoff says both sides have "clear-the-field candidates." But, would they get endorsed?
Republicans are looking to balance the current Democratic tilt in the Minnesota Legislature, but it would seem Pawlenty did that with his Veto pen.
The novelty would be Ramstad running as an Independent. Would he get votes from the conservative Minnesota Republicans?
Right now the Legislature, big-city mayoral offices and the state's congressional delegation are all dominated by Democrats.
The state Republican pickings are pretty thin, according to Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College.
The Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidates begin with former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton to former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, who has already run one statewide campaign, to Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, so far the only woman to officially announce her candidacy.
Others, include House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, are all said to be weighing entry into the race.
Schier said in Twin Cities.com that "the GOP base active in party politics is more conservative than the state as a whole, and thus the endorsement process is "not reliably likely to produce a candidate who is electable statewide. "
Though it might be the Democrats' race to lose, at least one Democratic candidate warned against ruling out Republicans, pointing out that Democrats haven't won a governor's race since 1986.
Pawlenty painted a grim picture of DFLers controlling both the Legislature and the governor's office. But, if lawmakers proceed in 2010 to eliminate gubernatorial powers, a Republican Governor would be less able to overturn the tide of control.
In the meantime Pawlenty is getting ready to make $2.7B in spending cuts by July. Cities and organizations affected by the cuts are looking at the state statutes and a possible legal action against the Governor for abuse of power.
If there is a law-suit against Pawlenty, in what many deem as an unprecedented use of the process, it might impede the success of Republican candidates running in 2010.
It's ironic that after the session ended Pawlenty sought the suggestions of the public, who in fact, pay the salaries of all those legislators, Republican and Democrat alike, to make decisions on our behalf, Republican and Democrat, alike.
The message from Pawlenty was that the legislature ended on time and would not go into a special session. But the end result is that we paid our representatives to get the people's business done and that didn't happen.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
PrairieHOMEliving's PHL Politico Blog- Post news and opinions.
Guidelines-Comments seen here do not reflect the opinions of any advertisers or businesses. No foul language, bullying, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed to ensure that comments meet these standards. All viewpoints are welcome. Offensive Posts will be removed.
PHL Staff
Guidelines-Comments seen here do not reflect the opinions of any advertisers or businesses. No foul language, bullying, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed to ensure that comments meet these standards. All viewpoints are welcome. Offensive Posts will be removed.
PHL Staff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)