Who needs an energy plan when Shell and Exxon already have one for us? We need more government by special interests, for special interests. Big Oil will continue to give lip service to alternative energies and place pretty flowers on their adverts but they will never, ever make a serious move beyond oil. Shell just posted the largest profit ever in the UK to the tune of $27.6 billion for 2007. How'd it work for you?
Instead of spending trillions to make a mess of the Middle East, isn't it time we spend some of that on building a long term energy plan? The GOP has no faith in the American ability to create something new and better but that should not stop others from moving down that path. Instead of giving tax breaks and free drilling rights to Big Oil, let's use that money to help launch the energy programs of the future. Some of the new ideas may not work and others will but anyone who doesn't believe in such possibilities really needs to step aside.
Government promises to rid the nation's food supply of brain-damaging pesticides aren't doing the job, according to the results of a yearlong study that carefully monitored the diets of a group of local children.
The peer-reviewed study found that the urine and saliva of children eating a variety of conventional foods from area groceries contained biological markers of organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.
When the same children ate organic fruits, vegetables and juices, signs of pesticides were not found.
The chemical industry always tells consumers (and Congress) that chemical can't pass on through the food chain. The fact is that this is simply not true. A key component of health care and maintaining health care costs is prevention. Are we going to get serious about this or will Congress continue to allow Monsanto and others to sell their chemicals regardless of impact on humans?
Of course...taxpayers. The middle class. Hell, let's just round up all of the bad debt from the war, the fools that tried get rich quick schemes with subprime mortgages, Wall Street executive payouts and then just send the bill to regular folks. Oh sorry, it's already happening. Naturally options for writing off losses by individuals is slightly more limited, with limits of only a few thousand dollars per year.
A $270 million annual deduction would save Bank of America something more than $100 million a year in federal and state income taxes. The long-term tax-exempt rate, which is based on Treasury rates and other things so complicated that they make my teeth hurt. The rate changes each year, Willens says, but not by much. When I asked how it's calculated, Willens, a master of tax arcana, threw up his hands. (Metaphorically, of course.) "It's like the formula for Coca-Cola," he said, "no one outside the circle knows it" and it's so complicated that, "no one else wants to find out."
I realize that an imploding middle class doesn't register for the likes of Paulson, former chief of Goldman Sachs, or the GOP Big Oil and Wall Street special interests, but it certainly impacts everyone else. Maybe, just maybe, Paulson and Bush were pushed back by Democrats in Congress who balked at the idea of more tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Gavel has a brilliant collection of quotes about the economy from Team Bush and stacks them up against real experts in the field. The Bush bunker lives another day! When they only listen to their friends at Goldman Sachs or Big Oil, it's no wonder Bush and Paulson fail to see the need for action. There's plenty of cake out there to eat, isn't there?
For anyone wondering if Bush will work with Democrats on the "economic stimulus" plan, this should remove any doubt. While this may be helpful (again) to big business, this does nothing to help average Americans. Haven't the GOP special interests pilfered the American system enough?
The decision to proceed with the four-month-old program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States, comes despite language in the recently signed catchall spending bill aimed at blocking it.
But the Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole in the new law, which prohibits the government from spending any money to "establish" the program. The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September.
Right. I'm sure he is struggling with whether or not to stick around for another term in the minority or accept the $1,000,000 per year position. Congressman Baker (R-LA) has followed the new procedures and filed paperwork with the House ethics committee as he talks to the increasingly power hedge fund lobby. The revolving door between Congress and wealthy lobbyists continues. Tell me again what the ethics and lobbying reform bill was supposed to do last year? The best democracy that money can buy.
For the second day in a row, oil hit the $100 point and today it broke through as high as $100.09 per barrel. While it may not have much of an impact on buying habits in America (that figure is probably closer to $120 or $130) breaking through a support level is big news. We may have a few more tests around this number but if it keeps testing and solidly breaks through, $120 may not be that far away.
Mission Accomplished. Cheney and the GOP special interests are enjoying the profits of their deep investments. For them, life is good.
Shocking. Who could even imagine the pharmaceutical industry being connected to such activities? At least we can be sure they will work with our new president in a fair manner when we overhaul the health care system.
The year 2000 delivered many new possibilities to friends of the GOP. A full food trough was just sitting there and many were puzzled, not quite sure what to do.
After the jump, a happy bunch who understood the full potential of a permanent GOP majority.
Mmmmmm, Iraq...oil, reconstruction contracts and security forces. Yummmmm. Post Katrina rebuilding. Delicious. Tax cuts for the richest Americans and send the bill to the middle class. You have what? No regulations for financial markets? Great! Just keep dishing out favors to millionaire farmers and throw in a splash of a dismantled consumer protection and we'll be set, for now.
It would be nice if things did not have to be this way, but this is the way the modern health care industry has evolved. The health care industry in the US is always there when it's time to collect money, but rarely around to help during the tough times. Republicans who pooh-pooh national health care because of wait times (an issue I have never personally experienced in France) can take a look at this health care wait time. Please explain.
It was a shocking, eye opening experience for me when my father was diagnosed with cancer in September 2001. Already facing costly annual premium costs, he was terrified to lose his life savings with expensive treatments. He had one doctor who suggested the possibility of joining a new drug testing program - for $25,000 cash, no insurance - but was turned down because he would not provide enough positive results for their tests. More on health care in America, after the jump.
The chemotherapy medication ultimately led to the sicknesses that caused his death (something that I discovered was not unusual) and he even had to deal with one charming doctor who stopped in mid-session because "he would not get paid" after my father started with hospice care. A real humanitarian, who joined the profession to help fellow man, no doubt and what a morale booster. While that particular doctor ranks lower than whale poop as a human being, it raised the bizarre and inhumane system that we have allowed. It's all about the money and very little about people. (Well, except the people profiting enormously at the top of this industry.)
The health care system here in France has it's problems and yes it's expensive. I would argue that even with taxes it is still cheaper than the system in the US. I have yet to hear a single person over here ever worry that they are going to lose their life savings because of an illness. Nor have I heard of people here complain about extended delays or insurance companies blocking critical procedures like this. Just last week the EU courts ruled that a patient from the UK could come to France to receive treatment because of UK delays, which I often hear about. All national health programs are not created equal.
Going back to the case of CIGNA denying a transplant, this poor family has to be furious. This was something that doctors said would save this girl and yet the damned insurance company was part of the problem. Who hasn't spent hours on the phone with their insurance company, wondering what they will and won't pay for? Why should people who are in need - and paying outrageous costs, to boot - be treated so poorly? This is possible because our political establishment allows this to happen.
With the economy and health care on target to be hot 2008 election issues, people need to step back and think about who is going to make a difference. The two issues are connected, because health care increasingly is a very big and powerful industry that has much too much control over our lives. From a personal economic perspective, this is costing Americans both in terms of co-payments for coverage not to mention co-pays for actual visits. Costs are going up and look at the return on investment that people are receiving. Are we really seeing any value for that investment?
Americans are always told how great the US system is but the facts say otherwise. What's so great about adding these worries to patients when they are already going through the stress of a life threatening illness? Is this tangled mess really becoming of a great nation? It's clear that it pays pretty well for the health care industry, but as a consumer, who really likes this system?
I am looking forward to hearing CIGNA executives take the stand in front of a jury. Let them explain to all of us how this system works and why they refused treatment to a dying girl. It's time this industry is held accountable but more importantly it's time America makes changes that benefit people and not just business. Who knows...maybe if John Edwards doesn't win the nomination, he will do for health care what Al Gore did for global warming.
Leave it to a Bush-led EPA to shoot down efforts to clean up the environment. Only a GOP team could pull off such a ridiculous stunt, using the old "we would really like to have a better system, so let's not take any action until we get there" routine. Please. This administration has no interest whatsoever in doing anything positive about the environment. Big Oil and Detroit might not like it. The Bush plan is to push the issue into the Washington bureaucracy and let it die on the vine, with a little help from dinosaurs such as Rep. Dingell (D - General Motors.)
Maybe our next president will care about an EPA that is focused on the environment and not polluting special interests. If only trees and air could pay lobbyists... If only we had a democracy that was actually about people and not the most powerful lobbyists.
As we head into 2008, what will the critical election issue be? Will it be health care or more the economy, or perhaps some of both? As much as I hear about the health care issue, I remain skeptical about the US voters wanting real change. Everyone talks about the issue, but then the next comment is something about how bad the "socialist" health care system is in Canada or the UK. This tells me that the Democrats continue to do a poor job explaining the issue, while the health care powers continue to do a great job of spreading fear. As I have said many times, I've used both the US and the French system and there is no way I would ever go back to the current system in the US. Even with taxes, it's much cheaper and better in France.
Krugman asserts here that health care is the pivotal issue in 2008 and that Edwards is the only person that can bring real change. While I tend to agree that Edwards is the only leading candidate who can bring change on this issue, I would also extend that and say he just might be the only leading candidate who can tackle the bigger issue of moving the country back to the middle. (More on the special interests after the jump.) I wholeheartedly agree with Krugman that the special interests, whether in health care or big business in general, will not just sit down and have an easy discussion and give up power. These are groups that sink millions upon millions of dollars into the lobbying system. Look just what happened a few weeks ago when the Democratic member of the FCC cooled off on the idea of competition within the cable TV industry. Look at the complete lack of action that we have witnessed from Congress on so many issues. It's nice that we are moving the Big Auto industry into the 1980s, but is this really a great accomplishment? Is this the best our political leaders can do? Is this what they consider compromise?
In recent years, including during the Clinton administration, we moved so far to the right in favor of every business special interest, "compromise" like we have been witnessing is just one baby step after another. Big deal, we moved the auto industry a few steps, though still decades behind the auto industry around the world. Yippee. It is precisely this kind of compromise that makes America a less competitive nation. China must be shaking in their boots.
Like Krugman, I have serious doubts about Obama taking on these special interests via consultation and simple discussion. And Hillary? I love the fight that she can deliver, heaven knows we could have used a more combative attitude in the build up to Iraq, but it didn't quite work out that way, did it? We could have used a strong voice even in recent months on critical battles in Congress (issues that are important to Democrats such as privacy, rule of law, etc) but she was occupied with her presidential campaign.
The special interests dominate DC and yes, they do rule the day. How many of us believe this is actually a good thing? Our traditional political leadership seems unable or unwilling to take any action without asking these groups for a hall pass to visit the bathroom. That goes for both sides of the isle.
Nobody is saying we need to trash the system and start over, but we are kidding ourselves if we think the powerful lobbyists will help American find a middle ground. Edwards is saying that to expect the powerful groups to give up that power (that they bought and paid for!) is "fantasy" and I completely agree. Groups and people use the power that they are given. We have handed over much too much power to business across the board in recent years and it's time to start taking some back.
Pick any special interest...Big Food, Big Auto, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Health Care...and ask yourself if their agenda matches your own personal/family agenda. Is it advantageous to have factory farms that continue to churn our e. coli and salmonella breakouts? Have we seen any changes in the policies that led to the problems? How about the price of gas at the pump? Any help from the Senate there? Those banking charges that pile up every month? How are they working out? Do you really see tremendous benefits from paying higher charges? What great benefits and cost savings are you seeing from your health insurance company? Lower costs?
I am for any Democrat that can defeat the GOP next year but I also want to see a Democrat that can bring real change and not just a change of party name. I like the big three Democrats and each candidate has qualities that will be good for the country but I do wonder which of those three will be a force for change. Which will move us back to the middle and offer fairness for average Americans? Who do you think can do this and will they be up for the task? Propping up special interests is soooooo 2007.
I'm definitely listening and looking forward to hearing more. Edwards is spot on when he says that others are crazy to think we can just have a friendly chat with the special interests and find a workable solution for average Americans. When was the last time anyone saw Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc. negotiate with any moderation? I can't think of such a time either though I can easily think of the increasing costs to consumers along with the jumbo compensation plans across these industries. I can also think of the weakening benefits to average Americans during the same time as executive benefits have moved into the stratosphere. Discrepancies like this used to be limited to the US in 1900 or today in the developing world, but oh how times have changed.
Pumping more corporate welfare to Big Oil, as the GOP just did last week, is not helping average Americans. While it's great for Lee Raymond and Dick Cheney (who sees no problem with the ongoing high gas prices) the benefits to everyone else are nowhere to be seen. More after the jump... Moving away from old energy sources are critical to America's future, not to mention our national security. If the US can somehow round up $1.5 trillion for war in Iraq, how is it possible that we can't locate money to promote alternative energies? Which option is better for normal Americans over the next few decades?
Much more needs to be discussed but at least Edwards is talking about the middle class. It would be nice if the other candidates could reach out and join the debate about what their plans are for the rest of us. Hillary and Obama are both in the Senate who just voted overwhelmingly to help out people caught up in the subprime fiasco. They also are in the same Senate that cowered in fear of Big Oil and did not manage to tax that free-loading bunch last week. It's great that they are focused on change for 2008, but what about now? Isn't that why they are sitting in the Senate today?
OK, since those handouts were so easy, what's in it for the middle class who received nothing other than an indirect request to fund others? That's what the Senate just did last week, regardless of how they spin it. If Hillary and Obama have any issues with either of those handouts, let's hear about it. If there are no issues, great, tell me what's in it for everyone else? Keep the gravy train rolling and give us all a big present. If neither Democrats or Republicans can show any financial responsibility, break the bank and give us more. It's not as though they're counting anyway.
