They gave us a republic: The Nightowl Newswrap
Prairie Weather: Fraud
The Brad Blog: TN GOP fights against the rule of law and paper ballots
The Sideshow: Health Care Roulette
Pensito Review: Carl Hiaasen's letter to Sarah Palin from her publisher
Happy Blogiversary to bark bark woof woof!
Take a look at the trailer for Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore appears poised to knock it out of the park again.
"It's a crime story. But it's also a war story about class warfare. And a vampire movie, with the upper 1 percent feeding off the rest of us. And, of course, it's also a love story. Only it's about an abusive relationship.
"It's not about an individual, like Roger Smith, or a corporation, or even an issue, like health care. This is the big enchilada. This is about the thing that dominates all our lives — the economy. I made this movie as if it was going to be the last movie I was allowed to make.
"It's a comedy." — Michael Moore
Paul Waldman in the American Prospect:
"Illness doesn't care where you live," the narrator says sympathetically, "or if you're already sick, or if you lose your job. Your health insurance shouldn't either." The ad ends with the hope that "the words ‘pre-existing condition' [become] a thing of the past." So say the people who won't insure you if you have a pre-existing condition and who will cut you off if you get a serious illness. It's kind of like a gang of home invaders expressing the fervent hope that people will get better alarm systems and stronger deadbolts.
What's going on? In simple terms, they cut a deal. It may not be written down on paper, but it goes like this: If the government imposes an individual mandate, forcing all Americans to buy health insurance – and thus guaranteeing us millions of new customers – we won't stand in the way of new regulations curbing some of our worst abuses. And this is their defense when those abuses are brought up. We've already agreed to those new regulations, they'll say, so why do we need to talk about it anymore? Let's just make sure there's no public option people can choose, because that would just be a step too far.
But here's a question: If the insurance companies have finally come to understand that it's wrong to kick people off their coverage when they get sick; and it's wrong to deny coverage to people who have previously been sick; and it's wrong to hide lifetime limits in the fine print, forcing people into bankruptcy if they face a serious illness; and it's wrong to discriminate against pregnant women and their families; why don't they stop doing these things? Like, how about today? Why are they waiting for Congress to outlaw their most abominable practices?
From Bowling for Columbine (2002)
There goes the steadfast and dripping-with-integrity GOP and Blue Dog Dems once again. Tomorrow at noon, we get the Thune Amendment--as in John Thune from South Dakota--which assaults both the federalism they cherish in rhetoric and the common sense we cherish post-Enlightenment. The Thune Amendment would make it so a concealed-carry permit handed out in any state would be good in any state that has concealed carry.
So Texas will determine you gun laws. Next up, Utah decides who you can marry, Mississippi decides whether or not you have the death penalty and Kansas decides where church stops and state begins. And to the denizens of those fine states who are progressive, please take no offense, you know I am with you in spirit. I am talking state politics here (I live in Ohio, and wouldn't want to export our gun laws to my state of birth, New York). And this means that if your state is one of 31 that requires some form of gun-safety course before you get to carry a concealed weapon, forget about that. If your state is one of 35 who think that misdemeanors, such as, oh, having previously carried a concealed gun illegally, should prevent you from getting a permit, too bad. If your state thinks habitual alcohol abusers perhaps shouldn't be afforded this right, as 31 states do, so sorry Charlie.
On record against Mr. Thune's legislative loophole are mayors of all stripes, more than 450 of them, or those for whom gun violence is up close and personal, and they are appalled at this Washington GOP power grab. But hey, torture, Gitmo and proposed amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage don't quite live up to the "state's rights" mantra now either, do they...
States and localities should have the right to make their own gun laws. My son should have the right to go into a school where AKs are not present. And a group of wavering Senators need to hear how you feel about this usurping of our rights. Call, be polite, and say hi to these folks. Remind them that you don't want Texas' gun laws...
Those whose minds need to be changed
Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623
Bennet (D CO) (202) 224-5852
Collins (R ME) (202) 224-2523
Conrad (D ND) (202) 224-2043
Feingold (D WI) 202/224-5323
Hagan (D NC) 202-224-6342
Landrieu (D LA) (202)224-5824
Lincoln (D AR) (202) 224-4843
McCain (R- AZ) (202) 224-2235
McCaskill (D – MO) (202) 224-6154
Pryor (D-AR) (202) 224-2353
Reid (D – NV) 202-224-3542
Snowe (R – ME) (202) 224-5344
Specter (D – PA) 202-224-4254
Udall (D – NM) 202-224-6621
Udall (D – CO) 202-224-5941
Voinovich (R- OH) (202) 224-3353
Warner (D – VA) 202-224-2023
Webb (D –VA) 202-224-4024
Those we must hold:
Kohl (D – WI) (202) 224-5653
Klobuchar (D – MN) 202-224-3244
Nelson (D - FL) 202-224-5274
Two notes: First, the vote is at noon Wednesday (as in tomorrow), so call early and often (and be nice!). Second, full disclosure, I have been hired to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (mayorsagainstillegalguns.org) on this effot, and couldn't be happier or more passionate about it.
Update: Keep the calls coming tomorrow morning to weak-kneed Dems and "moderate" Republicans. McCaskill and Specter have already caved.
Via The Big Picture:
This an interview of former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts. At 2:40 (of the 3:08 interview) was this exchange:
Max Keiser: “Does the US Secretary of the Treasury work for the people or does he work for the banking system on Wall Street?”
Dr. Paul Craig Reports: “He works for Goldman Sachs.”
He also called the attempts to bail out the banking system to-date “a fraud.”
Oh, and in other cheery economic news, here's Nouriel Roubini:
The June employment report suggests that the alleged green shoots are mostly yellow weeds that may eventually turn into brown manure. The employment report shows that conditions in the labor market continue to be extremely weak, with job losses in June of over 460,000. With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions.
It's clear that even if the recession were to be over anytime soon--and it's not going to be over before the end of the year--job losses are going to continue for at least another year and a half. Historically, during the last two recessions, job losses continued for at least a year and a half after the recession was over. During the 2001 recession, the recession was over in November 2001, and job losses continued through August 2003 for a cumulative loss of jobs of over 5 million; this time we are already seeing more than 6 million job losses and the recession is not over.
The details of the unemployment report are even worse than the headline. Not only are there large job losses right now, but as a way of sharing the pain, firms are inducing workers to reduce hours and hourly wages. Therefore, when we're looking at the effect of the labor market on labor income, we should consider that the total value of labor income is the product of jobs, hours and average hourly wages--and that all three elements are falling right now. So the effect on labor income is much more significant than job losses alone.
The details also suggest that other aspects of the labor markets are worsening. If you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers, the unemployment rate is already above 16%. If you consider also that temporary jobs are falling now quite sharply, labor market conditions are becoming worse and the average duration of unemployment now is at an all-time high. So people not only are losing jobs, but they're finding it harder to find new jobs. So every element of the labor market is worsening.
The unemployment rate rose only marginally from 9.4% to 9.5%, but that's because so many people are discouraged that they exited the labor force voluntarily and therefore are not counted in the official unemployment rate.
(The Shoes of Billy Sol Estes - no doubt the Alligator had other plans.)
What had to be one of the biggest scandals of the 1960's centered around one Billy Sol Estes whose influence and fraud wandered through many high places in Washington, allegedly all the way up to the office of Lyndon Johnson. Estes was the subject of a Senate Sub-committee investigation on political corruption which led to a startling number of discoveries and an even more startling number of "suicides" in the process. Although Estes was convicted of fraud and corruption charges and sentenced to prison, his conviction was overturned by a Supreme Court decision that ruled the massive amount of publicity the investigation garnered made a fair trial impossible.
Still, the allegations were serious enough about LBJ to force Kennedy to consider dropping him as running mate in 1964. And he probably would have, had fate not intervened.
On July 2, 1962, at the height of the investigation, ABC's long-running Sunday talk show Issues and Answers featured a dialogue between Texas Attorney General Will Wilson and Senator Edmund Muskie, who was a member of the Senate Subcommittee investigating the Estes scandal.
(Sen. Sam Irvin (left) - Bill Sol Estes (right))
He's also looking into the AIG disbursements to counterparties, which will open a fresh can of worms:
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The top cop tracking the government's $700 billion bailout program said Tuesday that he has opened 20 criminal investigations and six audits into whether tax dollars are being pilfered or wasted.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, released a 250-page report detailing a long list of concerns about government efforts to prop up hundreds of banks, Wall Street firms and auto companies.
Barofsky, whose investigations could lead to criminal charges, told CNNMoney.com in an interview that he wants taxpayers to understand where their money is going. At the same time, he wants to alert officials to weaknesses in TARP that could invite corruption or fraud.
Bug - or feature? Hmmm.
"Our recommendations are forward looking and there are no vulnerabilities that can't be addressed," Barofsky said. "The balance of what we're trying to do is to inform, bring transparency and make appropriate recommendations."
The report reveals that Barofsky is looking into whether bailout decisions were influenced by those who stood to benefit from them and whether companies receiving bailout dollars are adhering to caps on executive pay.
Barofsky's report also makes several recommendations to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other officials charged with implementing the bailout. Among them: Require all TARP recipients to detail how they use bailout dollars and safeguard a new mortgage rescue effort against scams.
From the Politico:
The Conservative Patients' Rights Action Fund -- the first group out of the box opposing Obama's healthcare plan -- has launched a second round of its campaign on the issue, a source involved in the group says.
The campaign focuses on Obama's proposal to set $634 billion in the federal budget aside for healthcare reform, and links the issue to the Congress's treatment of bonuses for AIG executives.
“Isn’t it amazing folks in Congress were shocked the plan THEY passed allowed those huge bonuses for AIG?" asks Rick Scott, the former healthcare executive who chairs the group, in a new television ad to be released tomorrow. "Now some in Congress want to raise taxes and spend $634 billion for the President’s healthcare overhaul - - WITHOUT even seeing all the details of his plan. They just never seem to learn."
Ah, yes, Rick Scott. Funny, the details the Politico leaves out of their stories! From Christopher Hayes in The Nation:
Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. You see, the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is the man who will be delivering what Politico called the "pro-free-market message."
A Texas lawyer who shared a business partner with George W. Bush, Scott started his health company, Columbia Hospital Corporation, in 1987. Its growth was meteoric, expanding from just a few hospitals to more than 1,000 facilities in thirty-eight states and three other countries in 1997. As his firm gobbled up chains, like the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), it became the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.
He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business and touted his company's single-minded pursuit of profit as a model for the nation's entire healthcare system. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he told the New York Times in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the marketplace."
The press portrayed Scott as a guru to be admired and feared, "a private capitalist dictator," in the words of one Princeton health economist. "Probably the lowest body fat of anybody I've been in business with," his partner told the Times.
"Other hospitals were intimidated," recalls John Schilling, who worked for Columbia/HCA in the 1990s. Scott was "like the bully that would come into town and if you didn't sell to him or partner with him, he would open up shop across the street from you and put you out of business."
Not long after joining the company in 1993 as the supervisor of reimbursement for the Fort Myers, Florida, office, Schilling noticed things weren't quite kosher. "They were looking for ways to maximize reimbursement...which ultimately would improve the bottom line."
(I totally stole this from The General...)
Via TPMMuckraker: Gotta love those "centrists"!
Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine GOP dealmaker who's been in the limelight this week for helping to pass a watered down stimulus, has been talking a good game about the need to avoid wasting taxpayer money. But it looks like Collins also worked today to strip from the final bill a measure that's crucial to exposing that waste.
Here's what happened:
The House stimulus bill contained a provision designed to protect federal whistleblowers. Currently, those protections are shockingly weak. According to the Project On Government Oversight, whistleblowers who are fired or demoted can file a complaint with a government board -- but over the last eight years, that board has ruled in favor of whistleblowers only twice in 55 cases.
More to the point, the protections were designed to encourage federal workers to point out cases where taxpayer money is subject to waste, fraud, or abuse -- a legitimate concern when Congress spends $800 billion, and one that centrists and Republicans have been particularly exercised about.
Yesterday, 20 members of the House, from both parties, yesterday sent a letter to House negotiators urging them to ensure that the protections remained.
But, according to a person following the bill closely, Collins used today's conference committee to drastically water down the measure, citing national security concerns as the reason for her opposition. In the end, the protections were so weakened that House negotiators balked, and the result was that the entire amendment was removed.
According to the person following the bill, Collins was the "central roadblock" to passing the protections.
But wait, here's the good part!
So when, in the coming months, conservatives start jumping up and down over the fact that money from the stimulus bill is being wasted, as they surely will, it's worth remembering that a key measure designed to help expose that waste was removed from taken out of the bill -- and by a senator said to be a champion of fiscal discipline.
Gee, imagine this:
Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.
Federal agents in recent days contacted Steele's sister, a spokesman for Steele said yesterday.
The claim about the payment, one of several allegations by Alan B. Fabian, is outlined in a confidential court document. Fabian offered the information last March as he was seeking leniency for himself during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges. It is unclear how extensively his claims have been pursued. Prosecutors gave him no credit for cooperation when he was sentenced in October.
Steele spokesman Curt Anderson said he did not know what information the federal agents were seeking, but he dismissed Fabian's allegations as patently false. "It's from, what, a convicted felon? And it has no substantiation in fact," he said.
Since I used to do oppo research, this part caught my eye:
In one of his allegations, Fabian points to a February 2007 payment by Steele's Senate campaign of more than $37,000 to Brown Sugar Unlimited, the company run by Steele's sister, Monica Turner. Campaign finance records list the expense as having been for "catering/web services." Turner filed papers to dissolve the company 11 months before the payment was received.
Hmm. This should be fun!
Our leaders have framed the problem as a “crisis of confidence” but what they actually seem to mean is “please pay no attention to the problems we are failing to address.” - Michael Lewis
In today's New York Times, Michael Lewis, author of "Liar's Poker" and "Panic: The Story of Modern Financial Insanity", looks at the systemic intertwined interests (like the don't-rock-the-boat SEC) that kept Wall St. embroiled in such questionable and risky practices. As just one example among many, he points to the man who tried to stop Bernie Madoff for years:
... Consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos. Mr. Markopolos is the former investment officer with Rampart Investment Management in Boston who, for nine years, tried to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard L. Madoff couldn’t be anything other than a fraud. Mr. Madoff’s investment performance, given his stated strategy, was not merely improbable but mathematically impossible. And so, Mr. Markopolos reasoned, Bernard Madoff must be doing something other than what he said he was doing.
In his devastatingly persuasive 17-page letter to the S.E.C., Mr. Markopolos saw two possible scenarios. In the “Unlikely” scenario: Mr. Madoff, who acted as a broker as well as an investor, was “front-running” his brokerage customers. A customer might submit an order to Madoff Securities to buy shares in I.B.M. at a certain price, for example, and Madoff Securities instantly would buy I.B.M. shares for its own portfolio ahead of the customer order. If I.B.M.’s shares rose, Mr. Madoff kept them; if they fell he fobbed them off onto the poor customer.
In the “Highly Likely” scenario, wrote Mr. Markopolos, “Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi Scheme.” Which, as we now know, it was.
Harry Markopolos sent his report to the S.E.C. on Nov. 7, 2005 — more than three years before Mr. Madoff was finally exposed — but he had been trying to explain the fraud to them since 1999. He had no direct financial interest in exposing Mr. Madoff — he wasn’t an unhappy investor or a disgruntled employee. There was no way to short shares in Madoff Securities, and so Mr. Markopolos could not have made money directly from Mr. Madoff’s failure. To judge from his letter, Harry Markopolos anticipated mainly downsides for himself: he declined to put his name on it for fear of what might happen to him and his family if anyone found out he had written it. And yet the S.E.C.’s cursory investigation of Mr. Madoff pronounced him free of fraud.
Of course, Madoff was a relatively small part of the culture:
The American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Electric and the municipal bond guarantors Ambac Financial and MBIA all had triple-A ratings. (G.E. still does!) Large investment banks like Lehman and Merrill Lynch all had solid investment grade ratings. It’s almost as if the higher the rating of a financial institution, the more likely it was to contribute to financial catastrophe. But of course all these big financial companies fueled the creation of the credit products that in turn fueled the revenues of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.
These oligopolies, which are actually sanctioned by the S.E.C., didn’t merely do their jobs badly. They didn’t simply miss a few calls here and there. In pursuit of their own short-term earnings, they did exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do: rather than expose financial risk they systematically disguised it.
This is a fascinating piece, with lots of advice about what needs to be fixed to restore confidence in the financial system. (As you may have guessed, nothing substantive has been done yet.) Go read the rest.
My, this just gets better and better, doesn't it?
Investigators believe that Bernard Madoff has stuffed hundreds of millions of dollars in Ponzi profits into offshore tax havens from which they could prove tricky to recover.
In the weeks since his Dec. 11 arrest, forensic accountants have been scouring Madoff's books as federal officials ready an indictment against the hated hedge-funder, who remains under house arrest in his $7 million Upper East Side penthouse.
The accountants believe Madoff regularly sent bundles of money to offshore accounts in the Caribbean and Europe, the Observer newspaper in London reported yesterday.
[...] The tax havens are designed under local laws to be nearly impervious to subpoenas or other investigative inquiries, making it notoriously tough for US officials to seize or even see what's there.
A weary social worker writes:
I have had a ringside seat to the economic downturn this year. It is not an abstraction to me. The folks at the bottom are always the first to feel the pinch, when it comes. Clients of the agency I work at come through our doors every day requesting assistance with basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter and medications. As the year has progressed and New York State has chosen to repeatedly victimize its most vulnerable citizens, it has become more difficult to help people meet these needs. I have visited food banks with empty shelves, been told clients were ineligible for help when I knew they were and had to challenge these decisions. I have sat with clients while their applications for public assistance were reviewed by fraud investigators at social services. Our local social services department actually hired fraud investigators at the same time that it was laying off child protective workers demonstrating conclusively where our values lie and how genuinely mean spirited we are as a people. At the federal level Social Security routinely denies people eligible for benefits in the hopes that they will not reapply. Many people who receive benefits must hire a lawyer before social security will concede that they are indeed eligible. As the resources have become more limited, the level of scrutiny and inhumanity has risen accordingly.
I have, of course read about the rising unemployment numbers and the ensuing uptick in applicants for public assistance and food stamps nationwide like everyone else. It seems the chickens of Bill Clinton's (Best moderate Republican president ever)welfare reform are finally coming home to roost. We always knew that the flaw of his plan was an economy without jobs and here we are. The reform has no provision for an unemployment rate like we are experiencing now. Once again, our policy in practice serves to punish most harshly children and the elderly. Perhaps, it is time to repeal the child labor laws and begin allowing them to work 12 hour days again.
For nearly 30 years we have done our best to dismantle the safety net for the poor and struggling among us. I keep praying that we have reached the end of this folly. At 42, these policies are what I have known my entire work life. I dream about social service programs and rules that would treat people like human beings, rather than as an undesirable applicant to be culled out. I want so badly for us as a nation to stop punishing people for being poor, or elderly or a child of poor people. This holiday season was hellish as I watched scores of our clients navigate the realities of a holiday with nothing but further grinding poverty. Some days I am just weary from the strain of witnessing the suffering that goes on around me. It takes a toll that is more than physical, it eats away at the soul to see people ask for so little and receive far less.
As I contemplate how to pry a few dollars from these systems designed to humiliate and degrade my clients, already struggling with being social outcasts, chronic illness, drug addiction and mental illness I sigh audibly. I read of billion dollar bailouts and disappearing pallettes of cash as I ponder how to help a family with $400.00 so they will not be homeless in three days. I am so very tired.
How can you tell when the economy is in really bad shape? Maybe when FBI special agents go on record saying that terrorism is less of a threat to the United States than rampant financial fraud.
The FBI has engaged in “triage,” taking agents off terror and other crimes to respond to a cascade of financial frauds such as the alleged Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme, the head of the bureau’s New York criminal division said.The Federal Bureau of Investigation was forced to reallocate its manpower in New York to deal with recent frauds involving subprime mortgages, auction-rate securities and Madoff, who prosecutors said confessed this month to bilking investors out of $50 billion, FBI official David Cardona said in an interview.
I touch wood everytime I say or write that it now looks as nearly certain as it can be that Obama will be the next President of the United States. But, of course, Obama is correct that all the polling in the world is meaningless if people decide that they can stay home on Election Day because Obama is going to win anyway. So get out there.
And while you're at it, make sure you know your rights and be on the look out for vote supression tricks. The Obama campaign has a new video on the GOP's voter supression campaign - because the lower the vote the better it is for Republicans. They thrive in a climate of disenfranchisement.
Despite all their accusations, even the McCain campaign admit they can't make the voter fraud claim stick:
For weeks, Republican leaders have warned that widely reported problems with fake voter registrations could result in a flood of phony votes in pivotal states.
But Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator and member of the McCain-Palin Honest and Open Election Committee, said in an interview that he could not name a single instance in which this had occurred.
“Do we have a documented instance of voting fraud that resulted from a phony registration form? No, I can’t cite one, chapter and verse,” he said.
Which makes their accusations a form of fraud in its own right, doesn't it? One that's been falsely used to fuel "Republicans’ invocation of legal power to scrutinize voters, demands for U.S. Justice Department intervention and court orders, and criminal investigations."
But make no mistake - if the Republican's can't steal the election through voter suppression and voting irregularities they'll use that failure as an excuse to accuse Democrats of stealing it. The McCain campaign and Republicans have already trotted out dozens of excuses but there's only one reason McCain will lose - Obama is the better man for the job.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
