KitKat noticed it a while back and it hasn't abated.
Long-time sufferers of CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) are breaking out in spontaneous recovery all over this land.
Pick any random day and a cursory web scour unearths another pundit concession that those awful Clinton years (that peace! that prosperity! who could stand it?) were better than they'd let on.
This may get people mad at the Republicans, but then again, voters may take it out on the Democrats for not getting the economy going.
"Unemployment Extension" was the second most popular Google search in the last hour. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
For your neighbor's sake, for the economy's sake, for the country's sake, please contact your Senators (especially the Republican ones, and Ben Nelson from Nebraska) tonight and tomorrow and urge them to approve unemployment extensions before they leave for their 4th of July vacations.
(UPDATE: The Hill just reported the Senate began to vote on this just now, Wednesday evening. Please contact your Senators...)
If you or anybody you know was laid off after June 1, 2009, you know unemployment benefits have been unexpectedly cut off. (Technically, a second extension to benefits has unexpectedly failed to pass in the Senate.)
The House has already passed a bill to enact a second extension of benefits to the group laid off in this time period (laid off after June 1 2009.) The bill is stuck in the Senate.
Many people laid off earlier than June 1, 2009 received four extensions to their unemployment benefits, totaling 99 weeks. In contrast, people laid off after June 1, 2009 received one extension.
Many valid arguments can be made as to why unemployment benefits should not be extended. But what people do not understand is the surprise cut off.
No matter how much this week's Pulitzer Prize triumphalism hides it, the fact remains that journalism these days is "a disaster," as Ted Koppel said recently. And unfortunately, retrospection dominates the news industry's self-analysis. Like dazed tornado victims, most media experts focus on what happened and why, oh Lord, why?
The queries are important, though just as critical are two prospective questions: 1) If, to butcher a Chinese aphorism, every crisis is an opportunity, then who is making an opportunity out of journalism's current crisis? and 2) Are those opportunity maximizers actually parasites destroying journalism for the long haul?
The answer to the initial question is three groups, starting with the Access Traders. These are reporters like the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter and NBC's Chuck Todd, who, while covering politics for major media, are also signing separate contracts to write books chronicling White House gossip. Facing a crisis in audience share, these correspondents' employers encourage the double-dip opportunities, hoping book exposure will result in residual attention. But the simultaneity is problematic: As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz notes, hard-hitting stories in these reporters' day jobs "might alienate potential [book] sources and flattering ones might loosen tongues."
The dynamic's deleterious effect on journalism is obvious.
...
Kudos to Sirota for daring to take on journalists on his own side (the problem has spread way beyond Fox News.) His full column on this is here.
Anyone else scratching their heads, wondering if this health insurance bill is actually a really really good one, you just aren't seeing the magic that surely must be driving the fawning praise that greets it from so many corners of the media?
It's possible some of us just aren't seeing the magic.
Or -
It's possible some media outlets are unconsciously (or consciously) skewing coverage to gain (or sustain) access to high-level sources. They may be practicing one or more methods of Access Journalism.
Access journalism refers to the compromises journalists must make in order to have access to sources and places that would be denied them, were they to offend those who control access.
Her name is Marcia Angell and she was on Bill Moyers Journal last Friday evening. She was the editor of New England Journal of Medicine.
Here are some pullquotes from her interview:
What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform.
And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they're regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they'll do that.
[According to CBO Congressional Budget Office] It will take money out of Medicare and put it into the private sector. Medicare is the source for a lot of the funds that are going to go to subsidize the private health insurance industry.
Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies' products for whatever they charge. Now that's a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.
While Obama is on C-Span right now saying the recent insurance premium increases that made headlines mean we must pass his healthcare bill now, Angell says when this passes premiums will go up even faster, and she uses her home state of Massachussettes as an example.
So yes, there are things in it. But the bill as a whole, the more I look at it, the worse it gets. It's going to increase costs, not decrease them. And it's going to increase the rate of growth. It's not going to bend the curve, except in Medicare.
Where have we heard these deadlines before? "By Summer" "By Christmas" "In Two Weeks" "Not Before Easter" (April 4 2010.)
The White House announces the Health Care Insurance billwill pass by [Summer/September/Holidays/Christmas/New Years/Mid March 2010]; shortly after, quietly, Dems in Congress leak the votes are not there, that the bill will not pass before [September/New Years/Easter 2010/Jan 1 2011/Jan 2012.]
This week the president spoke to a small audience of doctors and nurses and many television cameras, and shouted that:
- the time for debate is over.
- deliberation has gone on long enough.
- the health "care" bill [ed note: health insurance bill] must pass
This article's a good one. It sort of aims at an Independent audience. The candidate who recognizes and acknowledges/validates this "reckoning" first will win. Let's hope that candidate is a Dem, who will restructure by strengthening our annuities (Social Security, Medicare) instead of labeling them "entitlements."
It's not a staff issue that is causing the President's political deflation. And it's not a communications issue (as in: if only the Obama Administration communicated their ideas better, everything would be okay). It's not even a political issue; the GOP doesn't have a national act to speak of and Democrats continue to hold solid majorities in both Houses of Congress. The Obama Administration's problem is narrative.
Specifically, the Grand Narrative of our time is The Reckoning and the Restructuring. The Reckoning is all this debt coming home to roost. The Restructuring is what we're going to do about it.
The Reckoning is plain for all to see. Consumers are broke, companies are reeling under massive debt loads, and the US government is underwater as never before.
Skip past the right-wing framing, and stay with him...for he's getting to a point (a point that could be re-cast to favor big-D Democrats) ...
(CNN) - President Obama is taking heat from a Senate Democrat over how he dealt with the issue of health care in his first State of the Union speech.
"I think the president should have been more clear about a way forward on health care last night," Sen. Mary Landrieu told reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday. "I'm hoping in the next week or two he will be, because that's what it's going to take if it's at all possible to get this done."
"Mailing in general suggestions, sending them over the transom is not necessarily going to work," the Louisiana Democrat added.
Obama didn't address the signature issue of his first year in office until about halfway through the 71-minute speech, and then only discussed it for about five minutes. But he urged Congress not to abandon the effort that now appears in limbo following the Democratic Party's recent loss of its supermajority in the Senate.
"Do not walk away from reform. Not now," Obama said. "Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."
Landrieu, one of the last members of her party to agree to the final Senate health care bill, also suggested the president erred in allowing three separate Senate and House committees to pass various versions of the bill.
"As far as I know, the president thought it was a good idea to have three different bills debated," she said.
Anyone out there with experience running a small business, what do you think of this idea? It was proposed by Chuck Schumer (D - NY) and Orin Hatch (R - UT).
By CHARLES E. SCHUMER and ORRIN G. HATCH
Published: January 25, 2010
Washington
WITH the national unemployment rate at 10 percent, and more than 15 million Americans looking for work, ideas to spur job creation are at the forefront of everyone's minds. While we may represent different political philosophies, we recognize that high unemployment - particularly long-term unemployment - is not a liberal problem or a conservative problem; it's a national problem that takes a huge toll on families.
The idea for some sort of jobs tax credit is percolating again, but the jobs credit that existed in the late 1970s was of limited success, and it was excruciatingly complicated. Recalling this experience, members of Congress from both parties have been lukewarm to such a credit, and the idea was dropped from the stimulus package last year.
We have an idea that is simple, straightforward and easy to explain and administer. In fact, it is so simple that the legislative text of the proposal is only a few pages long - a rarity when it comes to tax policy.
Here's the idea: Starting immediately after enactment, any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days will not have to pay its 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the duration of 2010. The Social Security trust fund will then be made whole with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget between now and 2015. That's it. Simple to understand, and easy to explain.
If we remain resigned and demoralized the bad folks will keep winning.
It's tiring, and the press will not cover this book as much as the other ones, but if we could bring it up in conversation, or on blog posts every once in a while, who knows, we might do a little bit of good. /Stepping down from soapbox.
(There's an old union saying that only the companies that earn them have them. As a non-union employer who offers sound benefits, I'm offended that this compromise divides working Americans, and targets only the non-union employers who offer union-like benefits, in other words, the most responsible companies. - promoted by Pacific John)
Bummer. Well big labor raised attention on so-called "Cadillac" health plans, so named because they are expensive, not because any plan necessarily has benefits any different from any other health plan.
It took two days of wrangling behind closed White House doors under the demanding gaze of big-labor bosses, but President Obama won a major health-care victory yesterday.
The same can't be said of America.
The deal in a nutshell: a big, fat wet kiss for labor unions, which won exemption from a proposed 40 percent tax on on expansive private health-insurance plans until 2018.
Meanwhile, those with generous plans that are not the product of collective-bargaining agreements get to pay beginning immediately.
It's not people with "generous" plans; it's people with expensive plans. This means the elderly, workplaces with an average employee age over 39, people who are women, people with children.
We've heard a lot about how tough it can be for people to buy health coverage directly from insurers. They can be charged more if they're older, sicker or female. You might think that if your employer provides your health insurance, you're immune from all that.
Well, it may surprise you to learn that how much you pay can have a lot to do with what your co-workers look like.
Looking at my paycheck, there's a long list of taxes and deductions: Social Security, Medicare and a little money toward my retirement. The biggest deduction of all? My health insurance premium - it's a whopping $600 a month for a standard Blue Cross HMO plan for my husband, my toddler and me. My employer kicks in another $1,000 for a grand total of $1,600 a month.
Even though her employer deducts a portion of her premium from her paycheck, it seems to be standard practice for the employer to pay a large portion of the premium for the employee.
Let's read NPR's explanation of "Older Workforce Means Higher Premiums" ->
A special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat is very soon and the Republican candidate has shockingly pulled even with Democratic nominee Martha Coakley in the polls.
In perfect timing, this Washington Post story is published that says "national" party strategists are blaming Coakley for being uninspiring.
Isn't it funny how these leaks of critiques from "party strategists in the state and nationally" come just before election day. It's almost as if these strategists are not strategizing for her to win, but to cover their own behinds or buck up their own pride.
You could see this one coming. As soon as a local poll on the Massachusetts Senate race showed the Republican dead even among likely voters with Democratic candidate Martha Coakley (now MA's Attorney General), you knew there would be leaks blaming Coakley for not conducting an inspiring or smart campaign.
WaPo story is here. This peculiar behavior of Dems-leaking-spin-that-damages-a-Dem-candidate-close-to-election-day appears to be a pattern. Recall that close to election day for both Democratic NJ Gov. John Corzine and Democratic VA Gubanatorial Candidate there were leaks, or sometimes direct quotes, from the White House blaming said candidates.
The White House is involving themselves in many upcoming governor races, such as:
- Colorado, in which they asked Governor Vitter to not run for re-election.
- Michigan's Democrat governor is also not running for re-election and the White House is recruiting his replacement candidate. Also,
- the White House infamously tried to pry David Patterson out of running for re-election in New York many months ago, but Patterson leaked the pressure to the papers and the White House backed off.
In the last days of the losing Corzine re-election campaign for NJ Governor, the White House was screening campaign ads for the NJ Governor.
Also, curiously, allies of Obama in New Jersey were leaking reports to the press that Corzine "was going to be asked to step aside" to make room for other Democratic pols to take his place:
At the same time, rumors persisted that Corzine, who was widely unpopular, was going to be asked to step aside and be replaced by either Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) or Rep. Frank Pallone (D). The White House never asked Corzine to step aside, sources close to the governor said. But rumors leaked by the Booker camp and advisors to Pallone left that impression, thereby making the Democrat's reelection battle that much more difficult, the source said.
This is not a Republican talking point, SEIU's own Andy Stern came up with this phrase to explain the fallacy of the "Cadillac Tax" on insurance plans with premiums exceeding $8,400 per year.
The Senate-passed bill would establish a 40 percent tax on the cost of health insurance policies above $8,400 for individuals and $23,000 for families (the cost below those thresholds would not be taxed). Some people, such as police officers, firefighters and others whose insurance is expensive because they hold high-risk jobs would be exempt.
One problem with that approach, Stern said, is that approach presumes the high premiums are equivalent to excellent benefits, which is not always the case partly because of the widely varying costs of medical care and cost of living in different regions of the country. Some people pay "Cadillac costs for Chevy benefits," Stern said.
An alternative to basing the tax on premiums is to base it on the value of benefits. In addition, the cost threshold could be raised and indexed to inflation so it affects fewer people in the future and existing policies under existing union contracts could be exempted for longer than the Senate bill would allow.
MSM reportage implies only union members have such "Cadillac" plans that would be taxed 40%. Not so - your plan is a "Cadillac" one simply if it's expensive enough. If you're paying high premiums for base-level coverage, you have a "Cadillac" plan that will be taxed at 40%.
Almost makes you wonder who the manufacturer of these scanners is. Is there one manufacturer or are there many? Who are the lobbyists for this company? And how much money do they stand to make in the wake of the Christmas day terrorism hysteria they no doubt benefit from?
Are we repeating the debacle of Florida 2000 by rushing to embrace and purchase expensive, clunky "technology" before asking if these machines will solve the problem before us?
(The fig leaf when UHC was killed in '93 and '94 was that the states would be able to experiment, "50 laboratories." Well, SF looks like one that the "serious" people should take a close look at. - promoted by Pacific John)
Unlike the health insurance bailout bill being hashed out in Congress, San Francisco's near-universal healthcare plan a) keeps health care affordable to the middle class and b) does not force citizens to purchase insurance from private companies.
Healthy San Francisco (HSF) is not perfect or glamorous. For example, customers seeking care outside the city are on their own and must pay out-of-pocket. Small businesses with 20 or more employees were required to pay extra taxes. Also, financial constraints mean the plan needed to roll out slowly; they just opened up enrollment to people making up to $54,150, though officials hope to open HSF to all income levels by the end of 2010.
But it does make health care affordable and it does focus on care; it is not an insurance plan. One of the concepts that would have enlightened our national debate was that of requiring each HSF customer to begin at a "medical home" - or home base medical clinic or hospital where the patient's primary care checkups are performed. This is designed to begin the cycle of preventive care, cut down on Emergency Room visits and ideally control costs.
HSF is, hands down, one of the best healthcare bargains anywhere. For individuals earning less than $10,830 annually, the program is free. For everyone else, basic enrollment is $20 to $150 per month (versus $409 for the average California insurance premium), with rock-bottom copayments: $10 for primary care visits, $200 for hospital admissions, and $5 to $25 for medications. The fees are so low, in fact, that at times I've felt like I'm duping the system.
(Sound too good to be true? Recall: they've cut out the insurance companies.)
"Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. When you stumble, keep faith. When you?re knocked down, get right back up. And NEVER listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."
Hillary Clinton - June 7, 2008
