Saturday, July 04, 2009

Being an American means being an active critic of government from Scholars and Rogues

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/04/being-an-american-means-being-an-active-critic-of-government/

I am a citizen of the United States of America. In this country, I can criticize my government as intelligently, as profanely, or as stupidly as I wish. I can call the president of the nation an unintelligent, uninspiring, and incompetent leader — which I have done. I can call my representative in Congress a buffoonish party hack — which I have done — and urge his removal from office by the voters. I can attack the policies enacted by government at all levels as often as I wish.

I can assemble with others to complain about the government. I can petition the government for redress of grievances. I can practice a religion free of government interference. Most importantly, I have the right to speak my mind. I can say whatever I want about the government short of advocating violence against it. I am free to speak or write critically about the actions or inactions of my government.

I can be a critic of my government because for hundreds of years, hundreds of thousands of Americans before me fought and died for my right to do that.

In this young century, however, Americans have suffered increased assaults on their rights — especially privacy — by their own government, all in the name of the proclaimed need for "national security." Because of fear, government continues to attempt to foreclose on constitutional protections.

Government may erode constitutional guarantees in the absence of the watchful eye of the governed. Rights not exercised may become rights lost. It is an obligation of citizenship for Americans that they continually critique and comment on the actions of their government. That is how we shape our government. Failure to do so allows government to shape us and our rights instead.

At the moment, America has a slew of problems confronting it — record unemployment, a shrinking economy, two foreign wars, a two-party system run amok, and an enormous fiscal deficit, just to name a few.

As we toss the steak on the barbecue and watch the fireworks today, let's keep in mind the rights and riches we do have, the historical cost of attaining them, and the future risk of losing them if we fail to speak up when government displeases us.

Taibbi: Impending Rule Change Means Goldman Sachs Stock Manipulations Can't Be Tracked from Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/taibbi-impending-rule-change-means-go

Remember that Rolling Stone piece about Goldman Sachs I mentioned the other day? Here's another post from Matt Taibbi that should raise serious concerns about the stranglehold the company has on the economic markets:

thumb_mediumgoldman_3985b.jpg

"In a move set to infuriate and send many Zero Hedge readers over the top, the NYSE has taken action to make sure that nobody will henceforth be able to keep track of the complete dominance that Goldman Sachs exerts over the New York Zero Hedge Stock Exchange. This basically ends our weekly Program Trading updates disclosed every Thursday indicating that Goldman has singlehandedly captured all of NYSE's program trading."

-- Zero Hedge

I'm sorry I didn't post this earlier, but I urge readers to go over to Zero Hedge and check out this post about the NYSE's recent decision to change its procedures... to protect Goldman Sachs from bloggers like Zero Hedge!

This is complicated stuff (for people with no financial background, like me, it's nightmarish) and I have a longer thing about this coming out later. But the essence of this story is that Tyler Durden over at Zero Hedge has, for months, been complaining that Goldman has been manipulating the NYSE, in particular manipulating program trading in somewhat the same way (although perhaps not to the same extent) that they manipulated the commodities markets. In order to make his case -- and his theory has gained a lot of acceptance, to the point where Goldman had to respond to the allegations publicly -- he has been analyzing data the NYSE releases on program trading every week.

So what happened this week? The NYSE announced that it will no longer be releasing its weekly program trading data. This is quiet obviously a move designed to make it even more impossible to track what's going on in the NYSE and shield, in particular, Goldman Sachs. Let's hope there's a public uproar about this; Zero Hedge posted contact info for NYSE officials, and has urged readers to petition the exchange to restore the old rules in the name of transparency.

They plan to do this by July 10th, so it's important to call now. Let them know what you think of them making it impossible for anyone but insiders to know what's going on. From Zero Hedge:

This is a travesty, as well as a complete obliteration and a mockery of the move for transparency that the Administration, Regulators and Exchanges have been posturing they support.

We advise all readers to contact the provided staff on the memorandum and voice your incredulity with this brazen move to completely obfuscate Goldman's behind-the-scenes take over the world's biggest stock exchange.

Robert Airo, Senior Vice President, NYSE Euronext at (212) 656-5663 or
Aleksandra Radakovic, Vice President, NYSE Regulation at (212) 656-4144

Libertarian Freedom: Sarah Palin Lies Because.... from Open Left - Front Page

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14044/libertarian-freedom-sarah-palin-lies-because

Sarah Palin Resigns In A Mega-Blizzard of Lies--Revealing A Crucial Difference Between Libertarians and Liberals

It was a slow newsday, Friday before a holiday, so why shouldn't Sarah Palin suck up all the oxygen in five continents?  If only that stupid Michael Jackson fellah hadn't died the week before, she could have totally pulled it off.  As it was, she did pretty damn well for a couple of hours there.  Her big secret?  Same as it ever was: she lied.  Seven ways from Sunday.  She lied about being cleared in all the Alaska investigations; she lied about their cost; she lied about wanting to serve the people of Alaska; she lied about fulfilling her goals; she lied about people attacking her son Trig; she lied about being like a point guard; she lied when she said "and" and "the".  She spoke, therefore she lied.

Why does Sarah Palin lie?  She lies to get out of trouble; she lies to shift blame; she lies to get even; she lies to get ahead; she lies to hurt her enemies; she lies to amuse her friends; she lies to relieve boredom; she lies to have some fun; she lies because truth is bother; she lies as a key to strategy; she lies because she has no plan; she lies to confuse anyone trying to keep track; she lies to make sense to those not keeping track; she lies for power; she lies because lying works for her; she lies just for the hell of it; she lies because she can; she lies because that's how she expresses her freedom--a very libertarian idea of freedom, I might well add.

Liberals and libertarians are both about freedom, but their concepts of freedom are radically different, and Sarah Palin's compulsive, multipurpose lying is as a good a way as any to approach understanding the differences between them.

In sharp contrast, liberals characteristically express their freedom by telling the truth, inconvenient truths, as Al Gore put it.  Truths about racism and war, such as Martin Luther King told, when speaking truth to power. Truths about the social order and tradition that are not supposed to be said.
One way to clarify this difference is my old favorite, Robert Kegan's levels of cognitive development.  Liberalism has a natural affinity for level four, characterized by autonomy/self-authorship, stepping outside the level-three socially-constructed self and the world it knows, and passing independent judgment.

Libertarian freedom rejects that world as well, but it does so from a point of view of not understanding, of arbitrary rejection.  It does so from level two, the level at which one is one's point of view.  "You're not the boss of me" is its snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry.  Which is perfectly fine, for a twelve year old.  Twelve-year-olds lie a lot.  It works for them...or at least it seems to, for a while.  But then they turn thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, they start growing up, or at least most of them do.  Bit by bit they start learning to see the world from multiple points of view, until the day dawns when they no longer are their point of view any more.  Instead, they have a point of view, and that means they can have a mature discussion with others, each with their own point of view.

This is what Sarah Palin can't do.  This is why everything reduces to personality clashes with her.  From the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum, here's a view from John Bitney, a friend of Palin's from high school and one of the key people who helped her become governor, who subsequently was fired for becoming romantically involved with (later married to) the estranged wife of another close Palin friend:

When I ask Bitney what he makes of the whole Palin phenomenon, he sighs. "What do I take away from this?" he asks. "Oh, I don't know. I don't know. It's just a lot of emotions and stuff. I find it's frustrating dealing with Sarah, because it seems we're always dealing with emotional crap and we never seem to be able to focus on the business at hand that needs to be done. I don't know whether to blame her or pity her for all this emotional upheaval that we're always going through with her. Now we all get to listen to Levi and Bristol. Check my feet for horseshoes if I have to sit there and listen to another talk show. I got involved in helping her become governor because we needed to change some policy directions. Teen abstinence is not why I waved signs for her."

Kegan's explanation of level two consciousness, as I draw on it above, seems to me to be far and away the most parsimonious way to explain the upheaval that Bitney talks about, and that in turn seems the most parsimonious way to explain Sarah Palin in toto.  There's nothing wrong with level two consciousness per se.  It's just a stage of development.  Without it, one could advance to more sophisticated stages.

The problem comes in dealing with matters that are too complex for it, matters more complex than a twelve-year-old's world.  Such as high school.  Some folks do fine in high school despite being stuck in their twelve-year-old mindset.  This goes especially for those at the top of their cliques.  These kids don't have to learn their socialization lessons.  They don't have to learn to respect, or even understand the existence of other people's points of view.  It's up to others to understand them.

At one level, the character Cordelia Chase in Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is a perfect embodiment of this attitude, except for the fact that occasionally she lets slip that she's profoundly aware of her existential condition.  ("What, I can't have layers?" she says, in a somewhat different context.)  For Cordelia, other people exist only as objects.  They have no interiority, no point of view that she can recognize apart from her own.  If they agree with here, then they're cool, because they share her point of view.  They validate her.  Otherwise, she has no use for them.  Sound familiar?

Significantly, what spurs Cordelia to begin evolving is her lust for Xander despite the fact she sees him as a social leper, while he sees her as totally vacuous.  But that's a topic for another day.  Suffice it to say, some form of Force Majeure is needed to break out of this state for those arrested in it.

But Palin is utterly immune to Force Majeure--which is why she is such a mega-hero to her worshipful supporters.  Indeed, in her mind, she herself is Force Majeure.  And the same is essentially true of all pure libertarians.  Their simple grasp of essential truth makes them immune to everything else the world has to offer.  "Essential truth" confirms them in the splendid isolation of their own unquestionable point of view.

Level four liberals also elevate their individual points of view above the dictates of social convention.  But what differentiates them from level two libertarians is that they know what they are rejecting, and why.  Which means they often reject only partially or not at all.  One need not reject just because one can reject. They also respect that others may choose to reject or accept differently than they do.  The interiority of others is not the total mystery it is to level two libertarians.

As we celebrate this day of freedom, we would do well to reflect on how different the meaning of freedom is between level four liberals and level two libertarians.  They are not the only two positions in the world, to be sure. But they do constitute a sharp distinction, the contemplation of which can shed considerable light on both the profound truths and petty details of our shared political lives.

Tweet from Twitterrific

One of the best U2 stage pics I've seen yet: http://bit.ly/zRVyb
(maybe the best!)

http://twitter.com/atu2/status/2464143581


Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

What a fucking douchbag - NOW I REALLY CAN’T STAND VIJAY SINGH from With Leather

http://withleather.uproxx.com/2009/06/now-i-really-cant-stand-vijay-singh

If you put Kobe Bryant, Bengals owner Mike Brown, Andy Roddick and Brett Favre in the same room, my animosity toward that room might approach the hate that I have for PGA Bastard-At-Arms Vijay Singh. The Fijian made headlines in 2003 at the Colonial Tournament when he said that Annika Sorrenstam–agruably the greatest female golfer ever– "didn't belong" in a PGA event. And then he skipped the tournament while his little comrade Ernie Els came out and said what a great guy Vijay was. Sure, leave it to some ginger boy from South Africa to discount any sort of discrimination in a country club sport.

But now Vijay's really off his rocker–he has tried to bail out Allen Stanford, who defrauded investors out of $7 billion dollars. Allegedly.

Singh has an endorsement deal with Stanford Financial reportedly worth $8 million. Although no longer being paid, Singh has continued to wear the Stanford logo on his visor and shirt.[...]

"Vijay's opinion is that Stanford has yet to be proven guilty and until then has chose to act supportively," said Dave Haggith, a spokesman at IMG, the management company that represents Singh.

Vijay's reasoning: Allen's a great guy. I'm sure he is, Vijay. Great guys stand accused of ten-figure fraud all the time. I expected a little more from a guy that grew up on the side of a volcano.

|CBS Sports, via KOGOD|

Pennsylvania State Senator Refuses To Apologize For His Remarks About Gays: ‘We’re Allowing Them To Exist’ from Think Progress


During a June 19 radio debate, Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) repeatedly asserted that same-sex marriage is wrong, "dysfunctional," and would lead to "polygamy, marrying younger people." (Eichelberger is "sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.") But perhaps his most shocking comments came when fellow lawmaker Sen. Daylin Leach (D) asked him how gay men and women should be treated:

Leach: Should our only policy towards [same-sex] couples be one of punishment, to somehow prove that they've done something wrong?

Eichelberger: They're not being punished. We're allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We're just not rewarding them with any special designation.

Listen to excerpts of the debate here:

LGBT activists were incensed by Eichelberger's comments, calling on him to apologize for his "insensitive remarks." Yesterday, gay and straight protesters briefly met with Eichelberger, "after [he tried] ducking them twice." They presented him with 5,000 signed petitions asking him to apologize. Eichelberger refused to do so:

EICHELBERGER: You know, the public process is very important in this country. That's what my bill does. It allows the public to make a decision, which I think is a healthy thing. So I appreciate your support of at least that concept.

SPEAKER: So are you going to apologize to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people in Pennsylvania — and all the people in Pennsylvania for those comments about allowing to exist and calling them dysfunctional.

EICHELBERGER: No, I think you know my answer to that. Thank you very much.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9mk8qo-_Tk

John Morgan of the Pennsylvania Progressive, who was at the Eichelberger confrontation and captured the exchange on video, said, "The fact he knew we would be at his office at noon and chose not to be there showed his cowardice. It was not until we waited an hour and returned that his receptionist allowed us a few minutes with the Senator in an additional hour."

Eichelberger has said that his June 19 remarks have been taken out of context. ThinkProgress contacted the senator's office, asking for clarification and whether he would be issuing an apology. Chief of staff Jason High simply said that the Eichelberger "has already clarified his statement in multiple media outlets." He pointed us to a June 27 Altoona Mirror story. However, while Eichelberger repeatedly says that his comments are being misinterpreted, nowhere in that article does he shed any more light onto what he actually meant:

He [Eichelberger] said members of Keystone Progress have taken what he said out of context. He said Thursday afternoon he has no intention of taking back or apologizing for anything he stated during the discussion with Leach about heterosexual marriage, bigamy, polygamy, other different forms of marriage and procreation. … Eichelberger said Morrill and his group are purposefully misinterpreting his comment.

Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents, an LGBT blog in Pennsylvania, writes, "It is one thing to disapprove of my identity or believe it is a choice, but quite another thing to suggest that I am permitted to exist in spite of my identity. Should I be grateful to Senator Eichelberger for not condoning someone taking away my existence?"

The Underbelly of the Taste: Wasted Food, DPH Violations from MenuPages Blog :: Chicago

http://blogs.menupages.com/chicago/2009/06/the_underbelly_of_the_taste_wa.html

tasteofchicago_freeflight046.jpg

People tend to have strong feelings about the Taste of Chicago one way or another — for some, it's an unbreakable summer tradition, others wouldn't be caught dead within ten blocks of the lakefront for the entire duration of the festival. Add another reason for those Taste-shunners to feel superior about their abstinence: the Chicago Reporter notes that the Taste is responsible for an extraordinary amount of food waste, with more than a ton of food discarded at the 2008 festival — a four percent increase over 2007, and a 27 percent upgrade over 2006.

Why all the waste? Department of Public Health officials prowl the Taste, and require vendors to discard any food that doesn't make grade — so this is at least as much a commentary on the health and cleanliness habits of the restaurants as it is one of general wastefulness. For several years running, the number-one violator has been <Bacino's of Lincoln Park: over the course of 2007's ten-day festival, inspectors cited 11 violations leading to the discarding of 434 pounds of food — in just one single day, a DPH inspector ordered the disposal of 198 pizzas, claiming they were "detrimental to health and unfit for human food." Ew. [Chicago Reporter, via Merge]

John McCain Country - Arizona Moves to Oppose Obama’s Expected Health Care Mandates

from http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50304

By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


Arizona state flag
(CNSNews.com) - Voters in Arizona will decide next year whether residents will be subject to mandates in the pending health care reform that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promoting.
 
At least five other states – Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming – have considered proposals to take pre-emptive action against the pending federal mandates, but those proposals have either not made it out of committee, failed to get enough votes from one side of the legislature, or are still being crafted.
 
Only the Arizona Legislature introduced an initiative (HCR2014), which if passed, would amend the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option. Arizonans will vote on the initiative in November 2010.
 
"HCR2014 is proactive and will protect patients' fundamental rights," Arizona State Rep. Nancy Barto, a Republican, said in a statement. "We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions. Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here."
 
The main issue is the core of the Obama health plan – a government run or "public option" – to compete with private health insurers. Some state lawmakers fear such legislation would force residents to buy into the public plan.
 
"The eyes of the nation will be on Arizona next year to see what happens," Christie Herrera, director of the Health and Human Services Taskforce with the American Legislative Exchange Council, told CNSNews.com. "If this succeeds in Arizona, other states will take notice and push harder."
 
The Obama administration insists that the public option will provide another choice for Americans who are not insured or are unhappy with their current insurance and will force private companies to be more competitive.
 
Critics of the plan say private firms could not compete with a public option – with unlimited government resources – and thus would go out of business, leaving what is tantamount to a single-payer system in place.
 
What happens in Arizona could spur other states to pass similar laws or constitutional amendments, said Wisconsin State Rep. Lea Vukmir, a Republican, who sponsored similar legislation in 2008 that passed the House but failed in the Senate. 

President Barack Obama (AP Photo)
If the Obama administration's "public option" becomes law before Arizonans vote in November 2010, their initiative would still allow the state the challenge the Obama plan.
 
Vukmir said that the Obama proposal could be unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
                          
"I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment," Vukmir told CNSNews.com. "The Tenth Amendment has been eroded by Congress and the Supreme Court for decades. We have to ask, does the Tenth Amendment have any meaning? We are supposed to have strong state governments and a weak central government. That has eroded away."
 
Georgia State Sen. Judson Hill, a Republican, said that the Obama plan would put a big strain on state budgets and told CNSNews.com that he would be interested in introducing similar legislation in the Georgia state house.
 
Medicaid and S-CHIP payments to states already make cutting costs untenable for states in lieu of a benefit cut or tax hike, Hill said.
 
He has introduced legislation to use state medical grants to go directly to patients as a sort of medical scholarship. (S-CHIP is the acronym for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, run by the federal Health and Human Services, which provides matching funds to states that provide expanded health insurance programs for families with children in low- to moderate-income brackets.)
 
"I call them federal crack dollars," said Hill. "States get addicted to health dollars sent by the U.S. government."
 
Arizona's Health Care Freedom Act, firstly, establishes the right of state residents to spend their own money to seek and receive health care and, secondly, the right to choose not to participate in any health care system of any type.
 
An advocacy group was started to campaign for the amendment.
 
"Protecting the rights of individuals to be in control of their health and health care must be a fundamental component of health care reform, so the Arizona legislature is to be congratulated for giving all Americans the opportunity to make certain our voices are heard," said Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of the group Arizonans for Health Care Reform.

It Came from Wasilla - vanity Fair article about Sarah Palin

Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska's charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn't always jibe with reality. As John McCain's top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.

By Todd S. Purdum

rest at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908?printable=true&currentPage=all

Palin wrote an e-mail to friends pretending to be God: ‘Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.’ from Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/30/palin-god/

ap0810200236691 In a new article in next month's Vanity Fair by Todd Purdum, former McCain presidential campaign aides unload on former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, calling her a "Little Shop of Horrors," a "diva," and a "whack job." The exposé also reveals that Palin, in an e-mail to her friends announcing the birth of her baby Trig, pretended to play God:

When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig's condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God's, and signed it "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

Also, Purdum reports that Palin lied about not having insurance to show "she could empathize with uninsured Americans." Palin insisted that in her early years of marriage, she and husband Todd did not have coverage, when in fact they had catastrophic coverage. Palin "insisted that catastrophic insurance didn't really count and need not be revealed."

Monday, June 29, 2009

Workers Speak Out: Despite Calls for Reform, Wal-Mart Still Shortchanging Workers on Health Care

http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/workers_speak_out_despite_calls_for_reform_wal_mart_still_shortchanging_wor/

For years, we've heard hints that Wal-Mart might support a broad-based government health care plan. Now that health care reform is on the table, Wal-Mart is coming out in force to support it. One executive even wrote an op-ed in the The Tennessean recently about how:

Everyone must have access to quality, affordable health coverage, and businesses, individuals and governments must share responsibility for financing and managing a system that ensures we meet that goal.

But as you all know, Wal-Mart could have been helping the problem all along by putting some of its multi-billion-dollar profits into its health care plan.  At Wal-Mart Watch, we've heard for years from Wal-Mart employees that aren't eligible for the company plan, can't afford it - or have been somehow shortchanged by the plan. But there's no need to take our word for it - here's a sampling of what we've heard from real employees lately.

Is Wal-Mart serious about health care reform? Let us know in the blog comments below.

Wal-Mart's High Deductible Plans Are Only For Emergencies

I signed up for the Wal-Mart health insurance plan as soon as I was eligible, but after a few years, the price kept going UP UP UP and I had to trade down to the lower level insurance with a high deductible. Wal-Mart lies about its employees being insured under its plan. At my store, hardly anyone can afford to get the insurance. Some were on their spouse's insurance, some did without insurance at all, and some were on Medicaid.

When I was making just over $11 an hour, my insurance went from $170 to $240 every two weeks and I had to go with the lesser insurance, which really would only cover you for a catastrophe. Let's face it, you can't raise a family, let alone pay for health insurance and run a used car on $9 to $15 an hour like Wal-Mart pays its employees. Since I quit, I've found better insurance for about the same rate as I was paying for the inferior Wal-Mart insurance.

- Anonymous in New Jersey

I have insurance through Wal-Mart. It's not expensive - about $20.00 a month - but it has a high deductible and I can only afford to use it for emergencies. I can't afford to buy a plan with a smaller deductible because I can't afford to take $100.00 more out of my paycheck. Last year, they offered a plan like I have now, but with three doctors visits and a $20.00 co-pay. My 2-year-old is on state medical insurance because I can't afford to pay the high deductible on my insurance.

- Anonymous in Louisiana

Wal-Mart Health Care is Too Expensive, Employees Forced To Find Coverage Elsewhere

While working for Wal-Mart, I had to get health care coverage through a charity program connected to the Wheaton Franciscan health care system.  They pay 100% of my bills when I got to their facilities.  Their program has literally saved my life on a couple of occasions—once through surgery on my left foot and again when I had to have surgery to remove a cancerous tumor.  Thank God for these charity programs. Even though employees give their blood, sweat and tears to Wal-Mart, they won't do the same for you.  I had to be carried out on a stretcher with chest pains two years ago. I had a stress test, which thankfully came back negative, but I was told the chest pains were stress related. I wonder where the stress came from?

- P.F. in Wisconsin

I have worked for Wal-Mart for close to a year now and I have carefully read about all the different health plan choices they offer. To a person who makes a lot more than the average Wal-Mart employee, their plans might seem affordable.

My wife--who works for another company--makes three times more than I do and she only has to pay a fraction for comparable insurance. With over two million associates, half of them in the U.S., Wal-Mart should be able to provide much better plans than what they have now. For this reason, I'll stick with my wife's insurance.

- Anonymous in Illinois

Bankruptcy is the Only Way Out When Health Care Bills Stack Up

I worked for Wal-Mart for two years and paid for their health benefits. When I had to have surgery for a torn rotator cuff, Wal-Mart's insurance plan left me with $25,000 to pay out of my own pocket. The total bill was $40,000. I struggled to pay it off for a year and finally declared bankruptcy. Their health insurance is a sham and not worth signing up for.

- Carolyn Johansen

A Manager Confirms What We Already Know, Wal-Mart Plans Are Unaffordable

I have worked for Wal-Mart for three years as a Department Manager. I do have my insurance through Wal-Mart, and I don't think that it is very good. Unfortunately, the deductibles are high, and the coverage is very minimal. I see so many store associates who cannot even afford the insurance as minimal as it is...it's sad. I feel a company as big as Wal-Mart could make their insurance better and more affordable for all their associates.

- Anonymous Department Manager in Ohio

Posted by Eric Bull on Friday, June 26, 2009


How GE made billions from the bank bailout

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/29/how-ge-made-billions-from-the-bank-bailout/
By ProPublica
GE has long straddled the fence between banking and commerce — allowing it to profit from the federal bank bailout without falling under banking regulations. But as the Obama administration seeks to tighten financial regulation, the world's largest industrial company will have to make a choice.

General Electric, the world's largest industrial company, has quietly become the biggest beneficiary of one of the government's key rescue programs for banks.

At the same time, GE has avoided many of the restrictions facing other financial giants getting help from the government.

The company did not initially qualify for the program, under which the government sought to unfreeze credit markets by guaranteeing debt sold by banking firms. But regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the-scenes appeals from GE.

As a result, GE has joined major banks collectively saving billions of dollars by raising money for their operations at lower interest rates. Public records show that GE Capital, the company's massive financing arm, has issued nearly a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the program, which is known as the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, or TLGP. The government's actions have been "powerful and helpful" to the company, GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged in December.

GE's finance arm is not classified as a bank. Rather, it worked its way into the rescue program by owning two relatively small Utah banking institutions, illustrating how the loopholes in the U.S. regulatory system are manifest in the government's historic intervention in the financial crisis.

The Obama administration now wants to close such loopholes as it works to overhaul the financial system. The plan would reaffirm and strengthen the wall between banking and commerce, forcing companies like GE to essentially choose one or the other.

"We'd like to regulate companies according to what they do, rather than what they call themselves or how they charter themselves," said Andrew Williams, a Treasury spokesman.

GE's ability to live in the best of both worlds – capitalizing on the federal safety net while avoiding more rigorous regulation – existed well before last year's crisis, because of its unusual corporate structure.

Banking companies are regulated by the Federal Reserve and not allowed to engage in commerce, but federal law has allowed a small number of commercial companies to engage in banking under the lighter hand of the Office of Thrift Supervision. GE falls in the latter group because of its ownership of a Utah savings and loan.

Unlike other major lenders participating in the debt guarantee program, including Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase, GE has never been subject to the Fed's stress tests or its rules for limiting risk. Also unlike firms that have received bailout money in the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, GE is not subject to restrictions such as limits on executive compensation.

The debt guarantee program that GE joined is administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which was reluctant to take on the new mission, according to current and former officials who were not authorized to speak publicly. The FDIC also initially resisted expanding the pool of eligible companies, fearing it would add more risk to the program, the officials said.

Despite those misgivings, there have been no defaults in the loan guarantee program. It has helped buoy confidence in the credit markets and enabled vital financial firms to raise cash even during the darkest days of the economic crisis. In addition, the program has raised more than $8 billion in fees.

"The TGLP program has been a money maker for us," FDIC chairman Sheila Bair has said. "So I think there have been some benefits to the government and the FDIC."

For its part, GE said that it properly applied for and qualified for the program. "We were accepted on the merits of our application," company spokesman Russell Wilkerson said.

The Cash Cow

The current good fortune of General Electric, ranked by Forbes as the world's largest company, has roots in the Great Depression, when it created a consumer finance arm so that cash-starved families could buy its appliances.

What grew from those beginnings is now a powerful engine of profit, accounting for nearly half of its parent's net earnings in the past five years. GE may be better known for light bulbs and home appliances, but GE Capital is one of the world's largest and most diverse financial operations, lending money for commercial real estate, aircraft leasing and credit cards for stores such as Wal-Mart. If GE Capital were classified as a banking company, it would be the nation's seventh largest.

Unlike the banking giants, GE Capital is part of an industrial company. That allows GE to offer attractive financing to those who buy its products.

At the height of last fall's financial crisis, GE's cash cow became a potential liability. As credit markets froze, analysts feared that GE Capital was vulnerable to losing access to cheap funding – largely commercial paper, or short-term corporate IOUs sold to large investors.

Company officials projected confidence. "While GE Capital is not immune from the current environment," Immelt said in October, "we continued to outperform our financial-services peers." Behind the scenes, they urgently sought a helping hand for GE Capital. One key hope was a rescue plan taking shape at the FDIC.

The program emerged during a hectic weekend last October as regulators scrambled to announce a series of rescue efforts before the markets opened.

They found a legal basis for the program in a 1991 law: If a faltering bank posed "systemic risk," then the FDIC, the Fed, the Treasury secretary and the president could agree to give the FDIC more authority to rescue a failing institution. The financial regulators applied the statute broadly, so it would cover the more than 8,000 banks in the FDIC system.

The FDIC hurried to approve the program Oct. 13.

"This was crisis management on steroids," said a person familiar with the process. "A lot was made up on the fly."

The author of the systemic-risk provision, Richard Carnell, now a law professor at Fordham University, says it was intended to apply to a single institution, and that in their rush to find legal footing for unprecedented new programs, regulators "turned the statute on its head."

The FDIC launched the program Tuesday, Oct. 14, the same day Treasury officials announced large capital infusions into nine of the country's banking giants under TARP. That day, the FDIC also expanded its deposit guarantees to a broader range of accounts.

Within days, the FDIC held conference calls with bankers to explain the program. Agency officials explained that not all companies that owned banks were eligible. "The idea is not to extend this guarantee to commercial firms," David Barr, an FDIC spokesman, said during one of the calls.

A Broader Program

GE was watching closely. Though GE Capital owned an FDIC-insured savings and loan and an industrial loan company, they accounted for only 3 percent of GE's assets. Company officials concluded that GE couldn't meet the program's eligibility requirements.

So the company requested that the program "be broadened," GE's Wilkerson said. GE's main argument was fairness: The FDIC was trying to encourage lending, and GE Capital was one of the country's largest business lenders.

GE deployed a team of executives and outside attorneys, including Rodgin Cohen, a banking expert with the New York firm Sullivan & Cromwell.

"GE was among the parties that discussed this with the FDIC," along with the Treasury and Fed, according to FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray. He said the details about eligibility "had not been specifically addressed" in the beginning.

Citigroup, the troubled banking giant, also was pressing for an expansion of the FDIC program. Though Citigroup was included in the debt guarantee program, its main finance arm, Citigroup Funding, appeared ineligible. Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn wrote to the FDIC's Bair on Oct.

21, arguing that debt issued by Citigroup Funding should be covered "as if it were issued directly by Citigroup, Inc."

Two days later, the FDIC announced a new category of eligible applicants – "affiliates" of an FDIC-insured institution. Bair explained that "there may be circumstances where the program should be extended" to keep credit markets flowing. That meant "certain otherwise ineligible holding companies or affiliates that issue debt" could apply, she said.

GE Capital now was eligible.

Raising Billions

GE Capital won approval to enter the FDIC program in mid-November with support from its regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision. The company used the government guarantee to raise about $35 billion by the end of

2008. By the end of the first quarter of 2009, the total reached $74 billion, helping to cover the company's 2009 funding needs and about $8 billion of its projected needs for 2010.

Despite government support, GE lost its Triple-A rating for the first time in decades this year and was forced to sharply cut its dividend. But the outlook could have been much worse.

The debt guarantee program has "been of critical importance" to the fiscal health of GE Capital, said Scott Sprinzen, who evaluates GE's finance arm for the Standard & Poor's credit-rating company. He said the FDIC program enabled GE to "avoid an exorbitant price" for its debt late last year.

GE has not disclosed how much the company has saved because of TLGP backing.

Like other companies in the program, GE pays the FDIC fees to use the guarantees – a little more than $1 billion so far. But as Bair explained to bankers last fall, the fees, while "healthy," are "far below certainly what the cost of credit protection is now in the market."

Not every finance company has had that peace of mind. One of GE's competitors in business lending markets, CIT Group, a smaller company, has had a harder time raising cash. It has been unable to persuade the FDIC to allow it into the debt-guarantee program, at least in part because of its lower credit ratings. A recent Standard & Poor's analysis cited CIT's "inability to access TLGP" as a factor in the company's declining financial condition.

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration said it would seek to eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision and force companies like GE to focus on commerce or banking, but not both. That could require the industrial giant to spin off GE Capital.

Last week, Immelt said GE had no intention of doing that. "GE is and will remain committed to GE Capital, and we like our strategy," he said in a memo to staff.

In its proposal to overhaul financial regulation, the Treasury Department pointed out that some firms operating under the existing rules, including collapsed companies such as American International Group, "generally were able to evade effective consolidated supervision and the long-standing policy of separating banking from commerce."

GE's Wilkerson said the company generally supports regulatory reform but thinks that it should be permitted to retain its structure. "Bank reform has historically included grandfathering provisions upon which investors have relied, and there is no reason this settled principle should not be followed here," he said. He said the company "didn't have any choice" but to have OTS as its regulator.

The company also objects to the Treasury's proposal to force firms to separate banking and commerce because that issue "had nothing to do with the financial crisis," Wilkerson said.

Wilkerson said GE has remained profitable and avoided some of the exotic financial products that contributed to losses at other institutions. He also said that GE performed an internal stress test this year and found that its capital position was "quite strong by comparison to the banks."

The FDIC has been working to wean financial institutions off the program. The TLGP originally was slated to end in June, but at the Treasury's request the FDIC agreed to extend it until Oct. 31. Some participants have stopped using the program, but GE Capital continues to do so for the overwhelming majority of its debt.

Much of the $340 billion in debt will come due in 2012, the year the FDIC guarantees expire. At that point, known in banking circles as the "cliff," the agency would have to make good if companies such as GE are unable to honor their obligations. FDIC officials say they are comfortable that the agency has collected more than enough money to cover potential losses.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Tweet from Twitterrific

The "Supreme Leader" in Iran and Rush Limbaugh Have This in Common:
They Both Want America to Fail. See Two-Faced Image on BuzzFlash.com.

http://twitter.com/buzzflash/status/2338509712


Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Tweet from Twitterrific

Sean Hannity's Mentoring Relationship with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner, Who
FBI Just Arrested for Death Threats http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/8828

http://twitter.com/buzzflash/status/2328051625


Sent from my iPhone