We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Archive for December 21st, 2011

Truer Words Never Spoken

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:47 am by HL

Truer Words Never Spoken
Well, one cannot say that all truth has been removed from politics.

Well, one cannot say that all truth has been removed from politics:

My favorite part is Wolf Blitzer stating he could not understand what the man called Gingrich. Such language is so foreign to Blitzer’s virgin ears…he certainly is known for his smarts.


Late Late Night FDL: White Wine In The Sun
Tim MinchinWhite Wine In The Sun.

Tim MinchinWhite Wine In The Sun.

What’s on your mind?


Krugman Deems PolitiFact ‘Useless and Irrelevant’

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:46 am by HL

Krugman Deems PolitiFact ‘Useless and Irrelevant’
The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com is supposed to be a neutral referee in the mendacious political arena, but a decision to side with Republicans on 2011’s “Lie of the Year” has Paul Krugman pronouncing the fact-checking organization dead. PolitiFact decided that Democrats were wrong to claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare. Here it explains: Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies. Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” But that’s not a lie, according to Steve Benen: “Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different—a voucher scheme. It would still be called ‘Medicare,’ but it wouldn’t be Medicare.” In the previous two years, PolitiFact singled out Republican claims that the health care bill would create death panels and amounted to a government takeover of the health care industry. Krugman, in a post titled “Politifact, R.I.P.,” argues that the fact checkers are overly concerned about the fallout from picking Republican lies year after year: “[T]he people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other. So they’ve bent over backwards to appear ‘balanced’—and in the process made themselves useless and irrelevant.” (Hat tip to PoliticalWire.) —PZS

The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com is supposed to be a neutral referee in the mendacious political arena, but a decision to side with Republicans on 2011’s “Lie of the Year” has Paul Krugman pronouncing the fact-checking organization dead.

PolitiFact decided that Democrats were wrong to claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare. Here it explains:

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

But that’s not a lie, according to Steve Benen: “Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different—a voucher scheme. It would still be called ‘Medicare,’ but it wouldn’t be Medicare.”

In the previous two years, PolitiFact singled out Republican claims that the health care bill would create death panels and amounted to a government takeover of the health care industry. Krugman, in a post titled “Politifact, R.I.P.,” argues that the fact checkers are overly concerned about the fallout from picking Republican lies year after year: “[T]he people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other. So they’ve bent over backwards to appear ‘balanced’—and in the process made themselves useless and irrelevant.”

(Hat tip to PoliticalWire.)

—PZS

Related Entries



Barbara Boxer’s Transportation Bill Would Drop Environmental Criteria In Much-Touted TIFIA Loan Program

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:45 am by HL

Barbara Boxer’s Transportation Bill Would Drop Environmental Criteria In Much-Touted TIFIA Loan Program
NEW YORK — A bipartisan transportation bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer would dramatically expand a federal program that finances “innovative” transportation projects. But in…

Joe Peyronnin: Ebenezer Boehner
As Christmas approaches, millions of Americans face a tax increase because Republicans want to defeat President Obama more than they want to help the middle class. Bah Humbug!

Newt Gingrich Tells Gay Iowan To Vote For Obama
Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama….

Gary Johnson Quits Race For GOP Nomination
Presidential candidate Gary Johnson is dropping out of the race as a Republican, and will instead seek the nomination of the Libertarian party, according to…

Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition For Americans?
Lost in the noise over the National Defense Authorization Act’s detention provisions were some equally disturbing rules regarding the transfer of terrorist suspects to foreign…


Limbaugh And Fox’s Doocy Embrace Gingrich’s “Dangerous” Plan For Judges

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:44 am by HL

Limbaugh And Fox’s Doocy Embrace Gingrich’s “Dangerous” Plan For Judges

Some right-wing media figures have rushed to embrace Newt Gingrich’s plan to impeach judges, subpoena them to testify before Congress, and abolish federal courts with which he disagrees. However, as even most conservatives have noted, this plan is “dangerous” to checks and balances and almost certainly unconstitutional.

Gingrich Proposal: Subpoena, Arrest, Impeach Federal Judges

Gingrich Position Paper Calls For Impeaching Judges When They Get Out Of Line. In a position paper on Newt Gingrich’s campaign website, Gingrich explained his plan to “[r]estore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.” This plan called for Congress and the President to work together to impeach and remove federal judges who they feel “refused to adhere to the legislative limitations on jurisdiction.” [Newt.org, 10/7/11]

Gingrich Position Paper Suggests That Congress Should Abolish Federal Courts When It Disagrees With Their Decisions. From the position paper on Gingrich’s website:

A good place to start correcting federal judges is in Texas. This past June, a federal district court judge in West Texas issued an extraordinary judicial order that threatened local school officials with going to jail if they failed to censor the content of a student’s speech at a high school graduation ceremony.  Such oppressive and tyrannical behavior from a sitting federal judge is not constitutional and has no place in America. Congress would be well within its power to impeach and remove this federal judge from office, or failing that, work with the President to abolish his judgeship.

[…]

The Constitution vests Congress with the power to create and abolish all federal courts, with the sole exception of the Supreme Court. Congress even has the power, as Congressman Steve King of Iowa frequently notes, to “reduce the Supreme Court to nothing more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.” During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, the legislative and executive branches worked together to abolish over half of all federal judgeships(18 of 35). While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances, those who care about the rule of law can be relied upon to consider whatever constitutionally permissibly tools they can find to fight federal judges and courts exceeding their powers.  It is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary.  Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited in most circumstances to check and balance the judiciary. [Newt.org, 10/7/11]

Gingrich Has Proposed That Congress “Subpoena Federal Judges” When They Did Not Like Their Decisions. From an article in the ABA Journal:

On national security issues, Gingrich said at a Values Voters Summit on Friday, he saw no reason to obey some U.S. Supreme Court rulings, report CBS News and the Atlantic. “I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of national security,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich also told the summit and Face the Nation on Sunday that Congress could subpoena federal judges and ask them to explain their decisions. Gingrich thought the subpoenas could have “a sobering effect” on judges’ assessment of their powers.

He also had another proposal for chastising judges. The Atlantic has Gingrich’s quote: “Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: ‘All right, in the future, the 9th Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. By the way, we aren’t going to pay the electric bill for two years. And since you seem to be–since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don’t seem to need your law library, either.’ ” [ABA Journal, 10/12/11]

  • Gingrich Subsequently Said If Judges Did Not Comply With Subpoenas They Could Be Arrested. [CBS News, 12/18/11]

Limbaugh And Fox’s Doocy Have Touted Gingrich’s Proposals

Doocy: Gingrich Was “Historical,” “Accurate,” And “Brilliant” When “Talking About Out-Of-Control Judges And The Courts.” During the December 16 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said:

DOOCY: And when it comes to Newt Gingrich, while he was tamer, I’ll tell you, when he was talking about out-of-control judges and the courts, he was historical, he was accurate, he was brilliant. The crowd there in Sioux City really ate it up. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/16/11]

Limbaugh Hyped Gingrich’s Plan To Impeach Judges, Abolish Courts.  During the December 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh lauded Gingrich’s defense of his proposals for judges during the December 15 Fox News debate. He classified Gingrich’s statements as one of “Newt’s Best Debate Moments”:

LIMBAUGH: Another Newt moment was this. Megyn Kelly: She handled the legal questions last night. “Speaker Gingrich, you have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing the courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government and they used words like ‘dangerous, outrageous, totally irresponsible.’  Are they wrong?”

GINGRICH (audio clip):  The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful — and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people. There’s an entire paper at Newt.org. I’ve been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that “one nation under God” is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I decided: If you had judges who are so radically anti-American that they thought “one nation under God” was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.

LIMBAUGH:  That also brought people out of their seats last night. There were a lot of moments like that, and it was an uplifting debate throughout the whole time. The attitude, mood of the whole night was productive and good. You know, people don’t understand the courts, the separation of powers in Congress. Congress can do anything they want with their — Congress can totally redistrict the United — who set up the court system, do you think? Do you think that Oliver Wendell Holmes sat down one day and said, “You know what? This is going be the Ninth Circuit, and over here is going be the DC Circuit. Over here is going be the Fourth Circuit.” 

That is not how it happened. Congress did it. If Congress wanted to split the Ninth Circus — make it smaller, make fewer people subject to it — they could. If they had the votes, if the president goes along with it. It’s — the Founding Fathers really did not want an imperial judiciary. They did not want what we’ve got. They did not want judges and bureaucrats writing law. The people are not represented when that starts happening. There is no representative republic. The Founding Fathers had no intention that the final word on law or anything else be nine people wearing robes. That was not the intent. It’s where we have evolved — in fact, not just with legal issues. How many political issues now end up at the court and whatever the Supreme Court verdict is is the final word and authority on a political issue like abortion? 

Sorry, that was not the intent. Judges can be impeached. Now, it is a bit radical to bring ’em in and start making them explain their decisions. It’s tempting. Some, but I — that — well, Alcee Hastings. You can impeach them.  Then they run for Congress after that. But there is a way of dealing with this. Most people, particularly people who are under 50, peripheral knowledge of the court system and the Constitution have grown up believing that what happens when a judge bangs a gavel is it. That’s it. There’s nowhere else you can go. Once you have gone to the last court that’ll hear your case, that’s it. That was never intended, particularly when it comes to legal issues. But with the left, politicizing all the judgeships as they can and putting unelectable people on courts, that’s where it all started transforming. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/16/11; RushLimbaugh.com, 12/16/11]

But Legal Experts Call Gingrich’s Plan A Terrible Idea

Group Aimed At Keeping The Judiciary Fair And Impartial: “Gingrich’s Proposal … Clashes Violently With The Founders’ Intentions.” From a report on Republican presidential candidates’ plans for the courts by the Justice at Stake campaign, an organization dedicated to keeping “state and federal courts fair and impartial”:

Gingrich’s proposal to eliminate judgeships for political reasons also clashes violently with the Founders’ intentions. In August 1787, the Constitutional Convention considered a plan to allow Congress to oust judges for reasons other than misbehavior in office. The proposal was rejected by seven states, and favored by only one. Participants in the convention included Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. [Justice at Stake campaign, 10/24/11]

Law Professor Raskin: Gingrich’s Proposal Says That “Racist Governors … Were Right In Thinking That [Brown v. Board of Education] Was Nothing More Than A Suggestion.” From a Huffington Post article by law professor and Democratic Maryland state Sen. Jamin Raskin:

The campaign paper on the judiciary that Gingrich boasted of last week is a scary protracted critique of the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). This was a critical desegregation case from Arkansas reaffirming Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Court’s power under Marbury v. Madison (1803) to declare what the law is for the nation. In what must be seen as a shameless and shameful bid for attention in the Southern states, Gingrich is now effectively saying that racist Governors like Orval Faubus and George Wallace were right in thinking that Brown’s historic ruling was nothing more than a suggestion. He is attacking the decision that struck down, once and for all, the doctrines of “interposition” and “nullification” under which racists have rallied since before the Civil War.

When Gingrich was asked last week about the Bush administration Attorneys General attacking his judicial positions, he said he would ask them “first of all, have they studied Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges? Eighteen out of 35 were abolished.” The following conversation followed:

KELLY: Something that was highly criticized.

GINGRICH: Not by anybody in power in 1802.

Well, Newt, first of all, the repeal of the Judiciary Act in 1802 got rid of 16 judgeships, not 18, and, second, it was enormously controversial. For example, the Washington Federalist wrote: “The fatal bill is passed. Our Constitution is no more.” The New York Post described this non-controversial bill as “the death wound of our glorious Constitution.” Third, had he been around then, Gingrich would have certainly been on the other side wailing about attacks on the judges because all of the plutocrats and reactionaries rallied around the courts at that point. [Huffington Post, 12/19/11]

Even Conservatives Have Labeled Gingrich’s Plan “Dangerous” And “Unconstitutional”

Michael Mukasey Says Gingrich’s Plan For Judiciary Is “Outrageous,” “Dishonest,” “Ridiculous,” “Irresponsible,” And “Dangerous.” Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on America Live that Gingrich’s plan is “off-the-wall” and would “reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.” From the show:

MEGYN KELLY: Now let’s talk about his idea. He wants to, among other things, subpoena judges who issue decisions that he doesn’t like.

MICHAEL MUKASEY: For judicial oversight hearings, as he calls them.

KELLY: What — how does that strike you?

MUKASEY: Outrageous

Kelly: How so?

MUKASEY: Because there’s no basis. The only basis on which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. To subpoeana judges so as to beat them up about their decisions has only a — if they’re going to say that has to do with legislation that they might propose, that’s completely dishonest.

[…]

KELLY: But what about the most controversial courts and Gingrich’s plan to eliminate them? He wants to see the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entirely abolished. Your thoughts on that?

MUKASEY: Ridiculous. The fact is that the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court [sic: Congress] to establish lower federal courts. Presumably, it can undo lower federal courts. But to say that you’re going to undo an entire court simply because you don’t like some of their decisions when there are thousands of cases before that court is totally irresponsible.

KELLY: But you know, a lot of people don’t like, in particular, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They think it’s issued some crazy rulings, it issued, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out many times, the opinion striking down “under God” in the pledge, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court, but a lot of people think “yeah, I don’t like that Ninth Circuit, let’s get rid of it” — to those viewers who are feeling that way, explain why you think that’s outrageous and dangerous.

MUKASEY: It’s outrageous because it essentially does away with the notion that when courts decide cases, the proper way to have them reviewed is to go to a higher court. It’s dangerous because even from the standpoint of the people who put it forward, because you have no guarantee that you have a permanent majority. The minority now can be the majority tomorrow and can do the same thing to the courts that they don’t like.

[…]

MUKASEY: It would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle. [Fox News, America Live, 12/15/11]

Alberto Gonzales Says Gingrich’s Judicial Plan Is “Troubling” And He “Would Not Support” Gingrich’s Efforts. Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, told Megyn Kelly that Gingrich’s plan is “troubling” because having “a strong and independent Judiciary” is key to protecting the rule of law that makes our country great. From the show:

ALBERTO GONZALES: I think that we have a great government, a great country because it’s built upon a foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the fact — the rule of law is protected is by having a strong and independent judiciary. And the notion or the specter of bringing judges before the Congress like a school child being brought before the principal, to me, is a little bit troubling. I believe a strong and independent judiciary doesn’t mean that the judiciary is above scrutiny, that it’s above criticism for the work that it does. But I cannot support and would not support efforts that would appear to be intimidation or retaliation against judges. [Fox News, America Live, 12/15/11]

National Review Online’s Whelan Calls Gingrich’s Proposal “Awful.” In a series of five blog posts on “Gingrich’s Awful Proposal to Abolish Judgeships,” Ed Whelan and Matthew Franck say Gingrich’s proposal is “constitutionally unsound and politically foolish.” From Whelan’s first post in the series:

In last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich defended his proposal to oust bad judges from office by statutorily abolishing the judicial offices they occupy. In a series of posts, Matt Franck and I will explain why we believe that this particular proposal of Gingrich’s is constitutionally unsound and politically foolish. (Matt and I may have somewhat different thinking on the underlying issues, so the views expressed by one of us should not necessarily be imputed to the other.) [National Review Online, 12/16/11]

National Review Online’s Franck Says Gingrich’s Plan Constitutes “Cheating On The Constitution’s Rules.” From a post by Franck:

But Gingrich’s proposal doesn’t match its supposed precedent.  He doesn’t simply want to restore a status quo ante (for motives pure or partisan) by abolishing a court we don’t need.  He apparently wants to abolish it and then recreate it in some fashion, with new vacancies.  That’s cheating on the Constitution’s rules for the removal of judges one doesn’t like.  If the problem is the judge (not the court), then the Constitution provides for impeachment.  That’s difficult, both procedurally and in terms of the standards to be applied to justify removal.  But it’s difficult for a reason.  I have often said that judicial independence is something we could stand to have a lot less of.  But there are right ways and wrong ways to bring activist judges to heel.  This is a very badly wrong way. [National Review Online, 12/16/11]

Bush-Appointed Former Federal Judge Says “The Constitution Is Pretty Clear That Neither Side Can Eliminate Judges Because They Disagree With Their Decisions.” From a Washington Post article quoting Michael W. McConnell, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and resigned to become a law professor:

Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University and a former federal appeals judge appointed by Bush, also observed that conservative audiences “should not be cheering” and “are misled” if they believe Gingrich’s proposal is in their interest at a time when Republicans are looking to the Supreme Court to declare President Obama’s health-care law unconstitutional.

“You would think that this would be a time when they would be defending the independence of the judiciary, not attacking it,” he said. “You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be that when conservative Republicans object to the courts, they have the right to replace judges, and when liberal Democrats disapprove of the courts, they don’t. And the constitution is pretty clear that neither side can eliminate judges because they disagree with their decisions.” [The Washington Post, 12/17/11]


Prosecutors: Allen Stanford Is Faking Amnesia To Avoid Trial

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:43 am by HL

Prosecutors: Allen Stanford Is Faking Amnesia To Avoid Trial
Prosecutors say alleged Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford is faking amnesia to avoid standing trial, according to a medical report.

CA Gay Rights Group Cleared For Push To Repeal Prop 8
A gay rights group was cleared by the California Secretary of State to begin collecting signatures for a repeal of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Inmate In Maricopa County Jail In Critical Condition After ‘Scuffle’ With Guards
An inmate named Ernest M. Atencio was hospitalized because of injuries sustained while he was in a Maricopa County jail last week just days after the Justice Department released a report chronicling alleged discrimination in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office…


A Corruption Case for the Ages

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:40 am by HL

A Corruption Case for the Ages
“In the annals of municipal corruption in New York City, the themes of graft, greed and betrayal have been familiar running mates from one century to the next, accompanying the fall of the Tammany boss William Tweed in the 1870s, the resignation of the popular mayor James J. Walker in 1932, and the bribes, appetites and suicide of Donald R. Manes, a former Queens borough president, in 1986,” the New York Times reports.

“But the denouement of the political career of State Senator Carl Kruger (D), who pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges on Tuesday, goes beyond that story line, encompassing tales of romance and perhaps even sacrifice, and laying bare one of the more bizarre domestic tableaux — even by New York standards — ever uncovered by F.B.I. wiretaps.”

Iowa May Not Winnow Field
Campaign veterans tell the Wall Street Journal that this year’s Republican presidential primary “is one of the most unpredictable in memory” and many expect the Iowa caucuses on January 3 “will do little to clarify the choices for GOP voters who come afterward.”

“The Iowa caucuses tend to winnow presidential primary fields down to two or three candidates, with the winner claiming momentum heading into New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary. That may not be the case this time, if four or five candidates finish within a few percentage points of each other.”

Charlie Cook: “The big question is whether a politically and financially viable alternative to Romney emerges from Iowa.”

A Boehner-McConnell Breakdown
As House Republicans continue to oppose a bipartisan Senate agreement on the payroll tax, Roll Call looks at the “apparent breakdown” between House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

According to Boehner ally Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH), “That was discussed in the Conference last night. People didn’t quite understand how, when the Speaker left the meeting with Sen. McConnell and Sen. Reid, this abomination was what was sent back to us… The question was asked directly of him. That question was asked, ‘What’s the disconnect between you and Sen. McConnell?’ And he said he doesn’t know.”


Why Is Incest All Over Prime Time?

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:39 am by HL

Why Is Incest All Over Prime Time?
From "Dexter" to "Game of Thrones," incest resonates — not because a taboo has been broken, but because it endures.


Neo-Con Rising

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:38 am by HL

Neo-Con Rising
The reports of the death of the Neo-Conservative Movement have been greatly exaggerated. Dick Cheney has become a cheerleader for Newt Gingrich whose sole intention seems to be to continue The Long War ad infinitum. On a day when…



Presented By:
Win New Customers
 

Ads by Pheedo


Mitt’s Mythical Math on Health Care and Defense
All right — I wasn’t going to blog on the Wednesday afternoon before Thanksgiving until someone tweeted me Igor Volsky’s great piece at Think Progress eviscerating Mitt Romney’s assertion that he would save money by cancelling the Obama health plan…


Premium Support?s Cost Control Problem

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:37 am by HL

Premium Support?s Cost Control Problem
My colleague Ezekiel Emanuel makes two important points in a New York Times critique of the new Wyden/Ryan Medicare premium support plan: 1) since the proposal maintains the spending cap of GDP plus 1 percent already included in the Affordable Care Act, Wyden/Ryan “saves nothing in the federal budget,” and 2) the plan shifts beneficiaries […]

My colleague Ezekiel Emanuel makes two important points in a New York Times critique of the new Wyden/Ryan Medicare premium support plan: 1) since the proposal maintains the spending cap of GDP plus 1 percent already included in the Affordable Care Act, Wyden/Ryan “saves nothing in the federal budget,” and 2) the plan shifts beneficiaries into less efficient private plans without actually improving the efficiency of health care delivery. “To address the root of the cost problem, we must change how we pay doctors and hospitals,” Emanuel explains. “We must move away from fee-for-service payments to bundled payments that include all the costs of caring for a patient, thereby encouraging providers to keep patients healthy and avoid unnecessary services. Medicare should announce that it will make this change by Jan. 1, 2022, and that it will begin by switching to bundled payments for cardiac and orthopedic surgery within one year and for cancer patients within five.”

Santorum: ?I?m For Income Inequality?
GOP contender Rick Santorum picked up an important endorsement today with the official backing of Iowa kingmaker Bob vander Plaats of the FAMiLY Leader. Campaigning at the organization’s headquarters in Pella, Iowa, Santorum made some surprising remarks in support of income inequality: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality. I think some people […]

GOP contender Rick Santorum picked up an important endorsement today with the official backing of Iowa kingmaker Bob vander Plaats of the FAMiLY Leader. Campaigning at the organization’s headquarters in Pella, Iowa, Santorum made some surprising remarks in support of income inequality:

“They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality..

President Obama is for income equality. That’s socialism. It’s worse yet, it’s Marxism,” Sanoturm said. “I’m not for income equality. I’m not for equality of result – I’m for equality of opportunity.”

Oddly, Santorum acknowledged that social and income mobility is lagging in America — a key reason income inequality exists, through no fault of workers who find themselves working harder and longer for less money. The decline of social mobility contradicts Santorum’s assertion that people making more money deserve it because they work harder.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has put America’s staggering wealth gap front and center in the national debate. Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent while middle class wages stagnated. The top 1 percent controls roughly 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. At the very top of the income scale, the 400 richest Americans have seen their share of income quadruple in the last 12 years, while their effective tax rates were halved.

A recent poll found that Americans’ fears about income inequality are growing, with two-thirds of likely voters saying the middle class is shrinking, and 55 percent saying that income inequality has become a big problem for the country. Santorum, evidently, thinks more of the same is what they need.


How many .gov sites exist? Thousands.

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on December 21st, 2011 5:36 am by HL

How many .gov sites exist? Thousands.

The federal government operates thousands of Web sites, but barely half of its .gov domains are currently active, according to a new report that inventories the government’s Web holdings for the first time.

Across the government, 56 federal agencies own at least 1,489 .gov domains and 804 of them are functional, the report said. Another 400 .gov domains redirect to other government Web sites, 265 don’t work and 20 are under development.

Read full article >>

Featured Advertiser

Barney Frank: What’s the House floor dress code, anyway?

The sight of Rep. Barney Frank wearing a casual t-shirt on the House floor Monday caused more than a few raised eyebrows — room temperature notwithstanding.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who’s leaving Congress next year, appeared on the floor not in the traditional shirt, tie and jacket but in a thin blue top and a jacket slung over his shoulders. C-SPAN cameras captured the ensemble, which highlighted Frank’s less-than-buff torso, and the image quickly went viral, drawing snickers across the Internet.

Read full article >>

Gingrich to hold rally in Rosslyn Wednesday

We told you on Monday that Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich will be in Richmond Thursday morning for a fundraiser for the state GOP.

Now we hear the former House speaker will be in Rosslyn the night before for a rally at the Key Bridge Marriott, an event that was first reported by Politico.

Read full article >>