From Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest:

Are you still unemployed? Obviously it is because you are lazy. At least, many members of Congress think so, anyway.

And besides, cutting the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is much more important than paychecks for Americans. The solution to the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is to cut back on things that help the American public.

Here is Senator Gregg on CNBC (Senate salary $174,000, see benefits below**), saying that unemployment checks mean people are "encouraged not to go look for work" and "don't want to go look for work."

[...]

So remember, the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- has to be brought down and the way to bring down the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is to cut back on things that help the American public, and cut back on the investments in infrastructure (the seed corn) that bring future economic growth.

But not to do anything about the cause of the deficits: tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases.So if you are unemployed, just remember, in Washington the people who put $13.89 trillion at risk to bail out the big Wall Street firms, $4.71 trillion disbursed with $2.01 trillion still outstanding, think this is because you are lazy.

**Senate benefits:
Along with earning salaries, senators receive retirement and health benefits that are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service. Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of their salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under CSRS was $60,972, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $35,952.

Thanks for clearing that up, Dave. For a moment there, I thought it was because we live in an oligarchy and our assigned places have been moved to the bottom of the ladder.

Now that I know it's our own fault, I'll try to do better.

My mom and a few others I know who remain dumbfounded by Sarah Palin's appeal have voiced concerns to me that Palin may have presidential ambitions, and scarily enough, succeed. To be honest, I've never felt that was a serious concern, because Palin has never appeared interested in doing actual work--just look at her bailing out on the Alaskan governorship--more than exposure and fame and the riches associated with that. Guess what, Mom? Looks like I was right:

Pundits can debate the political costs and benefits of Sarah Palin's decision to step down as Alaska governor, but the monetary advantages of leaving her $125,000-a-year public service post are beyond dispute.

Since leaving office at the end of July 2009, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee has brought in at least 100 times her old salary – a haul now estimated at more than $12 million -- through television and book deals and a heavy schedule of speaking appearances worth five and six figures.

But you don't get to that income level without expecting some serious accomodations for your work. Palin's demands--uncovered by some enterprising students at CSU* Stanislaus, who found part of her speaking contract riders in the garbage, awaiting shredding--are perhaps not ludicrous as removing all the brown M&Ms but certainly do indicate a tendency towards the diva.

1) Sarah Palin is scared of real questions from real America. Audience questions must be pre-screened: ""For Q&A, the questions are to be collected from the audience in advance, pre-screened and a designated representative... shall ask questions directly of the Speaker."

2) Palin needs two bottles of water near her lectern. And "bendable straws are to be placed in or near the wooden lectern." Presumably for drinking the water, but they could also be used to illustrate vividly the horns of the devil as he congratulates Obama on Obamacare.

3) Like much of America, Palin likes to be transported in large vehicles: If she's not being flown first class commercial from Anchorage, "the private aircraft MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger." As for ground transportation: "transportation will be by SUV(s) from a professionally licensed and insured car service. If SUV(s) are not available, black town cars may be substituted"

4) Sarah Palin needs three hotel rooms: "A pre-registered one-bedroom suite and two single rooms in a deluxe hotel." One of those hotel rooms is just for her folksy sayings. Another is for if she needs to personally apply advanced interrogation techniques to any terrorists she comes across.

The mainstream media is focusing on her bendy straw fetish, because it's the most innocuous. I wear lipstick too. I get the straw thing, and bendy straws prevent the straw from falling too far into the water bottle. Whatever. What gets me is that they don't blink an eye over the folksy hockey mom demanding Lear jets and first class accommodations for her and whatever entourage with whom she travels. Nor do they mind her insistence on pre-screened questions. All that elitism from the pitbull with lipstick and they focus on her not wanting to smudge it.

However, there are some who find her speaking demands some cause for concern. California Attorney General Jerry Brown wants to make sure that California taxpayers aren't ponying up for Palin's lavish lifestyle:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown said Tuesday his office had launched an investigation into the finances of a state university foundation and the alleged dumping of documents related to Sarah Palin's upcoming speech at the school.

Brown also intends to look into whether the California State University, Stanislaus Foundation violated public disclosure laws. "This is not about Sarah Palin," Brown said in a prepared statement. "The issues are public disclosure and financial accountability in organizations embedded in state-run universities."

Matt Swanson, president of the foundation board, did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment about the investigation. [..]

The document, dated March 16, does not include compensation details for Palin, who commands speaking fees as high as $100,000. Her appearance at the university gala is expected to draw a large crowd, with tickets selling for $500 each. Palin's fee and accommodations will be covered entirely by private donations, not state funds, Swanson said earlier in the day.

The students who found the document said they acted on a tip that documents were being shredded when campus staff members were supposed to be on furlough.

*corrected (h/t acoustichobo)

The Wall St. Journal with a look at rising student loan defaults. One physician who borrowed $250,000 for medical school now owes $550,000 - thanks to penalties and interest:

To be sure, Dr. Bisutti's case is extreme, and lenders say student-loan terms are clear and that they try to work with borrowers who get in trouble.

But as tuitions rise, many people are borrowing heavily to pay their bills. Some no doubt view it as "good debt," because an education can lead to a higher salary. But in practice, student loans are one of the most toxic debts, requiring extreme consumer caution and, as Dr. Bisutti learned, responsibility.

Unlike other kinds of debt, student loans can be particularly hard to wriggle out of. Homeowners who can't make their mortgage payments can hand over the keys to their house to their lender. Credit-card and even gambling debts can be discharged in bankruptcy. But ditching a student loan is virtually impossible, especially once a collection agency gets involved. Although lenders may trim payments, getting fees or principals waived seldom happens.

Yet many former students are trying. There is an estimated $730 billion in outstanding federal and private student-loan debt, says Mark Kantrowitz of FinAid.org, a Web site that tracks financial-aid issues—and only 40% of that debt is actively being repaid. The rest is in default, or in deferment, which means that payments and interest are halted, or in "forbearance," which means payments are halted while interest accrues.

The real kicker with this doctor? "The entire balance of her federal loans will be paid off in 351 months. Dr. Bisutti will be 70 years old."

Bad system. One good way to counteract profit-centered health care in this country would be for the U.S. government to underwrite medical school instead of having student take out these onerous loans. The creditors say most medical students repay their loans on time, but I wonder: How many of them are practicing assembly-line medicine to make those payments?

I found this in the comments over at Corrente and wanted to share it:

Insurance companies reserve the right to make changes to their formularies at any time, but are supposed to notify you and allow you one month's supply of your current drug in order to give your medical provider the opportunity to "pre-authorize" your access to said drug. Your doctor cannot simply write a letter saying "I'm the doctor by god, and I want the patient to have this drug". No, he must provide evidence that he has "stepped" you. Stepped means that he/she has tried you on "approved" A, B and C drugs to little or bad results first.

Now, A and C may no longer be on the formulary, so they don't count, so he/she has to find out what approved drugs are on the formulary so that he/she can say that they have been tried and if that is true, or he/she will say it is true, then it will go to the Pre-Authorization department.

If the PA department can't sort it, say because your diagnosis does not fit neatly into what the insurance company says the drug can be used for, albeit that it works for what ails you, the application goes to the in-house pharmacist. The in-house pharmacist (average salary $90,000 per annum) will make the final decision based on following company guidelines and keeping his/her job. If the decision is that you get the drug, then said drug will be approved for you as "off formulary", moved to class 3 and if your co-pay was $25.00, it will now be $60.00 or more.

If the drug is not approved, then you will be properly stepped with the ineffective, approved drugs before your pre-authorization can be reconsidered. After you have been stepped, the drug will still be off formulary and the co-pay will still be increased. It sucks and I am so sorry.

Signed Anguished in the PA Department - United Health Insurance Inc

(Disclosure: I'm working with Brave New Films on their Sick For Profit campaign, exposing insurance industry practices. Check us out on Facebook.)

The New York Times published a very nice press release from the desk of Humana, one of the nation's largest health insurance companies. The reporter interviewed a bunch of employees at Humana, all of whom were horrified to see themselves depicted as "villains" in the health care debate. I agree with Yves Smith, this is an absurd angle for a story, an extreme example of selection bias. The people who work at Humana probably have a sense that their employer, um, pays their salary, and thusly, what's good for the employer is probably good for them. Similarly, most people hold a favorable opinion of themselves just as a matter of getting through the day. Not to mention the fact that their understanding of the functioning of Humana is limited to their job description. It is not possible to gain much of a perspective on the health care debate or industry practices by asking a midlevel manager "Do you think you're the worst person alive?"

Since when is it legitimate, much the less newsworthy, to get a company's perception on its embattled status, at least without introducing either some contrary opinion or better yet, facts, to counter the views of people who will inevitably see what they are doing as right? I hate to draw an extreme comparison to make the point, but staff in Nazi concentration camps also thought they were good people. It is well documented that for all save the depressed, people's assessments of their own behavior is biased in their favor.

There is some revelatory stuff in the article, however. David Sirota flags one employee saying that Humana believes in keeping down costs by "controlling utilization":

Now, I know we're supposed to think that private for-profit health care companies don't ration care, while government-run programs like Medicare do - but as the insurance industry admits right here for all to see, that's just not the case. The obvious truth is that the health insurance industry works hard to "control utilization" - that is, it works hard to make sure that when you need a costly medical service, you are "controlled" (read: prevented) from getting it.

Sure, we're all against excessive testing - and there are good ways to deal with those inefficiencies. But that's not what the insurance industry is talking about. It is talking about its practice of rationing care - and now that reality is right there in black and white for all to see.

The truth of the matter is that many of the charges that insurance companies like WellPoint level at the public option and regulatory changes sought in the health reform bill mirror accepted industry practices. WellPoint, which emailed its own customers yesterday attacking the Democratic plan, claimed that health reform will “increase the premiums of those with private coverage.” Yet WellPoint routinely hikes their own premium prices by close to double digits annually, leading to ever-increasing profits. The email stated that millions of Americans would lose their private coverage and be forced onto a government-run option if the Democratic bill passed (nothing could be further from the truth); yet WellPoint routinely uses the practice of rescission to drop their own customers from coverage if they ever try to use it, and they've admitted they would continue doing so unless forced to stop by law.

The email is an example of the astroturf practices from the industry, including, no doubt, pitching to the New York Times a story putting the human face on insurers. Many of these astroturf efforts spring from the same sources as the corporate lobby groups activating the tea party protests at town hall meetings throughout the country this August. They're trying to change the subject, away from facts, like how they're spending less of their premium revenue on medical care over the years, from 90% in the early 1990s to around 80% today. Or how they use rescission and pre-existing condition to make profits off cherry-picking the healthy and denying everyone else care. House and Senate leaders have requested more and more information about insurance company practices; Dennis Kucinich has joined that effort. But the insurance industry, while nominally siding with reform, wants to keep the focus on efforts against it, in service to de-fanging it.

DOWNLOADS: (1761)

PLAYS: (19049)

Embed

There's no shortage of wingnuts out there, so why would George Stephanopoulos invite on someone too crazy for even Bill O'Reilly? Only people with a Malkin brain would believe and push across the notion that Americans would rather collect three hundred dollars a week on unemployment insurance rather than get a job that supplies benefits and pays a salary.

Yea, because there are so many jobs available, people will just wait until the insurance ends and then immediately get hired. I'm sorry, where are all these jobs again? On ABC's THIS WEEK Malkin made this bogus claim. A quick Google search uncovers that when Michelle claims Larry Katz once said that the benefits could discourage people from seeking employment, Katz actually said just the opposite during our current financial mess:

Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard.

For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. “Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can’t find work even if they are hustling to look,” he said. With the economy still listing, he added, a temporary extension can provide a quick fiscal stimulus. And, Dr. Katz said, when people exhaust unemployment and health insurance, many end up applying for disability benefits, which become a large, unending drain on the Treasury.

It does help to fact check what conservatives say.

Malkin: If you put enough government cheese in front of people they are just going to keep eating it and you're just kicking the can down the road and just to hammer this point about the unemployment benefits extension again it was Larry Katz, who's a chief labor economist under the Clinton labor department who came out with a study and there are a lot of these economists who say this that if you keep extending these "temporary" unemployment benefits you're just going to extend joblessness even more.

Stephanopoulos: I don't know if I follow that though

Malkin: That was a Clinton economist who said it George...

Stephanopoulos: Choosing to take the unemployment benefits when a job is available?

Malkin: Seventy nine weeks already and then they're going to extend it by another thirteen weeks and what happens is according to these economist who have seen it including this Clinton economist is that people will just delay getting a job until the three weeks before the benefits run out.

Tucker: Well, that might be true when there are jobs out there that are available, but there are very few jobs available at the moment so I don't think people are using that unemployment benefit to be lazy instead of going out and searching for jobs...

Malkin: I'm not making a moral judgment, it's an incentive problem.

Tucker: But when businesses advertise the few job openings they have, they'll advertise twenty openings, they have six thousand applicants so I don't think that's the problem...

Hunt: If Starbucks were hiring, suddenly you'll see lines around the block. Anecdotally George, I have a kid who has some friends from college and many of them don't have jobs and boy, they are looking.

Stephanopoulos: And there are other states especially that are hard hit.

I know she probably worked on her government cheese talking point for a while, but it makes no sense except if we've all turned into little mouses now. With unemployment so high, where are the jobs that people are not bothering to take that bears any of this out? There's good money to be made in wingnutland, so she can attack Americans just trying to stay afloat by receiving unemployment compensation. I never realized how wonderful not having a job is.

Continue reading »

In a political and judicial climate where secretiveness and obfuscation seem to be the order of the day, it's nice to see a score for sunshine and openness.

Contra Costa Times:

The salaries of government employees in California, including police officers, are a public record and must be available upon request to "ensure transparency," the state Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Monday.

"Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in a 30-page opinion, ending a lawsuit the Contra Costa Times filed more than three years ago against the city of Oakland.

Justices found that government employees should not have an expectation of privacy about their gross salaries even if disclosure of the information "may cause discomfort or embarrassment."

The justices wrote that police salaries must also be made public except in narrow circumstances "where an officer's anonymity is essential to his or her safety," the decision states. The justices affirmed that police cannot use broad claims of officer safety to make blanket denials of salary information.

The ruling overturns a 2003 appellate court decision involving five cities in San Mateo County where employee unions blocked the release of salaries to the Palo Alto Daily News.

"Monday's court ruling put Priceless in its rightful place. It's a great win for the First Amendment," Keane said.

(Guest blogged by Logan Murphy)

That's the number former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney will be sporting in federal prison for the next thirty months.

Yahoo:

Former Congressman Bob Ney reported to a federal prison Thursday morning to begin serving a 2 1/2-year sentence for corruption, a fall from grace spurred by gifts from now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

As inmate No. 28882-016, Ney's lifestyle will be more austere and his wardrobe mainly khaki.

The six-term Ohio Republican who once drew a $165,200 annual salary will be getting a wage of 12 cents to 40 cents an hour, depending on his prison job. Movie nights will be in a high school-style auditorium with 1,300 other inmates. He'll sleep on a bunk bed in a room for 12.

Ney pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy and making false statements, admitting he traded influence for golf trips, campaign donations and other gifts arranged by once-influential lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates.

Let's give Bob a warm C&L send off, shall we?

It's not politics or media, but I do think it says something about our culture and our priorities.

Independent UK:

David Beckham rejected the chance to sign for the Italian giants Milan and Internazionale as well as Marseilles and Lyon in France before he opted yesterday for the best commercial deal at Los Angeles Galaxy and a staggering £128m (US$250M), five-year contract.

[..]Beckham's salary will top the entire current Major League Soccer (MLS) salary package where clubs have to disclose their salaries. In LA Galaxy's budget, their lowest earner is on $11,000 [£5,650] - the equivalent of a couple of hours' work for Beckham.

Is there anybody for whom you could justify a $250 MILLION dollar paycheck? And to play soccer, which while admittedly growing in popularity, is not that big a money-maker in the US?

What is wrong with us that we pay athletes so very much?

THE NEWS BLOG: Is Bush aware Hezbollah is a Shia army? He should be. And are the rest of us aware oil hit $78 a barrel yesterday? The Head Heeb has more...

The Daily Howler: As Upton Sinclair said, it's hard to get people to understand something when their salary (or their professional standing) depends on their not understanding it.

The Poor Man Institute: Welcome to Wingnut Nation

Booman Tribune: When torture isn't good enough

Welcome to Pottersville: Assclowns of the Week...Infalibility Edition

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Philosoraptor... Cutting to the Chase...Manual for Democracy....
Perrspectives