Friday, July 31, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Steve Parker: Bulletin - Clunker program may already be over! Top
Automotive News reports Thursday night: The federal "cash for guzzlers" program reached its $1 billion funding limit unexpectedly after an avalanche of business exhausted its funds, an Obama administration official said late Thursday. The White House was working with Congress to try to extend funding as lawmakers prepared to leave town for the month of August, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak for attribution. Initially, congressional and industry officials signaled that the program was going to be suspended as soon as today as funding ran out. Those reports, widely reported by national news outlets including Automotive News, triggered confusion throughout the industry. National Automobile Dealers Association spokesman Bailey Wood said earlier Thursday the organization was briefed by Department of Transportation officials on plans to suspend the program at midnight. But later, Chuck Cyrill, another NADA spokesman, said the association had no official DOT confirmation suspending the program. Backlog The plan appeared to be prompted by a NADA survey showing a huge backlog of unplaced dealer orders that would burden the government's computers and exhaust the budgeted funds, he said. NADA plans to issue advice to members at 8 a.m. EDT today( Friday). Wood said. Republican Fred Upton said he was told by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood earlier Thursday that the agency is accepting dealer refund applications only until midnight. They've exhausted the money," Upton said in an interview. But Upton, quoting LaHood, added, "He did not say any orders placed after midnight would not be honored." Upton said the Michigan congressional delegation spoke by telephone Thursday evening and will be meeting this morning to try to find new funding for the program. "The consensus is that this program has worked and we damn well ought to figure out how to continue it," he said. Transportation spokesman Rae Tyson declined comment. "Incredibly popular" "We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program," a White House official said in an e-mail to Automotive News. "Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid CARS transactions that have taken place to date will be honored." CARS stands for Car Allowance Rebate System, the official name for the program known popularly as cash-for-clunkers or cash-for-guzzlers. Dealers began offering the U.S.-backed rebates of as much as $4,500 in earnest a week ago. But the Transportation Department will need additional cash after a backlog of nearly 200,000 orders threatened to jam the pipeline The program was part of a congressional effort to revive slumping U.S. sales and further help domestic automakers, especially General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group, which have emerged from brief bankruptcies. Sales spiked more than regulators anticipated this week after the government began logging transactions and approving rebates that indicated consumers were opting for vehicles that get significantly better gasoline mileage than the models they were trading in. Fund sought The administration opted to keep the program in place while it sought new money. It was not clear where the administration would find additional funding in a short period of time. "We hope there's a will and a way to keep the program going a bit longer," GM said in a statement. "Any doubt that the program would jump-start auto sales is completely erased." An estimated 16,000 dealers were eligible for the program and each would have to sell more than a dozen vehicles at the maximum rebate to reach the government's funding limit, according to the NADA. U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Susan Collins of Maine said any extension of the incentive must require greater fuel efficiency and higher reductions of auto emissions. Congress wrestled with both issues when it established the current incentive to give U.S. manufacturers a better chance of qualifying for the program. U.S. auto manufacturers are scheduled to report their July sales on Monday. NADA presented the results of a dealer survey to the Transportation Department this week, Wood said. The survey showed that there were almost 200,000 dealer transactions that had not yet been submitted for refunds to the government, he said. Data released earlier Thursday by the government showed that dealers had submitted 22,782 deals seeking $95.9 million in refunds. The NADA survey suggests that if the entire backlog of orders were filed with the government, its $1 billion budget would be depleted, Wood said. (End of Automotive News story) We've said since the program was first announced as being funded with only $1 billion and slated to last only four months that the money would run out well before the time limit. But I don't think anyone expected this! Much of the opposition to the program came from the same cabal of southern Senators who have import car and parts-making plants in their states, the same ones who were against bailing-out Detroit in order to destroy the UAW (no foreign auto plant in the US is unionized).. But I think even they must be embarrassed for their being against a program which has proven to be, to put it mildly, wily popular Have any of you taken advantage of the clunker program? What'd you trade-in and what'd you buy new? Was it worth it? Will you be rushing out this instant or calling dealers to see if the program is still in effect? More on Cars
 
Don McNay: The 95 Percent Health Insurance Solution Top
Ninety-nine and forty-four one hundreds percent pure love -Ronnie Millsap Former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter was on Bill Moyers Journal a few weeks ago and cited a stunning statistic. When the Clinton's were debating health care in the early 1990's, 95 cents on every insurance premium dollar went to pay claims. Now it is slightly above 80%. The technical term for what Potter cited is the medical loss ratio. When it is at 80%, it means one out of every five dollars that you are paying for insurance premiums is going towards health care. The rest is going to insurance company profits. I don't have a dog in the health insurance fight. I voted for President Obama and want to see Americans have coverage. I've been around the insurance business all my adult life but I stopped selling health insurance 20 years ago. I buy my own from another agent. I don't really follow the nuances of how health care is priced and I don't claim to understand it. This puts me in the same boat as most other Americans. I don't think President Obama is connecting with the American people on the issue. It is complicated and complex. People who have health insurance are afraid of paying more for it. People without health insurance don't have money for high powered lobbyists and non-stop television commercials. People who are intellectually for the idea of universal coverage don't want to pay higher taxes. It's a complicated problem but I am offering a simple solution. 1. Cap the medical loss ratio at 95%. 2. Make insurance companies cover everyone, no matter what the pre existing condition. 3. Help poor and middle income people buy coverage with a subsidy or tax credit. My simple solution achieves several goals. It gives everyone an opportunity to be covered. Poor people have Medicaid. By subsidizing the middle class and working class, we will come close to getting everyone insured. If health insurance carriers are forced to pay out 95% of what they take in, it seems that they are going to compete with each other by offering more treatments and better service. The idea of a public option is for the government to compete with the big health insurance carriers and drive down costs. I am seeing a campaign by Obama and Speaker Pelosi to denounce the health insurance company but I am not sure it is going to work. I'm not sure that people like insurance companies but getting them to march against them is an entirely different matter. Right now, people are worried about losing their homes and their jobs. It's hard to get people focused in a time of economic chaos and high unemployment. I've had my own angry, screaming battles with my health insurance carrier. It seems like everyone I've talked to has had a similar experience. I just don't see them marching on Washington about it. My plan (you can call it the McNay plan if it happens to catch on) is a compromise that everyone will like and everyone will hate. The health insurance carriers will scream that they can't make a profit on a 95% medical loss ratio. However, property and casualty insurance carriers (the people who insure your car, home etc.) have a loss ratio close to 100%. They make their profits investing the premium. Health insurance carriers operate the same way. Under my plan, they won't have a profit incentive to deny claims. Insurance companies will scream about covering everyone with no pre existing conditions but since they have an extra 15% to 20% in claims money to work with, they ought to be able to make it happen. The government subsidies will make sure everyone can afford coverage and the health insurance companies can't complain because ultimately the government subsidies are going to go back to them. Insurance companies are only going to get 5% of the medical loss ratio but if we insure 41 million uninsured Americans, the insurance companies are going to get 5% more of much, much larger pie. That ought to make their stockholders happy. It also will inspire other insurance companies to get into the health insurance business and capture premium for themselves. That is the kind of competition they were looking for. Implementing my idea makes it harder for President Obama's critics to attack it politically. Opponents can't argue that "government bureaucrats will be making your medical decisions" because it won't be government bureaucrats calling the shots. It will be the same, private, health insurance, company bureaucrats who are making the decisions now. I don't think that is better but it sure knocks a hole in the opposition's argument. I want to see President Obama get some kind of health insurance program passed. I suspect the Republican senator who thinks its defeat could cost Obama's re election has a valid point. Obama is spending a lot of political capital on this. I'm not sure it is catching on and seems to be getting away from him. The president keeps wanting to lecture us but we would rather talk about the Harvard professor and the policeman having a beer. My idea is so simple that I am sure there are many holes in it. I'm not an expert, just a guy with a lot of insurance industry designations behind his name. None of those designations make me a specialist in the health care debate but it's a different idea. I'm open to hearing from those who don't agree and finding out why. My idea works and is politically viable. It gets uninsured people covered and it will get better coverage for the rest of us. It will take away the incentive for insurance companies to gouge us on claims, in order to make the stockholders happy. Its not a perfect solution but it's a ninety nine, forty-four one hundreds percent pure idea that we can talk about. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is one of the world's leading authorities in helping injured people and lottery winners deal with complex financial issues. McNay is also an award winning syndicated financial columnist and Huffington Post contributor. McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in 1983. The company's primary office is in Richmond, Kentucky. McNay has Master's Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. McNay has written two books. Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You When The Lottery. You can write to Don at don@donmcnay.com or read his column at www.donmcnay.com. You can reach him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/donmcnay and on Twitter at twitter.com/Donmcnay McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field. More on Barack Obama
 
Ian Gurvitz: REPUBLICANS REVEAL OBAMA HEALTH PLAN SECRET PLOT TO TURN WHITE PEOPLE BLACK Top
As the arguments over health care rage on, key Senate Republicans opposing the President's plan are about to present a report leaked from the Beck Institute, which might just turn the battle into an all-out firefight. The report will reveal that the President's stated intention to provide all Americans with government-run health care is just a smoke-screen for a plot to darken the skin tone of white Americans, turning them Black. The insidious plot involves putting a government option in place that will be so attractive to struggling Americans that millions of newly insured white patients will begin seeing doctors for the first time in years. Then, under the guise of performing standard diagnostic tests to assess the patient's current health, cadres of specially trained Jamaican nurses will pretend to take their blood but, instead, administer a skin-darkening agent known as Boehner225. The process, referred to in the report as "Negrowing," will be gradual, and as it will commence during the summer, the slowly darkening skin tone will most likely be mistaken for a beach tan, so that people will not instantly panic. But as fall approaches, the patient's skin will continue to darken, as the effects become permanent. And irreversible. A GOP spokesperson is urging all Americans to write their representatives, demanding they resist the government plan at all costs, stating: "Not only would this plot have a disastrous effect on the economy, particularly on the golfing, sailing, and car-racing industries, but with millions of white people having been turned black, the 2012 election would be a slam-dunk." When reached for comment, a White House spokesperson categorically denied the allegations in the report, stating: "It is completely false. The goals of our plan are clear: to provide millions of uninsured Americans with affordable health care. And to kill old people."
 
Terrence McNally: Q&A with Michael Lewis (Part 1): The Rules of the Game Were Totally Screwed Up Top
I recently interviewed Liar's Poker author Michael Lewis, and I didn't even ask him if the Moneyball movie was on again. (Apparently it is, with Aaron Sorkin doing a re-write.) We talked about his new book, Home Game: An Accidental Guide to Fatherhood , but we also got into his take on the financial meltdown and the bailout. This is Part One of some excerpts. You can hear the full podcast at terrencemcnally.net. As a former Salomon Brothers trader, Lewis could understand how individuals got caught up in the high-risk bubble. ML: There's a machine out there and a market... and as a trader you can borrow money cheaply, buy sub-prime mortgage bonds, and make the spread between the two. Let's say you're a really smart guy who's sort of detached and intelligent about what's going on, and you see that this thing is totally irresponsible. The loans being made are likely to go bad; the lending standards are collapsing. The intelligent thing to do is not to buy sub-prime mortgage bonds but to bet against them, to sell them short. As a trader inside a big Wall Street firm...you would face a decision: Do I exercise my independent judgment and bet against this market, or do I just keep going along with what my firm is doing? If you exercise your independent judgment and bet against sub-prime mortgage bonds, you not only probably run into some political conflict within your firm, but you'd never make the big score for yourself... The minute you make a bunch of money from your bet, your firm is doomed. They couldn't pay you. So the smart thing was just to go along and hope it lasted long enough for you to get rich. So that accounts for single players and their firms, but what about the ratings agencies? We heard a lot of sports talk in the Sotomayor hearings. Weren't they supposed to be the impartial referees? ML: The sub-prime mortgage bonds were rated triple A by Moody's and Standard and Poor's. Why? Well, they could give you an argument, but in retrospect, it looks like a very foolish argument. TM: It looks worse than foolish to me, it looks corrupt. ML: When you think about corruption, there's the simple kind where I give you $1000 to interview me on the radio so it will promote my book. That's corrupt and we both know it. But there's a different sort of corruption where we're all part of a system that is rewarding us very well to pay attention to certain things and not pay attention to others. We're paid to have blind spots. There's an awful lot of that kind of corruption in the financial system because people's incentives are all screwed up. Ratings agencies were paid by the people who issued the bonds to put the triple A rating on them. Their incentive is to please the people who are issuing the securities. They can't at the same time independently judge the securities. TM: Arthur Andersen went out of business for doing basically the same thing with Enron. How could someone not see that they were recreating something which had already failed in a huge way? ML: Some people did see...The people I find most riveting are the people who saw the magnitude of the coming disaster. They were sane men in an insane world. They would call Standard and Poor's and Moody's and say, "How are you rating these things? Our models show that if house prices even go flat, all these bonds will be worthless." To the question of what happens to these bonds if house prices go down, Standard and Poor's would say, "We actually don't know because there's no place in our model to put a negative number." TM: Obama, Geithner and the administration are putting out plans for new regulations. This isn't in there? ML: No. It should be illegal for issuers to pay raters for ratings. It's a bribe. Instead the administration says they're going to give the regulators more authority to evaluate ratings agencies. That doesn't do anything; they already had that authority. Lewis cited another example of a conflict-of-incentives that's nowhere to be found in the regulatory reform conversation. ML: How can you possibly have a Wall Street firm that is at once owning securities, making bets on stocks and bonds for itself, and that it is also selling to customers? Inevitably, it will trade against its customers. It will deceive its customers for the sake of itself. There's no reason both these functions have to be inside one place. You can have firms that provide financial advice but that don't take any positions in securities. Then you could have other firms that have their own trading accounts, but aren't allowed to deal with customers. Those functions should not be in the same place. It creates endless problems. TM: And this also isn't in the Obama administration's reform plans? ML: No it's not in there, and no one's even brought it up. When Lewis suggests that the deeper problem is in "the air we breathe," he's not talking about the environment. ML: Arthur Andersen was in place to examine Enron, the credit rating agencies were meant to be examining bonds. In both cases they had the incentive to exercise bad judgment because they were being paid by the wrong people. The rules of the game were totally screwed up. Well, why are the rules of the game totally screwed up? This is the deeper problem, I think, and it goes back to the days of Liar's Poker . In the last 25 years, our economy has created this beast, the financial industry, that is much, much too big; that is doing lots of things that have nothing to do with productive enterprise; in which the rewards are so outlandish, they've distorted the upper tier of the income structure. The reason CEO's get paid as much as they do is that Wall Street taught them how to do it. You get a huge sum of money for doing something is actually socially and economically counter-productive. People made fortunes out of the sub-prime mortgage bond market. That's insane. So our society has created this very strange economic value system, where really smart people, the leadership class, thinks it's the done thing to go to Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley and get paid three or four million dollars a year -- even though you don't actually add value in any way. Now it's in the air we breathe. Look for Q&A with Michael Lewis (Part 2): There's a Real Chance There's Going to Be an Uprising about This More on Financial Crisis
 
Shannyn Moore: Palin Can't Quit Quitting Top
It has been reported for weeks Sarah Palin would be speaking at the Reagan Library fundraiser on the eighth of August. With just a week to go, the planners should be calling William Shatner to fill in. This just in from Palin's Facebook : As repeatedly stated to several in the media over the last week, former Governor Sarah Palin is not committed to attend the Simi Valley Republican Women's event at the Reagan Library and in fact is not attending the event. Neither the Governor's state staff nor SarahPAC has ever committed to attending this event or speaking at this event, and even requested that the Governor's name be removed from the invitation several weeks ago. The Governor has other work and commitments to take care of at that time. She looks forward to visiting her friends in California soon. All event requests must be confirmed with Meghan Stapleton of SarahPAC. Additionally, all invitations bearing the Governor's name must be approved by her attorney before proceeding. Thank you. Meghan Stapleton Sound familiar? Last fall, after being booked for 2 months, Palin's appearance was cancelled at a Coalition of Life event. Her husband was sent in her place for the Washington Correspondence Dinner. Palin wouldn't commit to speak at a ceremony honoring the fallen soldiers of Alaska, then demanded to speak and on stage seating the morning of the event. She was replaced with Gingrich at a GOP fundraiser in June, citing her busy job as governor. It's just as well, she may have walked out half way through... Note to Meg, stop calling her governor...she quit. More on Sarah Palin
 
Jack Hidary: Cash for Clunkers Hits Goal in Five Days! Top
As a co-architect of the federal Cash For Clunkers (CFC) program and advisor to various congressional offices on the issue, it is gratifying to see how quickly it has been adopted by the American people. CFC achieves multiple goals -- it stimulates auto sales while increasing the efficiency of the U.S. fleet. Congress passed the program in June of this year and it went into effect this past weekend. The $1 billion has now been used up in one week! That translates to more than 250,000 guzzlers and pick-up trucks traded-in for more efficient cars. In the original bill, HR 520 and S. 247 the sponsors were aiming for higher efficiency gains. Those gains got watered down in the compromise bill of HR 2751. Now that it is clear how popular this program is I urge Congress to re-up the program with increased miles-per-gallon gaps between the vehicles traded in and bought. The Cash for Clunkers program in Germany initially received 1.5 billion euros and when that was used up received another 3.5 billion euros. That translates to a $6 billion CFC program for a country with a much smaller market than the U.S. Prior to the CFC program, automakers were selling cars at an annualized rate of 9.5 million vehicles for 2009. That compares with sales of more than 15 million cars only a few years ago. CFC will boost auto sales if we continue the program. Given the dire state of the automakers in the US and the need to move away from oil before it spikes back to more than $100 per barrel we should add billions to this program. American have voted with their feet and their wheels - they want to dump their clunkers and get more efficient. They want to do their part to stimulate our economy - now it is up to Congress to do its part. The author is Chairman of SmartTransportation.org More on Cars
 
Art Levine: Grassroots Campaign Pushes House on Reform, Fights Lobbyists, 'Granny-Killing' Lies Top
While a key House committee moved to break the impasse on health reform and brokered a deal with health industry-subsidized "Blue Dog" Democrats, labor and grassroots activists kept up the pressure this week on House Blue Dogs and Senate centrists to support genuine reform. That included a national call-in day on Tuesday organized by Health Care for America Now and labor groups that generated 70,000 phone calls to Congress -- and may have helped break the logjam in the House. At the same time, progressives have to work even harder to counter the myths about the proposed health care reform coming from the fringes of the Republican Party now working its way into the mainstream. These include the claim, echoed on the House floor this week by Rep. Virginia Fox, that because a bill would reimburse doctors who offer advice to patients asking about living wills, the government is planning to kill old people to save health-care costs. Of course, it's all a fabrication , but a sign of how important grass-roots activism by progressives will be in August through such organizations as Health Care for America Now and the successor to Obama's campaign operation, Organizing for America . That's supplemented by a new set of TV ads promoting reform, like this one expressing the message, "It's time for health care reform." That urgency hasn't gotten through to the Blue Dogs, yet. Still, "the sky is not falling," notes an AFL-CIO's spokeperson on health care issues, Amaya Tune, about concerns about the deal with the Blue Dogs. "80 percent of what we like has been supported by large majorities in the House, and there's not this acknowledgment that a lot of members have agreed on very important principles. Four committees in the Senate and House have all expressed support for a public option to compete with private insurance." Of course, the deal between some Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman came under fire from some liberal groups and legislators for weakening the public option and reducing insurance subsidies. Health Care for America Now's national campaign director, Richard Kirsh, declared Thursday: The demands made by some Blue Dog Democrats will result in higher costs for families. First, they will weaken the public health insurance option's ability to drive down prices, and second, they will shrink the amount of assistance provided to middle-class families who buy health coverage. We are confident that the House ultimately will pass legislation that includes a strong public health insurance option that lowers prices and provides financial assistance so that health insurance is truly affordable to all. Yet some of the most astute observers on reform, such as The New Republic 's Jonathan Cohn, and union lobbyists, see the compromise allowing passage of a bill out of Energy and Commerce as an important first step towards passing meaningful reform. Cohn observes: Waxman has now pried away four Blue Dogs, enough--apparently--to get the bill through his committee. And he did so with what appear to be pretty small substantive concessions, like a slight reduction in subsidies and a modest reduction in the program's overall size. Most of the bill's core elements seem to be intact, including the public insurance option. The big bone Waxman threw to the Blue Dogs--thank you very much, I'm here all week folks--was time. The Blue Dogs didn't want a full floor vote on reform until after the August recess, so Waxman got assurances from leadership that the vote will wait. This is a major setback only if you think there was a chance of an August vote actually happening. At this point, there really wasn't. And why don't the Blue Dogs want to vote now? They want to wait and see what the Senate produces. If they have to take what they consider a hard vote--to raise somebody's taxes, to change the way Medicare pays for medical services, whatever--they don't want to stick their necks out any more than is absolutely necessary. Similarly, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein doesn't see the limitations of the narrow, no-public-option "compromise" being shaped by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, as dooming the prospects for a stronger plan emerging from both the Senate and the House: This is who is in the room helping Baucus put together his bill. Olympia Snowe, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad. In a Senate of 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, the health-care reform bill is being written by three centrist Democrats, one centrist Republicans, and two conservative Republicans. And until last week, Orrin Hatch was in the room, too. This is not the Finance Committee's bill. This is the Max Baucus Committee's Bill. And there's not a liberal -- or even a Democrat traditionally associated with health-care policy -- working on it. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of Finance's health subcommittee, is not included in the negotiations. Nor is Ron Wyden, who has written the Healthy Americans Act. Chuck Schumer isn't in the room, nor is John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow or Maria Cantwell. The question is whether Baucus's final product will matter. Rockefeller and the other Democrats on the committee have felt excluded from the negotiations and will want major changes before they can sign onto the final product. Then the Finance bill will have to be reconciled with the more liberal legislation built by the HELP Committee. Then it will have to go to the floor, where it will need the support of people like Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown just as much as it will need Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh. And then, if it passes those tests, it will have to be reconciled with the House's legislation. But will the public or health insurance lobbyists win out? A solid majority of the public still favors the central elements of the President's health care plan, including the public health option. (Here's audio of a press conference call hosted by Americans United for Change). As the pollsters noted: Anna Greenberg, Senior Vice President, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner: "When people are actually presented information about the President's plan, you get majorities of people in different polls saying that they favor the plan. And there has been no increase in any sense that the Republicans have a better alternative." Clear Public Support for Specific Elements of Obama's Proposal for Health Insurance Reform [Despite a downturn of support for reform legislation on Capitol Hill], " there is broad support for many of the core elements of the legislation currently before Congress. Nearly two-in-three (65%) favor requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government aiding those who cannot afford it. Nearly as many (61%) favor requiring employers who do not provide insurance to pay into a government health care fund. And there is broad support (79%) for prohibiting insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions." SOURCE: Pew Research Center, July 30, 2009 TIME Magazine Poll, 7/29/09: "On the details of the plan, respondents remained supportive of many of the rough outlines of the health-reform effort as originally described by President Obama. Sixty-three percent said they would support providing health-care coverage for all Americans, even if the government had to subsidize those who could not afford it. Fifty-six percent said they supported a "public health insurance option" to compete with private plans. Fifty-seven percent support raising taxes on those with annual incomes over $280,000 to pay for the plan. Eighty percent said they would support a bill that required insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, even those with pre-existing medical conditions." Ultimately, though, as Jacki Schechner, a spokesperson for HCAN points out, the issue will be settled on the political battlefield: "Lawmakers should know that this is about people who need health care reform now, and no about kowtowing to the lobbyists in D.C. And they'll be reminded of that when they go back home."
 
Jacob Heilbrunn: White House Beer Garden Top
Both Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant Crowley should get some credit for demonstrating their tenacity at the White House this evening. While President Obama and Vice President Biden ditched their jackets, Gates and Crowley wore them despite the heat and humidity that afflict Washington in the summer. Relaxing in shirt sleeves was supposed to convey the attitude that the meeting was really no big deal, just a few folks, as Obama put it, enjoying a brew at the end of a hard working day. Of course it was anything but. Most people don't show up in dark suits, as did Gates and Crowley, just to have a beer late at night. Everyone had something to gain from the meeting -- Crowley got to demonstrate he's not some racist ogre, Gates that he can demonstrate some forbearance toward his erstwhile tormentor, Obama that he's not prejudging either party, and Biden... well, what did Biden have to prove? That he could let someone else get in a word edgewise during the confabulation? For all the oddity of the meeting, there was something touching about the skill with which Obama, after beginning so poorly, managed to unite the formerly bickering parties. George W. Bush wouldn't have invited such adversaries to the White House, let alone been able to crack open a brew or any other alcoholic drink. For all the potshots at Obama as some Ivy League elitist, he wasn't serving Chardonnay, but the common man's drink, while engaging in his favorite, and most popular, role of conciliator. Whether turning the White House into a beer garden can convert other adversaries into friends is an open question. Alcohol has always been a good presidential lubricant. Richard Nixon used to sail up and down the Potomac in the presidential yacht Sequoia with his chums enjoying a few stiff drinks. Maybe Obama should invite the heads of North and South Korea to his backyard or the presidents of Russia and Georgia to make nice in his backyard, while he pops open a few cold ones. Perhaps the Gates-Crowley powwow hasn't just opened a new chapter in discussions about race, but also in world history. More on Barack Obama
 
RJ Eskow: Blue Dog Compromises: A War On the Middle Class? Top
It's hard to analyze the compromises coming from Blue Dog Democrats without concluding that, intentionally or not, they add up to a financial assault on working families. Every concession rings with the sound of middle-class Americans being dinged financially. Ding! That's the sound of lower-income working Americans losing what remained of their subsidy for purchasing health insurance. They've raised the bar 1 so that people making $31,200 will no longer get any help with their premiums. Neither will parents trying to raise a family of four on $63,000. That means families without employer-based coverage will have to come up with the money for health insurance (currently $12,000 per year) or face a government penalty. But how many Americans will have employer-sponsored coverage? Ding! That's the sound of more people losing that chance, as Blue Dogs raise the minimum payroll requirement for employers from $500,000 to $750,000. 86% of small businesses will now be exempt from any mandate. Small businesses have been the engine of economic growth and recovery. But wait. At least some of these uninsured folks will be able to buy into a public option, right? (That is, if the Blue Dogs' soul mates in the Senate don't kill it altogether.) Won't the public option be more affordable than those high-cost private insurance plans? Ding! That's the sound of the Blue Dogs eviscerating the cost-cutting potential of the public plan by refusing to allow it to use Medicare rates with providers, even for the conservative three-year period contemplated by earlier drafts of the bill. What does that mean for uninsured working Americans? Their lowest-cost option is going to cost a lot more if the Blue Dogs get their way. This particular initiative has a historical parallel. It's similar to the Republicans' refusal to let Medicare use its buying power to bargain on pharmaceutical costs. What about the luckier middle class types, the ones that do get health insurance through their employers? Well, there's a lot of talk that they'll be facing a new financial burden when Congress starts taxing health benefits (although the income levels at which that will happen are still being debated). Why? Because supposedly some people are getting "Cadillac plans." Look a little closer, however, and you usually find that they're just priced like Cadillacs. It's not that they're generous (certainly not by Medicare or European standards). More often than not, those $40,000 plans you hear about are costly because they're covering sicker people. Ding! Congress may begin taxing these benefits, if the Blue Dogs have their way. That's a regressive tax, one that's based on behavioral logic that seems questionable at best to me . Taxing the wealthiest Americans on truly luxuriouis plans (say, ones with concierge medicine features) would be reasonable ... if we could trust Congress to stop there. Sadly, we can't. Where didn't the Blue Dogs and Rep. Waxman (my representative) compromise? Here's where: They didn't ease up on the mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance coverage. They made it easier for employers not to offer it, and they found several ways to make it more expensive, but they didn't give a break to the working people - mostly blue-collar working people - who will be hit the hardest by their much-vaunted compromises. That would be the same blue-collar voters that proved so vital to the Democrats' electoral victories in 2008. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to believe that sometime soon Democrats could face some bad karma - the electoral kind - for their indifference to the needs of their constituents. In this debate, the progressives aren't just being idealistic. They're being pragmatic . Their plans have a greater likelihood of helping people who need it - and as a result, of helping their party in the years to come. Ding! Ding! Ding! Hear that? It's the sound of the disaffected middle class in 2012 if the Blue Dogs have their way. Already alienated by big payouts to wealthy Wall Street bankers, they're counting up their new financial burdens ... and taking a second look at the Republican Party. ______________ 1 From 300% to 400% of the Federal poverty level. RJ Eskow blogs when he can at: A Night Light The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog Website: Eskow and Associates
 
Michael Brenner: The Heavenly Host of Health Care Authors Top
The health care bill is 1,000+ pages. As long as the Old and New Testaments, with a few centuries of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire tacked on. That in itself raises justifiable suspicions as to what is in it. All conceivable explanations for such unseemly length suggest that these doubts are well founded. The legion of authors is one reason. Most all congressmen, their armada of staffers, armies of lobbyists, and even the occasional White House operative have had a hand in writing this opus. Unhappily, the all too common motivations of ego satisfaction and promotion of self-interest are a lethal combination as far as the public interest is concerned. That's one. Then there are the myriad of qualifiers, addenda and exemptions incorporated at the behest of some special pleading party or other. That's two. Complexity and rephrased repetitions similarly serve to open opportunities for dispute as to what exactly has and has not been stipulated. Multiple interpretations can be a form of compromise between drafters and/or a way for legislators to put their own spin on the bill when defending it before constituents. That's three. Confusion as to specific aims and purposes also can be the more or less innocent outcome of a turgid, wearisome process. To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Take counsel together and it shall come to nought." Protracted deliberations on this scale pretty much ensure that we have gone beyond 'nought' and passed into negative territory. Amazingly, Isaiah had this blazing insight without ever serving on a Congressional committee or having attended a faculty meeting. That is four. A persuasive explanation can be compounded of all four hypotheses. That is not reassuring, especially for those who doubtless will encounter the hardships of trying to obtain affordable medical care -- the point of the exercise, supposedly. Those of a more positive frame of mind will be free to celebrate the modest signs of bipartisanship that marked the bill's tortuous odyssey. No small thing; after all, even the Good Book is bipartisan. Consider the fair and balanced admonitions of Matthew (7:7): "Seek and you shall find," he counsels Republicans while comforting Democrats with the words, "ask and you shall be given." Perhaps reflections on Scripture will give Barack Obama peace of mind on his holidays. More on Transparency
 
Matthew Filipowicz: WATCH: Sarah Palin Cuts Demo For Radio Show Top
Ever since Sarah Palin's abrupt and odd resignation as Governor of Alaska, people have been speculating what her next career move might be. Well, that speculation may be coming to an end, as Inside Radio is reporting that Palin representatives have been quietly testing the waters to see how much interest radio syndicators have for her. It appears now that Palin's people are doing more than just testing the waters. We have obtained exclusive footage of Sarah Palin, in the studio, recording a demo to shop to potential syndicators. Take a look. With a demo like that, Rush Limbaugh better look out. Unfortunately, it appears radio giant Clear Channel may have already passed because The main objection to Palin as radio talk-show host is that she would have to hold forth for three hours a day. Who are they kidding? I can't think of anyone better able to articulate the conservative point of view than Sarah Palin. Just think of it. Sarah Palin... Talking... Unscripted... For fifteen hours a week... We have to make this happen, people! And I'm not just saying this as a comedian who is drooling over the potential limitless amounts of material. No, I'm saying this as an American. As Sarah would say, "Let's do it for our troops." More on Satire
 
Ryan Haydon and Stefani Piermattei: Real Housewives of Atlanta - New Attitude, Same ATL - SEASON PREMIERE! Top
Return to Atlanta with us for the Premiere of Season Two of Real Housewives of Atlanta . BYOL: Bring your own liveblog (don't worry; we'll spot you one). 10 pm ET! real-housewives-7-30 More on The Real Housewives
 
Emma Coleman Jordan: Georgetown Professor Richard America Joins the Conversation about the Gates Arrest Top
My last post sparked an email exchange between me and my Georgetown University colleague, Professor Richard F. America, Professor of the Practice Director of the Africa Initiative Director of Community Reinvestment School of Business Georgetown University I invited Professor America to write an op-ed for this space. He has special expertise as a management scholar and a keen observer of the racial dynamics of authority in the workplace. His views are below By Richard F. America, Georgetown University School of Business Prof Henry Louis Gates and Officer Crowley had an interaction that became newsworthy. Comments have been published that examine many aspects of this event. We have an opportunity to gain one other takeaway that might be beneficial far beyond police -citizen relations, or even black- white relations. The interpersonal dynamics of all this are worth a brief notice. And they might even have been the key to what occurred. Why they reacted as they did flows, in part, most likely, from unconscious sources. As a practical matter, we should move toward a norm of regular mental health check ups, every four years, as routine personal maintenance , - 16 sessions, once a week. Just as we have regular physical and dental check ups. This incident, and every other such incident, whether race is a factor or not, may be more about the weaning, toilet training, and early family experiences with authority, power, and competition, than about the legal facts in the situation as it unfolded in real time in the case. I am professor of business, not a psychologist, clinical social worker, psychiatrist or counselor. But,I have studied enough organizational behavior, and experienced enough workplace conduct, to reach a conclusion. I have examined some aspects of black white relations and have coauthored two books on the subject, with Prof Bernard E Anderson of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. We interviewed African American managers in 1975 and again in 1994. We published two books, Moving Ahead: Black Managers in American Business, and Soul in Management : How African American Managers Thrive in the Competitive Corporate Environment those books. I also interviewed a sample of white managers, in the late 1990s. The interviews probed experiences in interracial professional management interactions. One conclusion from this research on race and management is that all people who have any authority over other people, or who aspire to have such authority someday, such as medical, law and business students, should be required to go through a process of psychological counseling before they can practice their profession, whatever it is. This can be extended to law enforcement. Human beings tend to "act out" a lot. Many of us have trouble identifying, processing and expressing feelings in many situations, including in professional interactions. Social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists are all required to go through some form of process that increases their understanding and awareness of themselves and others, and improves their ability to help clients and patients, and to manage themselves and their relations with others. I believe that everybody should. It turns out that there is a lot of unconscious material, in most of us, that can emerge under pressure or provocation, and create conflict that might be avoidable, if we had fuller understanding of ourselves. And much of that misdirected anger, fear, worry, turns into legal problems, EEO complaints, and court cases, when it is really a psycho - medical issue that could be fixed with some work on greater self awareness. The incident also surfaces systemic racism, and the broad problem of unjust enrichment, and what we need to do about that Big Picture problem, that is the subtext for this incident Unfortunately, the National Teaching Moment, that some observers hope, even if it occurs, - cannot be very productive because we do not yet have a framework for having a meaningful conversation on race. The necessary analytical background work on our economic history, and its current policy implications, has not been done. Nor have we completed the personal psychological inventory required to reflect on what we learn. When it is, we will then be able to converse in ways that can lead to compensatory justice, and to behavior changes by whites and blacks, that will solve the race problem
 
John Thornton: What If: The Non-Profit Media Model Top
TechCrunch honcho Michael Arrington deserves much applause for his July 30 post, " What If: The New New York Times ." In it, he ponders what might happen if the top 10% of the venerable New York Times ' reporters went on walkabout and set up their own purely digital shop. From a journalistic standpoint, one presumes that harps would play and angels sing. Arrington proves that he "gets it" in a way that many others cogitating on the future of news do not when he writes, "Journalists still matter. A lot. Especially the good ones." And although I know of no such objective measure, it's hard to argue with his assertion that 5-10% of a newspaper's best journalistic talent account for half or more of the value of the enterprise. Arrington also seems to believe that the NNYT could be viable commercially, with a $25 million annual expense structure, and--if it could match the traffic of the current digital version of the Gray Lady--124 million monthly page views. Certainly, nobody should question him when he asserts that plenty of money would be available to back such a venture. If he says so, it likely is so. Nobody in Silicon Valley is more connected than Michael. Still, Arrington's analysis leaves me wondering whether--in re-imagining the New York Times as a purely commercial, digitally native team of journalistic all-stars--the game is worth the candle. To cover a little over $2 million per month in expenses, a site with traffic equivalent to the current NYT would need revenue per 1,000 page views of about $16.50. That might be doable, depending on how one feels about impressions per page, sell-through, and--most imponderably of all--the secular trajectory of display advertising rates. But still: we're talking about a business with the traffic of the NYT that only breaks even. Why would the hedgies and private equity titans bother? Even if the site grew to twice that size, it's hard to envision an enterprise that is much bigger than $50 million or so in revenue, with maybe 25% operating margins. What's a site like that worth? Not a lot more than the $100 million Arrington posits it might cost to launch the thing. But what if our cash-flush friends were to go a different route, taking cues from both Microeconomics 101 and the New Testament (stay with me here)? What if instead of trying to earn a buck on the NNYT, they were to turn it into a purely civic, not-for profit endeavor? In Micro 101, we learn that such "public goods" as clean air and national defense will not be produced in sufficient supply exclusively by market forces. Allow for the sake of argument that what I'll call "capital J" Journalism--journalism that takes on serious, complex issues and puts them in the context of how citizens interact with their government--is such a good. As for the New Testament, the apostles Peter and Luke both admonish against that most common of human frailties--the allure of attempting to serve God and Mammon simultaneously. From roughly 1960 to about the middle of this decade, newspaper publishers seemed to think they had managed somehow to roll this dictate back. A secular economic boom, shifting demographics, and sharp consolidation of newspapers led to a period when solid investigative and explanatory journalism was plentiful, even though newspaper operating margins often neared 30%. As it turns out, though, God seems to have a long memory. No such repeal was ever granted. And with newspaper margins now plunging into the single digits on a very large base of (largely leveraged) capital, nobody is talking about public service nearly as much as paying the bills. When it comes to the news business, God and Mammon are no longer BFFs. And now back to Micro 101, where we also learn that all economic decisions are made at the margin, or at the incremental unit of revenue or cost. For newspaper publishers, that means deciding between reinvesting the incremental available dollar and sending it back to shareholders. It also means deciding between keeping the Baghdad bureau open and keeping up with TMZ. But what if a bunch of financial titans decided to stick strictly to lucre in their in their day jobs, and did the NNYT out of their philanthropic coffers? A non-profit version of Arrington's conception could be a fabulously worthwhile philanthropic venture. It could produce the best journalism in the world, without confusing profit motives with the provision of a public good. And there would be no doubt that the incremental available buck could go back into the product. In Texas, a group of us is about to try a very similar play with a statewide, online, nonprofit organization we're calling Texas Tribune . We will launch with a small staff focusing on politics, government, and public policy issues of statewide interest. As a 501c3, we will try very hard to remember that we serve nobody but the people of Texas, although we'll attempt to be as profitable as we can so we can grow to match our outsized ambitions. Along with pioneering colleagues in places like San Diego and Minneapolis, our team has learned a lot about non-profit journalism down here in the Lone Star State during the last year. We'd love it if somebody with the ambition for a non-profit version of the NNYT would give us a jingle. Help us launch the Tribune, then let's tackle Gotham together.
 
Karen Dalton-Beninato: The Hello Girl: An Interview with Author Quinn Cummings Top
Quinn Cummings has written her debut book, the alternately lyrical and hilarious, Notes from the Underwire, Adventures from my Awkward and Lovely Life. From her stories about starring in The Goodbye Girl to her string of endearing domestic mishaps, this book is what my book would like to be when it grows up and writes itself. Quinn was kind enough to answer the following questions and since we stay in touch via Twitter, I'd like to add: Read @Quinncy For the Win: I love your pet stories in Notes from the Underwire , and was thrilled to learn the term feline rage. Do you believe the new study that cats control their owners? Was anyone who lives with a cat who saw that study surprised? I have known women suffering through morning sickness open cans of stinky wet food for their cats. My theory is that, down deep, the cat and the human both know that if the size ratio was inverted, they would eat us. We love our cats, but we're also appeasing them in case they suddenly have a huge growth spurt. You talk about trying your hand at sitcom writing in Notes from the Underwire (Favorite quote: "That's not just good, it's Saved by the Bell good"). What kind of writing comes the most naturally to you? That question just sent me off on a reverie about how totally sweet it would have been if my natural writing style was like Tom Clancy, only I developed this talent two years before Clancy wrote his first book. And then I made Clancy-money for decades and was writing this answer on my estate in Hawaii. Heck, I'd be writing it from my estate which was Hawaii. Anyway, I think my natural inclination is towards the quotidian and the ruminative. This is a fancy way of saying I like to think for a long time about an uncomfortable conversation I have had at the grocery store and then I like to write about it. Your QCReport was picked as a top blog on Newsweek , how soon after that did the subsequent book deal with Hyperion come about? Years later. Completely unrelated nice things which happened to me. Newsweek was alerted to my blog within three months of my starting to write it; the book came about because Abigail Breslin was nominated for an Academy Award. No, I'm not seeing patterns where none exist. Because a child was nominated, USA Today did an article about former nominees who were children. My story went something like "Didn't go to jail, never went to rehab, created The Hiphugger, has a blog now." An editor at Hyperion found the blog, read enough to think there was a book there, got the head of Hyperion and the marketing department to agree and came to me with an offer. If you have an MFA and a thick file of turndowns from agents for your really good book, I know that my story is very irritating. Sorry. You're currently on a blog book tour. Did you come up with that concept, and how cool is it to meet your readers without having to leave the house? The Quinn Cummings Seemingly Endless Blog Book Tour of 2009 has been much more fun than I could have anticipated. First of all, there's the part where you can do press without have to check your lip-gloss, which is a huge "Yeah!" in my book. Second, and I'm not sucking up to my readers, I promise, but the questions have been remarkably good. And the Q&A format works not unlike tennis, in that you're more likely to hit the ball back hard and well if it's hit hard and well to you. And the idea was offered to me by Sara J. Henry who will be using the blog book tour for her own page-turner of a novel very shortly. I wish I could say I thought of it, but I can take credit for having the sense to see a nearly perfect idea when it's handed to me. Speaking of coming up with concepts, what was your inspiration to invent the hip hugger? I don't carry many babies lately, but it's a brilliant design! I had Carpal Tunnel Syndrome when I was pregnant, which went away the second the kid was born but left me with some nerve damage in my fingers. Nerve damage which was aggravated by holding my baby and then my toddler on my hip. I wanted something which displaced the weight of holding her there across my upper body and didn't make my hands go numb. I mentioned this to a friend who had a design background. Nine months later, we had our first Hiphuggers in a store. One of the strange facts of my life is that my name is on a patent, which still strikes me as absurd; people with patents should be able to put together Ikea furniture without needing to take a sobbing break. But here I am. I've been name dropping you shamelessly and friends are happy to hear about a writer who went from a childhood in the limelight to a happy home life. With all the Michael Jackson childhood stories coming to light, what advice would you give to the parents of a precocious child looking to break into life in the public eye? I lucked out. I had parents who didn't confuse me for an ATM and a certain psychic stability which allowed me to come through my childhood with only the usual amount of scars. Then again, there was no Internet when I was a kid, no cell-phone cameras, no Twitter, no Facebook. When I wasn't in the public eye, I could hope to be anonymous. No one has that luxury anymore. And if you live even a small part of your life as an entertainer you have, in the eyes of a percentage of the population, given up all expectation of ever leading a regular life. And being a former child actor is a permanent state; unless I save the rain forest, my obit is going to be titled, "Quinn Cummings, former child star, dies of something avoidable." Which is all my way of saying, if your kid likes acting and singing, there's something called local theater. After winning an Oscar nomination for The Goodbye Girl , you starred in series including "Family" and "Blossom" - What's your favorite TV show theme song? "The Wire." First of all, best show EVER, so I have this Pavlovian response to hearing "When You Walk Through the Garden," one of "YEAH! Best show EVER, about to start!" Second of all, I love how they did a new version every season and they were all great in different ways. And there's your full circle -- New Orleans' "Treme" is the next HBO series by the creators of "The Wire," and I'm sitting in a New Orleans courtyard fretting over feline rage syndrome. If our kitten doesn't have a panther sized growth spurt, kill and eat us I'm very much looking forward to reading your next book. Notes from the Underwire is available at Amazon.com ( Here ). More on Celebrity Kids
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)