If you haven’t heard it yet, the following is the audio clip of a the prank caller (Buffalo, N.Y., blogger Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast) pretending to be billionaire conservative businessman David Koch in a lengthy conversation with Gov, Walker that not only revealed the latter’s strategy to cripple public employee unions but left no doubt to whom the Governor answers.  

Hopefully Congress will be able to make it home some time before January 4th.

It’s also now obvious to almost everyone that the “monied interests and political mercenaries” are running the show.  Equally obvious is the fact that health care reform, government regulation ( banking industry, EPA), Social Security and Medicare are at the very top of their hit lists.

And, if it’s not true that the plutocrats are calling the shots,  it certainly appears that way.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Eggen reported on the influence of “outside entities” on the budget process this past Wednesday.  He wrote:

    “The leaders of President Obama’s deficit commission sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle Wednesday for proposing broad cuts to federal programs.

    But the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has also come under attack for its unusual approach to staffing: Many of its employees aren’t employed by the panel at all.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors’ organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission’s two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.

    Bruce Reed, the panel’s executive director, defended the staffing arrangement as fiscally responsible and said the staff includes a broad range of views. Other staffers paid by outside entities include an analyst from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and a Clinton administration official who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    “We’ve got wonks from across the spectrum who have been working on this issue for years,” Reed said. “Every possible voice from left, right or center has a voice on the commission.”

    But Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the commission’s staffing structure is “unprecedented” and casts further doubt on its fairness.

    “Taxpayers fund the commission and they should work independently of Washington lobbyists and power brokers,” Kennelly said. “This is the type of shenanigans that average Americans are so upset about right now – that money talks and everyone else is left out”

If you ask the average American citizen, “who in Washington do you trust to reform Social Security?”,  you would probably receive the answer, “no one.”   And they would have more than a few reasons for feeling that way.   It is very hard for most Americans, myself included,  to understand  why an “entitlement program”  which is  funded by a clearly designated tax  (FICA) is always one of the first programs that gets offered up on the political sacrificial alter when the discussion involves federal budget cuts.

“Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, leading some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.


While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.


“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Soon-to-be-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is on record supporting similar changes to Social Security, as is Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and rising intellectual star of the House Republican Conference.”

Well I think that this is as good a place as any to conclude part one of this series.  


Talk to you soon

—-
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation blog

One of the speakers, also a member of the Board of Directors, was Carly Fiorina.  By this time, she had served at Lucent Technologies.  (Her tenure there is examined by Scott Woolley in an 10/15/2010 article for Fortune entitled, “Carly Fiorina’s troubling telecom past.”) She had completed her run as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (1999-2005), a period when she was considered one of the most powerful women in business.  Her accolades included making the Forbes list of the thirty most powerful women in America (2001) and the description as the “first woman” to lead a Fortune 20 company. After she resigned and wrote her book, Tough Choices, Fiorina picked up a stream of speaking engagements. She appeared at a 2006 women’s business conference where I was present, offered as a role model for women in business. There was a subtext implying that sexism can sabotage women when they get up into the ranks and play with the big boys.

At the in 2008 event, she was billed as the CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises.  Her presentation included a lot of business jargon, mixed in with information about how creating opportunities for those in need would help create a market for “us.”  She referred to it euphemistically as “enlightened self-interest.”  For those who may not have caught the core of what she was suggesting, she reaffirmed that helping women become self-empowered was beneficial because, “It’s good for us.”  “Us” cut a wide swath, which I construed to include the West, the United States, and American business.

Shorty afterwards, she signed on as the “economic spokesperson” for the John McCain campaign.  When I would see her appearing on news shows as a talking head, I would recall that day. Her repeated gaffes took center stage, from her suggestion that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin had the smarts to be a CEO of a major corporation—to the bag of worms addressing health insurance coverage that pitted Viagra vs. birth control pills.  By 2009, Condé Nast Portfolio had listed Fiorina as one of “the 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time.”

Now, having won the California Republican Senatorial primary—with the help of $5.5 million of her own money—Fiorina has positioned herself as the one to straighten out California’s fiscal problems.  Some people are looking at her past performances, as well as her currently held opinions, for what type of Senator she would be.

As the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina laid off 30,000 people.  When she left the company, she received $21 million in severance pay.  She opposes Net Neutrality, a woman’s right to choose, and same-sex marriages.  She supports the death penalty and the Arizona immigration law.

When Californians focus in on the election, just sixteen days away, they will need to parse out who Carly Fiorina is and what she stands for.  As someone who ascribes to the philosophy of doing “what’s good for us,” it’s important for the state’s voters to determine if they would fall into her category of “us”—or “them.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.



The reason for the trip was my son’s sixteenth birthday.  He’s interested in history, and in that town, there’s plenty of it.  The top spots of the “old city” were jammed with throngs of visitors.  It was fascinating to see people connecting with the origins of their government.  There was a kind of gee-whiz Capraesque awe about what it took to get this country off the ground.

The guided tours of Independence Hall and Carpenters’ Hall (the meeting place for the First Continental Congress) offered plenty of information on the Founding Fathers.  Without a doubt, they were a contentious lot—each convinced that their point of view had the greatest validity.  Alexander Hamilton led those emulating the British model and a strong central government.  Thomas Jefferson supported the French prototype, with an emphasis on states’ rights.

Ironically, front and center in one of the exhibits was the James Madison quote of 1788 stating, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  Somehow, I don’t think that will be on a Tea Party placards anytime soon.

A testimony to the American experiment in democracy took place on March 4^th, 1797, when it was time to transfer executive power from George Washington to John Adams.  Foreign dignitaries voyaged to Philadelphia to witness the event. Foreign dignitaries voyaged to Philadelphia to witness the event.  Their primary objective was to see if the young nation could successfully change leaders without violence, or falling back to the “born to rule” system.

For me, the most moving exhibition was at the new Liberty Bell Center.  The famous artifact has been rehoused, surrounded by information and learning panels that deal honestly with America’s growing pains.  It is explained that in the 1800s, the Abolitionists gave what was then known as the State House bell the new appellation, The Liberty Bell.  It was a name that stuck, and those fighting slavery promoted it as a symbol of the contradictions between the ideals and promises of the Revolution—and the reality of four millions slaves on American soil at the outset of the Civil War.
One hundred years after the Declaration of Independence, during the Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia on July 4, 1876, Susan B. Anthony endeavored to read the Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States at the proceedings.  Forty-four years later, the suffragettes used the image of the Liberty Bell in their campaign for the right to vote.

During the month of September, I felt emotionally deflated with the ongoing news story about Terry Jones and his “International Burn a Koran Day.” In the past century, our country has been through low points before. The finger pointing at Japanese-Americans and their ensuing internment, the McCarthy Era, and the ugly epithets screamed at black children trying to attend schools are nadirs that come to mind.  Pastor Jones can trace his misguided religious demagoguery straight back to Father Coughlin’s incendiary radio shows of the 1930s.

Yet, despite it all, the underpinnings of our country’s principals remain a beacon throughout the world.  That’s why visitors from Nelson Mandela to the Dalai Lama have paid homage to the Liberty Bell and the values that it stands for.

When others invoke the name of the Founding Fathers to support their specific ideologies, I’ll choose to think of the Liberty Bell and its Biblical inscription (Leviticus 25:10):

“Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

From “Baker’s Dozen About Obama” by Ellen Keim

Here are thirteen of my “Obamic” impressions, for what they’re worth:

First of all, I hope people can separate what they think of Obama–either his track record or the man himself–from the historical fact of his presidency.

Second, I can’t even imagine how much pressure he feels to be the best for fear that he may ruin the chances for another black candidate.

Third, I never thought he was the “Messiah” as some did, so I never expected him to be super-human. Some people are getting disenchanted because they expected perfection and instant gratification.

Fourth, I don’t think people are giving him enough credit for what he has done, either because they don’t agree with it or because it isn’t their pet project.

Fifth, he hasn’t been President for all that long. Considering the messes he inherited, we should expect fixes to take longer than a year.

Sixth, I don’t think we have seen the positive effects yet of the way he has reached out to the Muslim community around the world.

From Marcia G Yerman, “Thoughts for a New Decade: What I Wish for Women“

As we move into a new decade, I can’t help looking over my shoulder at all the things I would like to leave behind.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender. Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color. Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

From Margaret, “Free Speech and Corporations“:

Over the weekend, I posted a link on my Facebook page to a Keith Olbermann commentary on the SCOTUS decision that was issued on January 21, 2010. Now, I’m not a fan of Olbermann as a general rule, but I found what he had to say pretty much nailed what has me concerned about this decision. I don’t often publish anything on Facebook that is politically oriented, but I feel as if this decision has such far-reaching implications that it transcends “politics” and really has the potential to impact my daily life. In short, it scares the living crap out of me.

And from Onedia Hayes Sylvest, “Lifting the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy — Those Arguments Against Sound Familiar“:

I am a retired navy commander. I retired in 1994 just after the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy was begun. I thought it was insufficient then and I thought the reasons for taking such a half-baked (read another word there) stand was a little brass short of what it should have been. I also heard lots of reasons (and some of those are being repeated now by such people as John McCain) that sounded remarkably familiar.

When I first entered the Navy women did not have pants in their uniforms, they had to leave the service if pregnant, their husbands could not be claimed as “dependents” without proof that the navy woman provided at least 51% of his monetary support. We did not have top ranks or positions, there were no women with stars on their shoulders and we were denied access to many jobs/skill areas solely because of our gender. Women could not serve on ships or on aircraft and the primary reasons offered sounded almost identical to those I heard in 1993 and that I am hearing now.

I know that I served with gays and lesbians in the navy. Most were talented and dedicate. Some were not or even disruptive. However, neither the talent and dedication nor the poor performance and disruptive behavior were caused by their sexual preferences. The same traits and performance were equally present in both heterosexual and homosexual service people. In those days if you wanted to get someone eyeballed by the chain of command then feed the rumor of homosexuality. In my early days many people even assumed that women in the military were probably lesbians and if not they were either looking for a husband or were not of good moral character. The environment bred, I think deliberately, some level of hostility to any who did not fit the accepted image of what a sailor, CPO or officer should be. In the 70′ the primary targets were women and homosexuals.

This is just a sampling of what women are saying.

Want to read more? Why not join us and make your voice heard.

It might have been the Clinton or the Bush (41& 43) administrations that got us in to this economic mess. And the policies of the Obama administration may be: correcting the problem; making things worse; simply applying a band-aid to a knife wound; or, all of the above. Your view of today’s economic news will probably depend on how you’re affected by it and your political affiliation. But one thing is true. Wall Street may be recovering but the average American is still maneuvering on a slippery slope.

Less than two months ago U.S. President Barack Obama stated that all signs indicated that the economy was starting to grow and financial markets were starting to work again. But while sending an encouraging message to Wall Street he did add the caveat that employment statistics did not indicate improvement and, in fact, could get worse over the next couple of months. This was the message that the President reiterated today.

No one should be surprised by today’s announcement that unemployment has reached 10.2 percent.

Columnist Lynn Sweet reported on details provided by the Department of Labor:

“In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 
million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, 
the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in 
December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, 
and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 per-
cent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult 
women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and
Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment 
rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was 
little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of 
unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.

The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month 
at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in 
October, falling to 58.5 percent.

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes refer-
red to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3 
million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been 
cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

About 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in October, 
reflecting an increase of 736,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and 
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. 
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in 
the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 808,000 discouraged workers in October, 
up from 484,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Dis-
couraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe 
no jobs are available for them. The other 1.6 million persons marginally attached 
to the labor force in October had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding 
the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.”

Add to these numbers: the millions of workers who lost a job and replaced it with a lower paying one; the millions whose salaries have been frozen for a few years; the millions of retirees who lost a large portion of their retirement savings when the market crashed; the millions who lost a substantial amount of the equity in their homes: and, the Social Security recipients who will not get a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in 2010, and many Americans are still wondering when things will get better for them.

However, while many Americans are holding on by a life preserver the banking industry is preparing to throw them an anchor. Yes, the financial markets are definitely working again and working in the same old way.

Earlier today, Megan Woolhouse of The Boston Globe reported:

“Credit card companies are rushing to increase interest rates to historic highs of more than 30 percent, cut credit limits, and add new fees, even for customers who pay their bills on time.

Lenders are making the moves in advance of tougher federal regulations for credit cards scheduled to take effect on Feb. 22. The new rules will limit how companies can modify credit card agreements, specifically prohibiting them from retroactively raising interest rates and fees on existing balances.

US Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Financial Services Committee and is a leader in the effort to revamp credit card policies, said banks have ‘abused’’ the nine-month period granted them to re-tool their practices.

‘I didn’t think they would be as blatant as they were about doing this,’ he said. ‘There’s no justification for raising rates retroactively. This is really just a way for them to make more money.’ “

And by the way, have you noticed that gasoline prices are inching up?

Ok, I’m not going to say, “I told you….”

No I’m not going to say it. If you’re reading this blog, I’d just be preaching to the choir.

Related posts:

Bill Moyers’ Interview with Bill Black and How They Got Away With It

Saying “No One Saw This Coming”, Just Doesn’t Ring True.

Why So Many American Want Wall Street & The Banks to Suffer
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

Health care costs wouldn’t be so high and there wouldn’t be so much concern about the cost of a public health care plan if so many Americans weren’t so sick.

Right?

On Monday, the New York Times reported on the hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic waste being dumping into the nation’s water supply by coal-fired power plants. In the article, “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of the Waterways“, Charles Duhigg reported:

“For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the nearby coal-fired power plant, which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards. Five states — including New York and New Jersey — sued the plant’s owner, Allegheny Energy, claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain.

So three years ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys, trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of waste water containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

‘It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead,’ said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility’s pollution regulations. ‘We can’t escape.’

Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce their air emissions, many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.”

If the air pollution caused by coal-fired plants has already been linked to chronic asthma and COPD, just imagine the result of ingesting large quantities of the same toxins in your drinking water.

In an article for Care2.com, Melissa Breyer reported on the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease.

A study by eminent oncologists Dr. Leonard Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden concludes that there is a link between “the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup, marketed by Monsanto), to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer.”

The following video clip is from the documentary “The World According to Monsanto” which took an in-depth look into the bio-chemical companies impact on agriculture, the environment and health.

And while we’re discussing Monsanto we certainly can’t forget their efforts to bury the truth about rBGH (bovine growth hormone) in milk.

There are many, many more instances of links between toxic waste and disease but I think that you get the picture.

Corporations have been dumping toxins in the water, air and food supply with impunity. The American public has grown sicker which has in turn driven up health care costs. Health care insurers are profiting from this illness. And now the corporate lobbyists and insurance industry spin machine are waging a full scale assault on health care reform.

Dear Members of Congress and President Obama,

if you really want to reform health care please take a comprehensive approach to this problem. How can you not pass health care reform with a public option when the government agencies which were supposed to protect the environment, agriculture and public health have failed us so miserably.

The previously cited New York Time article shows that the Riverhead International Coal Plant in Macon GA has been cited for 124 violations, paid $0 in fines and hasn’t been inspected since 1979. 1979 – 30 years ago.

Let the teabaggers and birthers rant, rave and spread lies about “death panels” but don’t give in to the insanity.

Americans can diet, exercise, visit the doctor and take all the pills we want. But if the biochemical and power industries continue to poision the air, water & food, we will grow sicker and sicker. Health care costs will both bankrupt consumers and increase the federal deficit. And in the end, we will die. Those without health care coverage will just die much quicker.

Congress must pass health care with a public option and if you want to reduce costs take on the corporations that have contributed to this crisis. Fine them. Shame them if you have to. Expose them for the greedy, heartless profiteers that they have become.

How dare Wellpoint sue the State of Maine to ensure that it is guaranteed a profit!

Enough is enough.

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation