President Obama's secretary of health and human services fired off a sharply worded letter to a California insurer Monday, demanding to know why it is raising rates for individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent.Hands off our healthcare so that insurance companies can jack up our premiums by a third doesn't seem like such great rallying cry.
The unusual salvo offers a reminder that, even as health-care legislation lies in limbo in Washington, the battle over surging health care costs continues in other venues.
Anthem Blue Cross of California sent out notices earlier this month to many of its roughly 800,000 holders of individual policies, informing them that the costs of their plans would sharply increase to cover rising health-care costs. The increases do not affect employer-provided plans in the state.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sometimes the free market isn't such a wonderful thing
While Republicans and Tea Partiers vilify health insurance reform, the bad practices of insurers continue. It's important to remember that this is the status quo that they are fighting for tooth and nail.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
I wonder what Dr. J will think of this
The New York Times reports on nurses fired for doing the right thing
It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.Commentary on this case seems like something tailor-made for North Carolina's Dr. J.
...But in what may be an unprecedented prosecution, Mrs. Mitchell is scheduled to stand trial in state court on Monday for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.
The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making "inflammatory" statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.
Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Two-tiered parking fees at the Coliseum?
Tony Wilkins blogs about a proposal he made to the Coliseum Commission to study discounting parking fees for local residents. The proposal was turned down, and we should be grateful that it was. While lower parking fees sound great, they actually cause a number of problems.
The first problem is that lower parking fees are likely to lead to a loss in revenue to the Coliseum. Clearly, revenue per car (at least revenue per local car) will go down. Tony correctly argues that the lower prices would likely induce some additional local residents to attend Coliseum events, which would mitigate some of these losses. However, we have to ask how large this response will be. Unless demand for Coliseum parking by local residents was unusually responsive, the losses associated with lower per-unit revenues would offset the gains associated with increased demand. In economic terms the demand for parking by local residents would have to be price elastic; there is no reason to believe that this is the case.
Even if demand were elastic (and again there isn't any reason to think that it is), parking capacity at many events is limited. Revenues from local attendees can't increase unless there are empty spots for them to fill. If the Coliseum's parking lots are already full (i.e., if demand already exceeds supply), there's no scope for increased parking utilization. Along the same lines, there would also be losses to the extent that lower-paying local attendees crowded out any higher paying non-local attendees. There may be other behavior on the margin that leads to losses (if a local and non-local person are going to a Coliseum event together, they now have an incentive to go in the local person's car--the term "designated driver" takes on a whole new meaning). For a variety of reasons, the plan will likely hurt revenues.
The second problem is that checking an attendee's "local" status complicates the process of collecting a parking fee. Let's assume that parking attendants will determine a driver's status by checking his or her license. This interaction will add a small amount (no more than a minute) to each parking entry. Although the time cost to a single parking entry is minuscule, the large number of such transactions would cumulate into a tremendous time loss. If there were no adjustments in the number of parking attendants, congestion entering the parking lots and backing out onto the roads would increase. The extra time spent waiting and the congestion on the roads present real costs in terms of convenience and safety. Alternatively, more parking lot attendants could be hired, but that would raise money costs. Either way, Coliseum parking, which is already a frustrating and time-consuming process, would become even less efficient.
A third issue is that the scheme is likely to shift the incidence of paying for Coliseum events away from those who actually use the facility and toward other local residents. As mentioned, the scheme is likely to cause revenues to drop. The Coliseum already operates at a loss and requires subsidization from local residents. Lower revenues mean that a greater subsidy will be needed. The incidence of the subsidy is distributed across all local taxpayers; the incidence of parking fees is not. Tony describes his proposal as a major "thank you" for taxpayers; the non-attending taxpayers who would have to pony up more money are not likely to say "you're welcome" to this.
To sum up, Tony's proposal would likely reduce parking revenues; add to congestion, waiting times, and traffic problems (or alternatively increase parking attendant costs); and result in greater transfers of wealth from residents who don't attend Coliseum to residents who do. Put another way, it's costly and socially inefficient.
The first problem is that lower parking fees are likely to lead to a loss in revenue to the Coliseum. Clearly, revenue per car (at least revenue per local car) will go down. Tony correctly argues that the lower prices would likely induce some additional local residents to attend Coliseum events, which would mitigate some of these losses. However, we have to ask how large this response will be. Unless demand for Coliseum parking by local residents was unusually responsive, the losses associated with lower per-unit revenues would offset the gains associated with increased demand. In economic terms the demand for parking by local residents would have to be price elastic; there is no reason to believe that this is the case.
Even if demand were elastic (and again there isn't any reason to think that it is), parking capacity at many events is limited. Revenues from local attendees can't increase unless there are empty spots for them to fill. If the Coliseum's parking lots are already full (i.e., if demand already exceeds supply), there's no scope for increased parking utilization. Along the same lines, there would also be losses to the extent that lower-paying local attendees crowded out any higher paying non-local attendees. There may be other behavior on the margin that leads to losses (if a local and non-local person are going to a Coliseum event together, they now have an incentive to go in the local person's car--the term "designated driver" takes on a whole new meaning). For a variety of reasons, the plan will likely hurt revenues.
The second problem is that checking an attendee's "local" status complicates the process of collecting a parking fee. Let's assume that parking attendants will determine a driver's status by checking his or her license. This interaction will add a small amount (no more than a minute) to each parking entry. Although the time cost to a single parking entry is minuscule, the large number of such transactions would cumulate into a tremendous time loss. If there were no adjustments in the number of parking attendants, congestion entering the parking lots and backing out onto the roads would increase. The extra time spent waiting and the congestion on the roads present real costs in terms of convenience and safety. Alternatively, more parking lot attendants could be hired, but that would raise money costs. Either way, Coliseum parking, which is already a frustrating and time-consuming process, would become even less efficient.
A third issue is that the scheme is likely to shift the incidence of paying for Coliseum events away from those who actually use the facility and toward other local residents. As mentioned, the scheme is likely to cause revenues to drop. The Coliseum already operates at a loss and requires subsidization from local residents. Lower revenues mean that a greater subsidy will be needed. The incidence of the subsidy is distributed across all local taxpayers; the incidence of parking fees is not. Tony describes his proposal as a major "thank you" for taxpayers; the non-attending taxpayers who would have to pony up more money are not likely to say "you're welcome" to this.
To sum up, Tony's proposal would likely reduce parking revenues; add to congestion, waiting times, and traffic problems (or alternatively increase parking attendant costs); and result in greater transfers of wealth from residents who don't attend Coliseum to residents who do. Put another way, it's costly and socially inefficient.
Sen. Shelby's parochialism holding up 70 nominees
The Party of No is at it again.
A single Republican senator, Richard Shelby (R-AL), has placed a blanket hold on 70 nominees made by the Obama administration (that's a seven followed by a zero). The hold applies to every nominee on the Senate's executive calendar.
Update (2/5/10 2:30 p.m.): Josh Marshall has more on the grubby hold up aspects of Sen. Shelby's extortion.
A single Republican senator, Richard Shelby (R-AL), has placed a blanket hold on 70 nominees made by the Obama administration (that's a seven followed by a zero). The hold applies to every nominee on the Senate's executive calendar.
Roberts Gibbs, the White House press secretary, sharply criticized Mr. Shelby’s actions, calling it the best instance yet for how Washington is broken. “I guess if you needed one example of what’s wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold up 70 qualified individuals to make government work better because he didn’t get his earmarks,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters today. “If that’s not the poster child for how this town needs to change the way it works, I fear there won’t be a greater example of silliness throughout the entire year of 2010.”Sen. Shelby's abuse of the system is all in a day's lack of work for the GOP.
He added: “It boggles the mind to hold up qualified nominees for positions that are needed to perform functions in a government because you didn’t get two earmarks.”
Update (2/5/10 2:30 p.m.): Josh Marshall has more on the grubby hold up aspects of Sen. Shelby's extortion.
In this case, we're not dealing with a stand on partisanship or ideology or simple political shiv play which I guess can each be respected in their own place. This is more like just a stick up. Gimme my money and I'll give you your Senate back! Worse than a squeegee man and not much better than a bank robber, Shelby is shutting down the president's ability to appoint anyone to anything until he gets his way. In a sense Shelby's gambit is little different from what countless other senators of both parties have done in the past, using the senate rules to get the White House's attention to pry some money free from the federal government. But the scale is unheard and the moment is different. The only mystery about this one is which is more outrageous -- Shelby's hold or the fact that the rest of the senators of both parties allow it.
Tea party convention--opening night
The Tea Partiers' xenophobia was in full flower last night as Tom Tancredo called for civics and literacy tests for voters but only after conjuring up some Harry Potter imagery.
(Note to Tom, naturalized citizens have to pass such tests; you and the natural-born citizens that you were addressing don't; these are facts you would you would understand if you had taken a civics test).
(Note to Tom, naturalized citizens have to pass such tests; you and the natural-born citizens that you were addressing don't; these are facts you would you would understand if you had taken a civics test).
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Republican mantra--be afraid, be very afraid
Dahlia Lithwick on Republicans' Terror Derangement Syndrome
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been in U.S. custody since 2003. Other al Qaeda terrorists have been held longer. It's long past time that final justice was served. It's in the country's interest that the trials take place.
The Republicans saw fit to delay justice through nearly six years of the Bush administration. Their scare-mongering led to a series of cockamamie procedures that couldn't pass muster with the military or even the Republicans' own activist, hand-picked Supreme Court ("sure we'll throw you the odd election, but even we have to drawn the line somewhere"). Now the Republicans want to delay justice longer. All the better to scare you with.
With a shaky economy, a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, climate challenges, 46 million uninsured people, and a looming structural deficit, there are enough problems to command our attention. Is it too much to ask for Republicans to stop gumming up the works and to allow the Obama administration to finally dispense with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
To borrow a popular phrase, "we've got an app for that"--it's called the remarkable U.S. justice system.
Policies and practices that were perfectly acceptable just after 9/11, or when deployed by the Bush administration, are now decried as dangerous and reckless. The same prominent Republicans who once celebrated open civilian trials for Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," now claim that open civilian trials endanger Americans (some Republicans have now even gone so far as to try to defund such trials). Republicans who once supported closing Guantanamo are now fighting to keep it open. And one GOP senator, who like all members of Congress must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, has voiced his concern that the Christmas bomber really needed to be "properly interrogated" instead of being allowed to ask for a lawyer.Republican scare-mongering is nothing new. The same Republicans were falling all over themselves in the last election arguing who could torture the most (to the least effect). The same crowd scare-mongered the country into an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq and away from the actual perpetrators of terror. And the same crowd scare-mongered the country away from our basic civil liberties.
In short, what was once tough on terror is now soft on terror. And each time the Republicans move their own crazy-place goal posts, the Obama administration moves right along with them.
It's hard to explain why this keeps happening. There hasn't been a successful terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. The terrorists who were tried in criminal proceedings since 9/11 are rotting in jail. The Christmas Day terror attack was both amateurish and unsuccessful. The Christmas bomber is evidently cooperating with intelligence officials without the need to resort to thumbscrews. In a rational universe, one might conclude that all this is actually good news. But in the Republican crazy-place, there is no good news. There's only good luck. Tick tock. And the longer they are lucky, the more terrified Americans have become.
This week Glenn Greenwald summarized how far the goal posts of normal have moved when he pointed out that "merely advocating what Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy—'to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against' terrorists—is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists."
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been in U.S. custody since 2003. Other al Qaeda terrorists have been held longer. It's long past time that final justice was served. It's in the country's interest that the trials take place.
The Republicans saw fit to delay justice through nearly six years of the Bush administration. Their scare-mongering led to a series of cockamamie procedures that couldn't pass muster with the military or even the Republicans' own activist, hand-picked Supreme Court ("sure we'll throw you the odd election, but even we have to drawn the line somewhere"). Now the Republicans want to delay justice longer. All the better to scare you with.
With a shaky economy, a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, climate challenges, 46 million uninsured people, and a looming structural deficit, there are enough problems to command our attention. Is it too much to ask for Republicans to stop gumming up the works and to allow the Obama administration to finally dispense with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
To borrow a popular phrase, "we've got an app for that"--it's called the remarkable U.S. justice system.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The hermaphrodites are coming; the hermaphodites are coming
Freedom of speech is a great thing.
Just listen to Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter explain his enlighted opposition to ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military.
With this interview, Rep. Hunter becomes the best spokesman that opponents of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have.
The former best spokesman, though, is still pretty good.
Just listen to Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter explain his enlighted opposition to ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military.
Rep. Hunter: The military is not civilian life. And I think the folks that have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other. There has to be a special bond there, and I think that that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians.As the interview goes on, Rep. Hunter digs himself in deeper and deeper.
Interviewer: Transgenders and hermaphrodites?
Rep. Hunter: Yeah, that's, that's going to be part of this whole thing if.. It's not just gays and lesbians, it's a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you are going to let anybody in no matter what preference, what sexual preference they have, that means that the military is going to probably let everybody in. It's going to be like civilian life, and I think that would be detrimental for the military.
With this interview, Rep. Hunter becomes the best spokesman that opponents of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have.
The former best spokesman, though, is still pretty good.
Intolerance isn't mavericky
When Sen. John McCain was asked in 2007 about gays serving openly in the miltary, he said,
Adm. Mullen said
Sen. McCain's response is that he is "deeply disappointed" in their testimony.
Sen. McCain's political cowardice and prejudice are what are deeply disappointing.
The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to. (see full transcript)Fast forward to February 2010. The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who were both originally appointed by the last Republican President testify before Congress.
Adm. Mullen said
It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do...We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as institutions.Sec. Gates stated that he "fully support(s)" the President's policy of ending sexual discrimination in the military.
Sen. McCain's response is that he is "deeply disappointed" in their testimony.
Sen. McCain's political cowardice and prejudice are what are deeply disappointing.
Hitchens on North Korea
Christopher Hitchens' abrasiveness is put to good use castigating North Korea (and Western leaders' kowtowing towards it).
Here are the two most shattering facts about North Korea. First, when viewed by satellite photography at night, it is an area of unrelieved darkness. Barely a scintilla of light is visible even in the capital city... Second, a North Korean is on average six inches shorter than a South Korean. You may care to imagine how much surplus value has been wrung out of such a slave, and for how long, in order to feed and sustain the militarized crime family that completely owns both the country and its people.
But this is what proves Myers right. Unlike previous racist dictatorships, the North Korean one has actually succeeded in producing a sort of new species. Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.
Monday, February 1, 2010
NY Times reviews new museum
The New York Times has a positive review of the new International Civil Rights Center and Museum
...one of the achievements of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum, which is opening Monday in that former Woolworth building, is that you begin to understand how such a place became a pivot in the greatest political movement of the 20th century.How refreshing to read an article that doesn't describe one or the other of our local politicians as venial clowns.
In the museum’s 30,000 square feet of exhibition space, the mundane luncheonette reminds us that a cataclysmic social transformation took place over the right to be ordinary. For that was what was at stake — not subtle and arcane matters of law or obscure practices that challenged eccentric codes of behavior, but the basic acts of daily life: eating, drinking, sleeping, working, playing. It was here, at this luncheonette counter, that four 17-year-old freshmen at the all-black Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina — Joseph A. McNeil, Franklin E. McCain, David L. Richmond and Ezell A. Blair Jr. — arrived on Feb. 1, 1960, sat down and ordered some food.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Time to declare the recession over
The Dept. of Commerce reported this morning that GDP in the U.S. grew at a smart 5.7 percent annual clip in the 4th quarter of 2009. Coupled with 2.2 percent growth reading for the 3rd quarter, it now looks like the Great Recession is over. All that's left now is for the National Bureau of Economic Research and maybe Punxsutawney Phil to make the final announcements.
Growth in the economy, especially growth at 5.7 percent, is good news. However, it only means that the economy has turned the corner--not that it's dug itself out of the hole. Even with two quarters of increases, the real level of GDP has only recovered to the level it was at in the 4th quarter of 2008 and remains below the pre-recession peak. The unemployment recession is also dragging on.
There were also positive and negative signs in the growth figures themselves. In the good news column, the net export position of the U.S. improved (imports and exports both grew, but exports grew faster). Also, the economy achieved growth despite a deceleration in government spending. In the bad news column, a substantial amount of the growth in the 4th quarter was attributable to businesses restocking inventories. Inventory growth could be a drag in future quarters.
Growth in the economy, especially growth at 5.7 percent, is good news. However, it only means that the economy has turned the corner--not that it's dug itself out of the hole. Even with two quarters of increases, the real level of GDP has only recovered to the level it was at in the 4th quarter of 2008 and remains below the pre-recession peak. The unemployment recession is also dragging on.
There were also positive and negative signs in the growth figures themselves. In the good news column, the net export position of the U.S. improved (imports and exports both grew, but exports grew faster). Also, the economy achieved growth despite a deceleration in government spending. In the bad news column, a substantial amount of the growth in the 4th quarter was attributable to businesses restocking inventories. Inventory growth could be a drag in future quarters.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Coble commends O'Keefe
Rep. Howard Coble is a co-sponsor of a House Resolution (H.Res. 809) to honor the neo-Nixonian, James O'Keefe III. The resolution commends O'Keefe for his "exemplary actions." It goes on to say that O'Keefe is "owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States."
More here.
More here.
Toyota's woes
While many American's might be tempted to cheer Toyota's quality, recall, and now production and sales woes, they might want to think again.
Toyota announced last week that it was recalling 2.3 million vehicles in the U.S. because of suspected problems with the gas pedals becoming stuck in those cars. However, other than identifying that problem might exist, Toyota does not appear to have a strategy for fixing it.
Yesterday, Toyota announced that it was suspending production and sales of the affected vehicles while it determines the exact cause of the problems.
Toyota's problems would seem to be good news for the Big-Three American automakers--GM, Ford, and Chrysler--which have struggled for years against Toyota's reputation for high-quality manufacturing. In time, Toyota's problems could give the U.S. automakers a boost. If nothing else, consumers will be considering a wider range of cars than they would have before the recall.
However, Toyota's problems are bad news for the struggling U.S. economy. The suspension in sales hurts owners and employees at U.S.-based dealerships.
Worse, Toyota will be suspending production at several North American plants. From yesterday's announcement
Americans tend to think of foreign-owned corporations as the enemy. However, when those corporations invest and produce in the U.S., Americans benefit. Toyota's current problems are more than just Toyota's concerns.
Toyota announced last week that it was recalling 2.3 million vehicles in the U.S. because of suspected problems with the gas pedals becoming stuck in those cars. However, other than identifying that problem might exist, Toyota does not appear to have a strategy for fixing it.
Yesterday, Toyota announced that it was suspending production and sales of the affected vehicles while it determines the exact cause of the problems.
Toyota's problems would seem to be good news for the Big-Three American automakers--GM, Ford, and Chrysler--which have struggled for years against Toyota's reputation for high-quality manufacturing. In time, Toyota's problems could give the U.S. automakers a boost. If nothing else, consumers will be considering a wider range of cars than they would have before the recall.
However, Toyota's problems are bad news for the struggling U.S. economy. The suspension in sales hurts owners and employees at U.S.-based dealerships.
Worse, Toyota will be suspending production at several North American plants. From yesterday's announcement
Toyota is expected to stop producing vehicles on the following production lines for the week of February 1 to assess and coordinate activities. The North America vehicle production facilities affected are:These shutdowns won't help the economic or employment recovery. The communities in Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas certainly aren't cheering.
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Canada (Corolla, Matrix, and RAV4)
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana (Sequoia and Highlander)
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky – Line 1 (Camry and Avalon)
- Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (Camry)
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas (Tundra)
Americans tend to think of foreign-owned corporations as the enemy. However, when those corporations invest and produce in the U.S., Americans benefit. Toyota's current problems are more than just Toyota's concerns.
What really bugs us
The Nixonian tendencies of conservatives die very, very hard.
A conservative activist who made undercover videos of the liberal community-organizing group ACORN was one of four men charged Tuesday with attempting to illegally access and manipulate the phone system in a district office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.Let's see if O'Keefe tries to pin this on ACORN as well.
Joseph Basel, 24; Robert Flanagan, 24; James O'Keefe, 25; and Stan Dai, 24, were charged with entering Landrieu's New Orleans office under "false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony," according to a news release from the local U.S. attorney's office. The office is federal property.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Let them drink tea
South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer shows his compassion and respect for human life.
Teachers will tell you that for some needy children, school breakfasts and lunches are the only meals that they can depend on.
The USDA reports that as the country entered the recession, household food insecurity, that is, the lack of "access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members," was at its highest point since the government began measuring this in 1995. Among households with children, more than one in five were food insecure at the end of 2008.
Food insecurity in South Carolina over the three years preceding the report (2006-8) was nearly a full percentage point higher than the national average.
The voters of South Carolina should send Lt. Gov. Bauer to his room without supper, not its poor children.
Bauer's proposal comes down to taking children's meals away if they or their parents don't measure up.Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has compared giving people government assistance to "feeding stray animals."
Bauer, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better," Bauer said.
In South Carolina, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program.
Bauer's remarks came during a speech in which he said government should take away assistance if those receiving help didn't pass drug tests or attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings if their children were receiving free and reduced-price lunches.
Teachers will tell you that for some needy children, school breakfasts and lunches are the only meals that they can depend on.
The USDA reports that as the country entered the recession, household food insecurity, that is, the lack of "access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members," was at its highest point since the government began measuring this in 1995. Among households with children, more than one in five were food insecure at the end of 2008.
Food insecurity in South Carolina over the three years preceding the report (2006-8) was nearly a full percentage point higher than the national average.
The voters of South Carolina should send Lt. Gov. Bauer to his room without supper, not its poor children.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Lots of piggies at this particular trough
If you're asking why in the world a group of "investors" would put money into a hotel project in downtown Greensboro with such poor economic prospects, you're asking the wrong question. The "investors" are playing much, if not all, of this game with other people's money--they've got very little skin in the game. Several of the "investors" also stand to immediately take money out of the project if it goes forward.
From a Triad Business Journal article about the original project in early December
However, long before the first hotel room goes unsold, lots of people will have made a bundle. From the Friday article,
So, Chisholm gets a developer's fee of up to $2 million; Kaplan's investors' group will take out "about $1 million;" Alston gets a broker's fee (which he's not willing to disclose); and Deena Hayes' friend John Greene personally benefits from the construction. And all of this money comes out before the first guest passes this white elephant by.
I'm still waiting to see if Max Bialystok and Leo Bloom are in on this.
From a Triad Business Journal article about the original project in early December
At the moment, the Urban Hotel Group, led by co-developer Bridget Chisholm, is proposing a seven-story, 216-room, $47 million luxury hotel and parking deck to be funded almost entirely with federal stimulus money in the form of "recovery zone facility bonds," as well as New Market Tax Credits and tax-increment financing. Just $1 million in private investment is planned.Updated reporting last Friday on the numbers doesn't indicate a much higher personal stake in the revised proposal.
Kaplan told City Council on Tuesday that the entire project represents a $52.5 million investment, with $12.5 million of that representing the estimated value of Elm Street Center and all the land it sits on between Elm and Davie Streets. New construction is loosely estimated at $40 million. Of that, $26 million would come from the low-interest, stimulus-related bonds. Kaplan cannot say yet where the remaining $14 million would come from (if they need that much), but some portion could come from New Market Tax Credits, bank financing and/or cash put in by the development partnership.And the on-line copy of the proposal from the News-Record has redacted the key financial information.
However, long before the first hotel room goes unsold, lots of people will have made a bundle. From the Friday article,
Kaplan confirms that Bridget Chisholm, who heads the Urban Hotel Group, would claim a developer’s fee of about 5 percent, or roughly $2 million, but he says that she has agreed to take only a "small portion of that amount out at closing" and leave the rest in the project as equity.In addition to this, Skip Alston, will take home a substantial fee for brokering the deal. And it appears that Deena Hayes may benefit as well through her connection with developer John Greene.
He also says that his investors’ group, made up of about 10 Greensboro businesspeople, may take out about $1 million in cash at closing in compensation for selling the office building attached to Elm Street Center so that it can become part of the project.
So, Chisholm gets a developer's fee of up to $2 million; Kaplan's investors' group will take out "about $1 million;" Alston gets a broker's fee (which he's not willing to disclose); and Deena Hayes' friend John Greene personally benefits from the construction. And all of this money comes out before the first guest passes this white elephant by.
I'm still waiting to see if Max Bialystok and Leo Bloom are in on this.
So many foreclosures, so little time
You would think that with all of the underwater and distressed properties around, banks wouldn't be terribly eager to foreclose on extra properties. Sadly, you'd be wrong, as ABC News reports
You know that the mortgage system is stacked against homeowners when a company can foreclose on any property at all. In this case, BofA appears to have padlocked the property, removed possessions, and shut off the utilities. And all this appears to have occurred after BofA was informed that it was targeting the wrong property.
All in a day's work for BofA--it will probably even pay a bonus for the entrepreneurial forecloser.
Some 2.8 million homeowners faced the threat of foreclosure last year, but it wasn't supposed to happen to Charlie and Maria Cordoso. In 2005, the New Bedford, Mass. couple paid in full -- in cash -- for a house in Springville, Fla., and rented it out with plans eventually to use the home as a retirement getaway.The story goes on to report that BofA is being sued for foreclosing on other properties on which it did not hold or service mortgages.
They said they were shocked to learn earlier this month that Bank of America had locked them out and removed their clothing and furniture from the property.
You know that the mortgage system is stacked against homeowners when a company can foreclose on any property at all. In this case, BofA appears to have padlocked the property, removed possessions, and shut off the utilities. And all this appears to have occurred after BofA was informed that it was targeting the wrong property.
All in a day's work for BofA--it will probably even pay a bonus for the entrepreneurial forecloser.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Not so cool news
So much for skeptics' arguments (wish) that the Earth's climate is cooling. NASA has released a new analysis.
UPDATE (1/26/10): Ever careful, Pino makes the excellent point that the article describes the last decade as the warmest "ever" and is also unclear about 2005's place in history. The NASA article that is linked describes these records properly.
The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ever on Earth according to data released by scientists at NASA.Interested readers can also look at the NASA news release.
The U.S. space agency's data also revealed that 2009 was the second warmest year since temperature records began in 1880, and only narrowly cooler than 2005, the warmest year ever.
UPDATE (1/26/10): Ever careful, Pino makes the excellent point that the article describes the last decade as the warmest "ever" and is also unclear about 2005's place in history. The NASA article that is linked describes these records properly.
Sen. Harkins' proposal to restore democracy
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has long been an opponent of the anti-democratic filibuster in the Senate, is introducing sensible legislation to rein in the practice.
The filibuster--the ability to indefinitely continue debate--is a Senate perogative, not a Constitutional requirement. Although the ability to filibuster has been in the Senate's self-adopted rules since 1806, the first filibuster was not made until 1841. Filibusters were rarely used before 1970. Even through the turbulent 1960s, it was unusual to have more than a handful per year.
The last session of Congress saw a stunning 139 motions for cloture filed. The current session is on a pace to meet that unfortunate record with 67 motions already filed. Prior to the last session of Congress, the highest number had been 82 motions, which occurred during the Republican-controlled Senate in 1995-6. These numbers understate the effect of the filibuster because legislation is often stymied by its threatened use.
The rules regarding filibusters are also not set in stone. Procedures were modified in 1975 to make it easier to filibuster (Senators didn't actually have to take the floor to talk) but also easier to invoke cloture (the threshold for closing debate was lowered from 67 to the current 60 Senators).
According to The Hill,
Sen. Harkin's raises obvious partisan concerns. If it were currently enacted, it would take power away from the small Republican minority. To gain the necessary bipartisan support (67 votes are required to change the Senate rules), Sen. Harkin should make the rules effective for the start of the next presidential term--that is, at the start of the 113th Congress in 2013.
The filibuster--the ability to indefinitely continue debate--is a Senate perogative, not a Constitutional requirement. Although the ability to filibuster has been in the Senate's self-adopted rules since 1806, the first filibuster was not made until 1841. Filibusters were rarely used before 1970. Even through the turbulent 1960s, it was unusual to have more than a handful per year.
The last session of Congress saw a stunning 139 motions for cloture filed. The current session is on a pace to meet that unfortunate record with 67 motions already filed. Prior to the last session of Congress, the highest number had been 82 motions, which occurred during the Republican-controlled Senate in 1995-6. These numbers understate the effect of the filibuster because legislation is often stymied by its threatened use.
The rules regarding filibusters are also not set in stone. Procedures were modified in 1975 to make it easier to filibuster (Senators didn't actually have to take the floor to talk) but also easier to invoke cloture (the threshold for closing debate was lowered from 67 to the current 60 Senators).
According to The Hill,
Under Harkin's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.Sen. Harkin's proposal for multiple and repeated cloture votes provides an opportunity to extend debate. A minority of Senators who were concerned about a bill or nomination would have extra opportunities to convince their colleagues and the public of their case. However, a majority of Senators could eventually hold a vote.
Sen. Harkin's raises obvious partisan concerns. If it were currently enacted, it would take power away from the small Republican minority. To gain the necessary bipartisan support (67 votes are required to change the Senate rules), Sen. Harkin should make the rules effective for the start of the next presidential term--that is, at the start of the 113th Congress in 2013.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
What TSA worry?
Now comes word that Errol Southers, President Obama's nominee to be director of the Transportation Security Administration has withdrawn from consideration after having the vote on his nomination blocked by a handful of Republican senators.
The Senate stands athwart democracy. It starts as a supremely unrepresentative body. Within that, archane practices effectively give individual members unilateral veto power.
Senate gamesmanship has cost the country the services of a consummate law enforcement and security professional. Southers began his career with the Santa Monica police department, was an FBI agent, and headed security for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. In 2004, he was appointed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar to be the deputy director of California's Department of Homeland Security, and in 2007, he moved to become the assistant chief at the Los Angeles World Police Department. He has also taught at the University of Southern California on security since 2003.
Souther's record included a blemish--while an FBI agent 21 years ago, he misused his authority to order and conduct a background check on the boyfriend of his estranged wife. He was censured by the FBI. As the record shows, however, Southers went on to have an exemplary career and enjoyed bipartisan support.
It's also clear that Southers had strong bipartisan support in the Senate had there been the opportunity to hold a vote.
Southers case is just one of dozens that the Republicans are holding up. As of last Friday, 177 of President Obama's nominees still await Senate votes. Meanwhile vital national work goes undone.
The Senate stands athwart democracy. It starts as a supremely unrepresentative body. Within that, archane practices effectively give individual members unilateral veto power.
Senate gamesmanship has cost the country the services of a consummate law enforcement and security professional. Southers began his career with the Santa Monica police department, was an FBI agent, and headed security for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. In 2004, he was appointed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar to be the deputy director of California's Department of Homeland Security, and in 2007, he moved to become the assistant chief at the Los Angeles World Police Department. He has also taught at the University of Southern California on security since 2003.
Souther's record included a blemish--while an FBI agent 21 years ago, he misused his authority to order and conduct a background check on the boyfriend of his estranged wife. He was censured by the FBI. As the record shows, however, Southers went on to have an exemplary career and enjoyed bipartisan support.
It's also clear that Southers had strong bipartisan support in the Senate had there been the opportunity to hold a vote.
Southers case is just one of dozens that the Republicans are holding up. As of last Friday, 177 of President Obama's nominees still await Senate votes. Meanwhile vital national work goes undone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
