Monday, May 16, 2011

Confidential Federal Audits Accuse Five Biggest Mortgage Firms Of Defrauding Taxpayers ANS

This probably isn't surprising, but at least they are finally getting into trouble for it, maybe.  Notice, however, that no one mentions freezing foreclosures.  And in the last line it says that the fines they are thinking of ($30billion) wouldn't dent the banks' capital....
Find it here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/foreclosure-fraud-audit-false-claims-act_n_862686.html   
--Kim



Confidential Federal Audits Accuse Five Biggest Mortgage Firms Of Defrauding Taxpayers [EXCLUSIVE]

Foreclosure Fraud  

First Posted: 05/16/11 04:42 PM ET Updated: 05/16/11 05:19 PM ET


WASHINGTON -- A set of confidential federal audits accuse the nation�s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans, four officials briefed on the findings told The Huffington Post.

The five separate investigations were conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development�s inspector general and examined Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial, the sources said.

The audits accuse the five major lenders of violating the False Claims Act, a Civil War-era law crafted as a weapon against firms that swindle the government. The audits were completed between February and March, the sources said. The internal watchdog office at HUD referred its findings to the Department of Justice, which must now decide whether to file charges.

The federal audits mark the latest fallout from the national foreclosure crisis that followed the end of a long-running housing bubble. Amid reports last year that many large lenders improperly accelerated foreclosure proceedings by failing to amass required paperwork, the federal agencies launched their own probes.

The resulting reports read like veritable indictments of major lenders, the sources said. State officials are now wielding the documents as leverage in their ongoing talks with mortgage companies aimed at forcing the firms to agree to pay fines to resolve allegations of routine violations in their handling of foreclosures.

The audits conclude that the banks effectively cheated taxpayers by presenting the Federal Housing Administration with false claims: They filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents.

Two of the firms, including Bank of America, refused to cooperate with the investigations, according to the sources. The audit on Bank of America finds that the company -- the nation�s largest handler of home loans -- failed to correct faulty foreclosure practices even after imposing a moratorium that lifted last October. Back then, the bank said it was resuming foreclosures, having satisfied itself that prior problems had been solved.

According to the sources, the Wells Fargo investigation concludes that senior managers at the firm, the fourth-largest American bank by assets, broke civil laws. HUD�s inspector general interviewed a pair of South Carolina public notaries who improperly signed off on foreclosure filings for Wells, the sources said.

The investigations dovetail with separate probes by state and federal agencies, who also have examined foreclosure filings and flawed mortgage practices amid widespread reports that major mortgage firms improperly initiated foreclosure proceedings on an unknown number of American homeowners.

The FHA, whose defaulted loans the inspector general probed, last May began scrutinizing whether mortgage firms properly treated troubled borrowers who fell behind on payments or whose homes were seized on loans insured by the agency.

A unit of the Justice Department is examining faulty court filings in bankruptcy proceedings. Several states, including Illinois, are combing through foreclosure filings to gauge the extent of so-called �robo-signing� and other defective practices, including illegal home repossessions.

Representatives of HUD and its inspector general declined to comment.

The internal audits have armed state officials with a powerful new weapon as they seek to extract what they describe as punitive fines from lawbreaking mortgage companies.

A coalition of attorneys general from all 50 states and state bank supervisors have joined HUD, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in talks with the five largest mortgage servicers to settle allegations of illegal foreclosures and other shoddy practices.

Such processes �have potentially infected millions of foreclosures,� Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate panel on Thursday.

The five giant mortgage servicers, which collectively handle about three of every five home loans, offered during a contentious round of negotiations last Tuesday to pay $5 billion to set up a fund to help distressed borrowers and settle the allegations.

That offer -- also floated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in February -- was deemed much too low by state and federal officials. Associate U.S. Attorney General Tom Perrelli, who has been leading the talks, last week threatened to show the banks the confidential audits so the firms knew the government side was not �playing around,� one official involved in the negotiations said. He ultimately did not follow through, persuaded that the reports ought to remain confidential, sources said. Through a spokeswoman, Perrelli declined to comment.

Most of the targeted banks have not seen the audits, a federal official said, though they are generally aware of the findings.

Some agencies involved in the talks are calling for the five banks to shell out as much as $30 billion, with even more costs to be incurred for improving their internal operations and modifying troubled borrowers� home loans.

But even that number would fall short of legitimate compensation for the bank's harmful practices, reckons the nascent federal Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. By taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers' home loans, the nation's five largest mortgage firms have directly saved themselves more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the agency and obtained by The Huffington Post in March. Those pushing for a larger package of fines argue that the foreclosure crisis has spawned broader -- and more costly -- social ills, from the dislocation of American families to the continued plunge in home prices, effectively wiping out household savings.

The Justice Department is now contemplating whether to use the HUD audits as a basis for civil and criminal enforcement actions, the sources said. The False Claims Act allows the government to recover damages worth three times the actual harm plus additional penalties.

Justice officials will soon meet with the largest servicers and walk them through the allegations and potential liability each of them face, the sources said.

Earlier this month, Justice cited findings from HUD investigations in a lawsuit it filed against Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world's 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by "repeatedly" lying to FHA in securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages.

In March, HUD's inspector general found that more than 49 percent of loans underwritten by FHA-approved lenders in a sample did not conform to the agency's requirements.

Last October, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said his investigators found that numerous mortgage firms broke the agency�s rules when dealing with delinquent borrowers. He declined to be specific.

The agency�s review later expanded to flawed foreclosure practices. FHA, a unit of HUD, could still take administrative action against those firms for breaking FHA rules based on its own probe.

The confidential findings appear to bolster state and federal officials in their talks with the targeted banks. The knowledge that they may face False Claims Act suits, in addition to state actions based on a multitude of claims like fraud on local courts and consumer violations, will likely compel the banks to offer the government more money to resolve everything.

But even that may not be enough.

Attorneys general in numerous states, armed with what they portray as incontrovertible evidence of mass robo-signings from preliminary investigations, are probing mortgage practices more closely.

The state of Illinois has begun examining potentially-fraudulent court filings, looking at the role played by a unit of Lender Processing Services. Nevada and Arizona already launched lawsuits against Bank of America. California is keen on launching its own suits, people familiar with the matter say. Delaware sent Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, a subpoena demanding answers to 75 questions. And New York�s top law enforcer, Eric Schneiderman, wants to conduct a complete investigation into all facets of mortgage banking, from fraudulent lending to defective securitization practices to faulty foreclosure documents and illegal home seizures.

A review of about 2,800 loans that experienced foreclosure last year serviced by the nation's 14 largest mortgage firms found that at least two of them illegally foreclosed on the homes of "almost 50" active-duty military service members, a violation of federal law, according to a report this month from the Government Accountability Office.

Those violations are likely only a small fraction of the number committed by home loan companies, experts say, citing the small sample examined by regulators.

In an April report on flawed mortgage servicing practices, federal bank supervisors said they �could not provide a reliable estimate of the number of foreclosures that should not have proceeded."

The review of just 2,800 home loans in foreclosure compares with nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to RealtyTrac, a California-based data provider.

�The extent of the loss cannot be determined until there is a comprehensive review of the loan files and documentation of the process dealing with problem loans,� Bair said last week, warning of damages that could take �years to materialize.�

Home prices have fallen over the past year, reversing gains made early in the economic recovery, according to data providers Zillow.com and CoreLogic. Sales of new homes remain depressed, according to the Commerce Department. More than a quarter of homeowners with a mortgage owe more on that debt than their home is worth, according to Zillow.com. And more than 2 million homes are in foreclosure, according to Lender Processing Services.

Rather than punishing banks for misdeeds, the administration is now focused on helping troubled borrowers in the hope that it will stanch the flood of foreclosures and increase consumer confidence, officials involved in the negotiations said.

Levying penalties can't accomplish that goal, an official involved in the foreclosure probe talks argued last week.

For their part, however, state officials want to levy fines, according to a confidential term sheet reviewed last week by HuffPost. Each state would then use the money as it desires, be it for facilitating short sales, reducing mortgage principal, or using the funds to help defaulted borrowers move from their homes into rentals.

In a report last week, analysts at Moody�s Investors Service predicted that while the losses incurred by the banks will be �sizable,� the credit rating agency does �not expect them to meaningfully impact capital.�
*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 917-267-2335.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Brown administration set to announce California state parks closures ANS

This is a disaster in the making.  I didn't realize some of the implications until I read some of the comments, so I will try to add some.
Find it here:  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/05/jerry-brown-claifornia-state-parks.html   
--Kim


PolitiCal


On politics in the Golden State

« Previous Post | PolitiCal Home | Next Post »

Brown administration set to announce California state parks closures [Updated]

May 13, 2011 | 11:14 am

CandlestickPointSRA1  
Gov. Jerry Brown's administration is expected to announce the closure of a number of state parks Friday, part of the $33 million in parks cuts approved by the Legislature earlier this year.

This will be the first time specific park closures are announced.

Resources Secretary John Laird would not immediately give any details about which parks will be targeted for closure. An  announcement is expected Friday afternoon by Laird and Ruth Coleman, the director of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The state operates 278 parks around the state covering more than 1.3 million acres, according to documents from Brown's office.

[Updated at 12:30 p.m., May 13: At the press conference, administration officials said they plan to close 70 parks. But they acknowledged that the governor has not yet signed the budget bill that makes the cuts.

Among the state parks, state historic parks, beaches and recreation areas that would be closed:

Anderson Marsh SHP

Annadel SP

Antelope Valley Indian Museum

Austin Creek SRA

Bale Grist Mill SHP

Benbow Lake SRA

Benicia Capitol SHP

Benicia SRA

Bidwell Mansion SHP

Bothe-Napa Valley SP

Brannan Island SRA

California Mining & Mineral Museum

Candlestick Point SRA

Castle Crags SP

Castle Rock SP

China Camp SP

Colusa-Sacramento River SRA

Del Norte Coast Redwoods SP

Fort Humboldt SHP

Fort Tejon SHP

Garrapata SP

George J. Hatfield SRA

Governor's Mansion SHP

Gray Whale Cove SB

Greenwood  SB

Grizzly Creek Redwoods SP

Hendy Woods SP

Henry W. Coe SP

Jack London SHP

Jug Handle SNR

Leland Stanford Mansion SHP

Limekiln SP

Los Encinos SHP

Malakoff Diggins SHP

Manchester SP

McConnell SRA

McGrath SB

Mono Lake Tufa SNR

Morro Strand SB

Moss Landing SB

Olompali SHP

Palomar Mountain SP

Petaluma Adobe SHP

Picacho SRA

Pio Pico SHP

Plumas-Eureka SP

Point Cabrillo Light Station

Portola Redwoods SP

Providence Mountains SRA

Railtown 1897 SHP

Russian Gulch SP

Saddleback Butte SP

Salton Sea SRA

Samuel P. Taylor SP

San Pasqual Battlefield SHP

Santa Cruz Mission SHP

Santa Susana Pass SHP

Shasta SHP

South Yuba River SP

Standish-Hickey SRA

Sugarloaf Ridge SP

Tomales Bay SP

Tule Elk SNR

Turlock Lake SRA

Twin Lakes SB

Weaverville Joss House SHP

Westport-Union Landing SB

William B. Ide Adobe SHP

Woodson Bridge SRA

Zmudowski SB ]

RELATED:

Brown wants 70 states parks closed

 -- Anthony York in Sacramento

Photo: Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. Credit: California State Parks
[]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Cooper · 61 years old
Are they just closing the parks until they can reopen them? They aren't selling the land, are they?!?! That would be terrible.
Like · Reply · Unsubscribe · 3 seconds ago
[]
Jon Michael Philip · [] Top Commenter
Ummm... why don't we stop giving billions to illegal aliens and then maybe we can keep our beloved parks open? Anyone got a better idea?
7 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 5:44pm
[]
Sean T. Malis · Lebec, California
Once these parks are closed, they will be subject to theft, arson, destruction and vandalism. Many irreplaceable natural and cultural icons of California will be lost forever. State Parks budget represents 1/10 of 1 percent of the State's overall budget. How is this going to balance the budget? Good going California!
6 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 2:44pm []
Richard Bosselmann · Realtor at Coastal Properties
If the State can't manage these parks within the current budget, they should let private companies take over. I am sure they could do it profitably for a reasonable entrance fee.
3 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 3:20pm View 3 more
[]
Robin DeSpain
And how many rangers and summer workers will now be unemployed adding to the craptastic economy? Raise the entrance fees a little, alter hours of operation, and do a better job promoting what you have. Plenty of other states in budgetary crisis have found ways to safeguard their State (and I would say national) treasures. Cutting off the nose to spite the face.
2 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 3:29pm
[]
Bernard Etcheverry · James Monroe High School
This is another stupid threat Brown is making to convince people that our taxes need to be raised! Why not cut some of the deadwood out of the government?
2 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 3:26pm
[]
Tori Housh
find another way to manage the budget. please!
2 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 1:23pm
[]
Dennis Hall · Butte College
Thanks for nothing Brown. A@# hole
2 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 4:47pm
[]
Damien Baccaro
I'll still hike'em
2 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 9:48pm []
Marcia Pullin
I hate this; I just HATE this. I understand. I do not know of a superior alternative. But I REALLY HATE THIS! All these places of incomparable beauty, nature, irreplaceable historical display, educational opportunity, and cherished memories: GONE...
1 · Like · Reply · Subscribe · Friday at 4:21pm

Fwd: I thought this was a pretty good article............... ANS

This was sent to me by one of our readers.  It says that Obama may lose the next election because of the economy.  I say that's ironic because, of course, it was the Republicans who stopped him from doing more to help the economy. 
--Kim



 
[]
Thursday, May. 12, 2011

Why Obama's Not a Lock



He's vulnerable when Republicans stop talking nonsense and turn to the economy

 
By Joe Klein

The most telling moment in Barack Obama's 60 Minutes interview came when Steve Kroft asked for his reaction after he saw the photo of Osama bin Laden, shot in the head. "It was him," the President said. And that was all he said. Now, this was a classic TV how-did-you-feel question, and Obama had a range of possible options. He could have gone all political, "I thought of the families who had lost loved ones ..." Or graphic, "Well, it was pretty ugly, but ..." Or excited, "Oh. My. God." Or religious, "Thank God." Or triumphal, "My first thought, actually, Steve, was 'Hasta la vista, baby.' " But, of course, this is Barack Obama, more Gregory Peck than John Wayne. And the same taciturn, hyperdisciplined quality that is so frustrating when he seems unable to connect with the economic anguish of the American people came across as just right, perfectly Midwestern — Kansas, nnot Hawaii, much less Kenya.

 

A few days earlier, five of the Republican candidates for President gathered in South Carolina for their first official debate. It was a weird show, newsworthy only because Congressman Ron Paul came out in favor of legalizing heroin, cocaine and prostitution. Many of the more serious (Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich) and less serious (Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich) Republican candidates weren't there â€" and so it would be unfair to compare the Republican punytude with the massive presidentiality of Obama during his strongest week. (See pictures from inside Obama's Situation Room.)

Three relevant observations can be made, however. First, Paul's willingness to go off the libertarian deep end, without a blink, says something about the ideological extremism that has overwhelmed the Republicans in recent years. Paul is certainly further out than most, but all sorts of loony notions have become accepted wisdom in the Republican Party — about taaxation, about the science of climate change, about the utter perfection of markets. Which leads to the second observation: even the serious Republican candidates aren't very. Romney refuses to take credit for his greatest accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts — a universal health care plan that works. There are grounds to hope that Indiana's Governor Daniels and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman will not make fools of themselves, but it is hard to imagine either of them prospering by challenging the conventional Limbaugh wisdom of the party, and Daniels has already gotten into trouble by proposing that there should be a truce on "social issues" like abortion and homosexuality. (See TIME's photo-essay "President Obama Visits Ground Zero.")

But my third reaction to the Republican debate cuts in the opposite direction. By depriving the Republicans of the birth-certificate and tough-on-terrorism issues in a single week, Obama may ultimately force them to spend most of their time discussing the weakest point of his presidency: the economy. My colleague Mark Halperin has observed that when Trump talks about something other than the President's birth certificate (or himself), he strikes some very resonant chords. He wants to slap tariffs on the Chinese, and he's mad as hell about gasoline prices (and wants to seize the Iraqi oil fields). This is the other side of the President's reserve: he won't demagogue those issues, or even talk about them very much. (See "The Awkward Republican Coalition.")

I came into presidential politics with Jimmy Carter, and I'll never forget his staff's derision of a certain washed-up actor-extremist from California named Ronald Reagan. Similarly, I remember the Democratic Party's despair in 1992, especially after Bill Clinton was linked, lubriciously, to a lounge singer named Gennifer Flowers. Carter had brought Israel and Egypt together. George H.W. Bush had beaten Saddam Hussein and retaken Kuwait; his popularity rating stood at 90%. But both Carter and Bush were beaten by a bum economy.

 

Obama could lose too, even to someone who seems silly to fusty opinionators like me. He could lose if he keeps playing on the Republican field — deficits — rather than in the arena preferrerred by most Americans: the sputtering economy. He needs some big, new, easy-to-understand economic initiatives. He could lose if he doesn't remind the public that he cut their taxes, as promised, and their Medicare drug bills. He also has to prove that, despite the bailouts, he's not Wall Street's sucker. (See "Bin Laden Is Dead. Now It's Time to Fix the Economy.")

There is a grand history of populist loudmouths like Trump making an early impression in presidential campaigns: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and Howard Dean all had their moments. And so did John McCain, who lost his shot in 2008 when the financial crisis came and he didn't know how to react. Obama was calm under fire then, and ever since. It is why he's likely to be re-elected: we prefer Presidents who are adults over those who are angry. But he is certainly not a lock.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Single-Payer Health Care Rises Again ANS

This is hopeful news, but I'm afraid it has no chance of passing, given the Republican majority in the House.  However, keep in mind that Single-Payer is trying to get passed again in California too, and is about to be signed by Vermont's governor. Maybe it's an idea whose time has come? 
Find it here:   http://www.truth-out.org/single-payer-health-care-rises-again/1305133698   
--Kim


Single-Payer Health Care Rises Again

Thursday 12 May 2011
by: William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
[]  

(Photo: Ernie|Bert)

Ever so slowly, our national dialogue is turning away from dead terrorists and Pakistani collusion to the issues facing the American people right here at home. Mr. Obama has put immigration reform back on the table, and many are watching with slow dread the rising waters of the Mississippi River, waiting to see if our punch-drunk country is about to absorb another pasting from Mother Nature. Peeking around the corner, as well, is a return to the discussion of health care reform and the future of Medicare and the social contract.

The Paul Ryan plan to eviscerated Medicare is, at least at present, a dead letter. The GOP's congressional leadership apparently read the political tea leaves after enduring a storm of protest from constituents over their proposal to do away with the wildly popular program and decided to back off...which makes for some interesting math, seeing as how their whole balanced budget plan falls apart without the money they'd have after the end of Medicare. Part of their motivation to drop the whole scheme also stems from the simple fact that their plan stood little chance of surviving a Senate vote, and zero chance of ever being signed into law by Mr. Obama.

It was fun while it lasted - the media's praise for their "bold" proposal, the red meat they got to toss to their base - but in the end, the Ryan plan was exposed for what it is: a hot mess, and nothing more. This fact was further underscored by a report on the impact of the plan by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute. According to the Boston Globe:

Under current laws, Medicaid is expected to cover 76 million people in 2021, the end of the 10-year estimating window used in federal budgeting. Of those, some 17 million would gain coverage under Obama's expansion.

The study estimated that 36 million to 44 million people would lose coverage from the combined impact of the block grant and repealing Obama's law. Researchers said they gave a range to account for different approaches that states might take to reduce their Medicaid rolls. Under the worst case scenario, Medicaid enrollment would plunge by nearly 60 percent from current projected levels.

The study found federal spending for Medicaid would decline by $1.4 trillion from 2012-2021, a reduction of about one-third from what is now budgeted. Southern and mountain states would face the steepest cuts. Florida, for example, would take a 44 percent hit, while Nevada would get hit 41 percent.

Hospitals, community health centers, and other health care providers that serve low-income people would be disproportionately affected. In 2021, hospitals would face Medicaid funding cuts of $84 billion, the study said.

On the health care front, assumed presidential candidate Mitt Romney seems bound and determined to try and convince everyone he was against "Obamacare" before he was for it before he was against it. It will be a tricky maneuver, as Obama's health care overhaul was based very closely on the plan Romney unveiled while governor of Massachusetts. For the GOP base, this has been yet another strike against Romney, and represents a serious threat to his viability as a candidate in the GOP presidential primaries.

The Wall Street Journal certainly thinks so, anyway. As they wrote on Wednesday, "For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw... More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket."

Ouch.

Click here to get Truthout stories like this one sent straight to your inbox, 365 days a year.
In the end, however, the GOP leadership and Mr. Romney have contributed nothing but lip-flapping and bad noise to the health care debate. Mr. Obama's plan has its flaws, the Ryan plan is deranged on its face, and Romney is only trying to keep his nose above water. On this all-important issue, it has been exceedingly difficult to find anyone with anything worthy to say.

That may be about to change.

A pair of complementary bills, both titled "The American Health Care Security Act of 2011," have been introduced in both the House and the Senate. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) are the sponsors, and both aim with these bills to provide health care for every American by way of a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. They were joined at the press conference announcing the legislation by the executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, the co-president of the National Nurses United, and the president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers

"The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as right to its people," said Mr. Sanders after revealing the legislation. "Meanwhile, we spend about twice as much per capita on health care with worse results than others that spend far less. It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system. It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage. It is time for the United States to provide a Medicare-for-all single-payer health coverage program."

"The new health care law made big progress towards covering many more people and finding ways to lower cost," said Rep. McDermott. "However, I think the best way to reduce costs and guarantee coverage for all is through a Single-payer system like Medicare. This bill does just that - it builds on the new health care law by giving states the flexibility they need to go to a single-payer system of their own. It will also reduce costs, and Americans will be healthier."

According to a report by Buzzflash:

Last year's health reform law is projected to cover 32 million more Americans. Despite that important step forward, however, 23 million people living in the United States will remain uninsured by the end of this decade while health care costs continue to skyrocket. Some 60 million Americans, both insured and uninsured, have inadequate access to primary care due to a shortage of physicians and other like providers in their community.

Under the current health care system, 45,000 Americans a year die because they delay seeking care they cannot afford. Health care eats up one-fifth of the U.S. economy, but we rank 26th among major, developed nations on life expectancy and 31st on infant mortality.

Drug companies charge Americans twice as much or more for the exact same drugs manufactured by the exact same companies than citizens of Canada or Europe. Some insurers that gouge policy holders spend 40 cents of every premium dollar on administration and profits while lavishing multimillion dollar payouts on their CEOs.

"This is unacceptable," Sanders said. "Until we put patients over profits, our system will not work for ordinary Americans."

In Sanders' home state of Vermont, Gov. Peter Shumlin will be signing a similar program called Green Mountain Care into law later this month. The legislation proposed by Sanders and McDermott, however, faces a steep uphill climb, especially in the Republican-controlled House. Even on the Democratic side of the aisle, Sanders and McDermott face the challenge of anemic enthusiasm; Mr. Obama rejected the idea of a single-payer health care plan during the debate over his own plan a year ago, and there has been no indication that he has changed his position, especially since his own health care legislation is under assault in the courts and in state capitols all across the country. Alas, the same lack of interest can be found in many congressional Democrats.

So, it seems this new proposal by Sanders and McDermott is also a dead letter, but the ideas they have proposed are highly intriguing and well worthy of public debate, despite all the evident obstacles arrayed before them. At a minimum, their legislation returns the conversation to a place of relative sanity, and away from the bat-belfry of GOP-inspired nonsense. It remains to be seen where this will go, if anywhere, but the proposal is worthy of study and conversation, at least. Sanders and McDermott are to be commended for re-introducing the issue, and for guiding it in the proper direction. As Mr. McDermott himself said, it is an idea whose time has come.
Creative Commons License  

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Fwd: Stop the attack on Medicare ANS

Hi -- this was passed on to me from our reader in Colorado.  I pass it on to you because it gives a clear and concise summary of what the Republicans are trying to do to Medicare. 
--Kim



fyi only:


 

The GOP is trying to privatize Medicare which will mean seniors will have to spend twice as much on private insurance.

You can join me and Senator Mark Udall in our efforts to stop this by going to http://www.markudall.com/medicare


If Republicans pass their reckless spending plan, Anyone under 54 years old will be part of the first generation of Americans to not be automatically enrolled in Medicare even though we have spent our entire lives paying into the Medicare system. Instead, seniors will get an inadequate $8000 voucher to put towards much more expensive private insurance.

According to one analysis, seniors would pay twice as much out of pocket as they would if they were enrolled in the traditional Medicare program.

Join me and Senator Mark Udall in our efforts to stop this by going to http://www.markudall.com/medicare


fyi only:

 

Things only get's worse from there. If health care costs continue to grow faster than inflation, seniors will see their coverage decline under the Republican plan. For many seniors on fixed incomes, that will mean dipping into their retirement savings, forgoing other necessities, or worse to make up the difference.

The bottom line is seniors will be forced to either pay higher premiums out of pocket or accept weaker coverage at a time in their life when access to quality health care is essential.

Help us fight the Republican plan to privatize Medicare by going to http://www.markudall.com/medicare

Thanks.

Monday, May 09, 2011

The Unwisdom of Elites ANS

Here's a short piece about the economy and who is really responsible for the terrible shape it's in. 
Find it here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1 
--Kim



Op-Ed Columnist


The Unwisdom of Elites


By PAUL KRUGMAN


Published: May 8, 2011

The past three years have been a disaster for most Western economies. The United States has mass long-term unemployment for the first time since the 1930s. Meanwhile, Europe's single currency is coming apart at the seams. How did it all go so wrong?
[]  

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman


Well, what I've been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite ­ self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing ­ is the claim that it's mostly the public's fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate's foolishness.

So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn't just self-serving, it's dead wrong.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren't responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people ­ in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.

Let me focus mainly on what happened in the United States, then say a few words about Europe.

These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn't the man in the street.

President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party's ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand ­ and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America's political and pundit elite.

Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that's who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts ­ and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.

So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America's deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.

Needless to say, that's not what you hear from European policy makers. The official story in Europe these days is that governments of troubled nations catered too much to the masses, promising too much to voters while collecting too little in taxes. And that is, to be fair, a reasonably accurate story for Greece. But it's not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.

The real story of Europe's crisis is that leaders created a single currency, the euro, without creating the institutions that were needed to cope with booms and busts within the euro zone. And the drive for a single European currency was the ultimate top-down project, an elite vision imposed on highly reluctant voters.

Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?

One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn't be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn't be giving lectures on responsible government.

But the larger answer, I'd argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they'll do even more damage in the years ahead.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 9, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Unwisdom of Elites.


Go to Columnist Page »


Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal


Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Sunday, May 08, 2011

Generals' complaint targets Phelps lawyers ANS

This article is a bit outdated (it's three months old) and the supreme court case it mentions at the end has been decided since then -- in favor of the Westboro Church. But I hadn't heard about this before, so I thought you probably hadn't either. 
Find it here:  http://cjonline.com/news/2011-02-28/generals-complaint-targets-phelps-lawyers  
--Kim



Generals' complaint targets Phelps lawyers

Posted: February 28, 2011 - 2:14pm
A complaint filed by nine generals with state regulators seeks
OCTOBER 2010 FILE PHOTOGRAPH/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
A complaint filed by nine generals with state regulators seeks the disbarment of 10 lawyers tied to Westboro Baptist Church. A spokeswoman for the church called the complaint "entertaining" and "pathetic."


By Tim Carpenter
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Nine retired U.S. Air Force generals have filed a complaint with state regulators to seek disbarment of 10 lawyers who are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka.

The military group, led by Maj. Gen. Larry Twitchell, of Ann Arbor, Mich., submitted a massive file to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys in an attempt to prove four broad violations by lawyers in the congregation that attracted attention by picketing funerals of soldiers and celebrities.

The objective of the complaint is to compel an inquiry into allegations lawyers tied to the church failed to maintain standards of professional conduct required to hold a law license in Kansas. The preferred outcome is disbarment of each individual, they said.

Action is necessary, the group said in a statement, given the lawyers' "decades-long pattern of uncivil and unprofessional conduct."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, among individuals named in the complaint, said in an interview Monday the ethics filing was ludicrous.

"That's entertaining," said Phelps-Roper, who wasn't aware the generals had taken an interests in the church's protests. "It's so pathetic."

Nearly 900 documents associated with the complaint were sent to Stanton Hazlett, administrator for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. His office reviews complaints against lawyers, conducts investigations, convenes hearings and recommends discipline to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Disciplinary office staff can't comment on allegations submitted to the board before an investigation and, if appropriate, a finding of probable cause that violations occurred and an official case was moving forward.

Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Kansas Supreme Court, said about 1,000 letters alleging misconduct are received annually by the disciplinary office. Each year, he said, around 300 are investigated and approximately 30 advance to a formal hearing.

The coalition of retired officers ­ there are three lieutenant generals (three stars), five major generals (two stars) and one brigadier general (one star) ­ takes offense at the independent church's practice since 2005 of picketing funerals for U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Church members decided to stage protests at military funerals to condemn the nation's purported tolerance of homosexuality. Members have been involved in anti-gay protests for about 20 years. In recent years, dozens of states adopted laws limiting funeral picketing in response to the Phelps' crusade.

Phelps-Roper said the First Amendment afforded church members the freedom of religion and speech they rely upon to carry their message to outsiders. The ethics complaint will be another failed attempt to silence the church's message, she said.

"Marginalize, demonize and vilify," she said. "They're going to take away the righteousness of the righteous?"

In the statement from Twitchell and other generals, the group claims the "grievance has nothing whatsoever to do with the WBC lawyer members' so-called religious beliefs or First Amendment rights."

"The conduct of the lawyer members of the Westboro Baptist Church named in this grievance certainly dishonors and disgraces all members of the Kansas Bar and the American Bar," they said.

A summary of the grievance:

­ Failure to maintain integrity of the profession by engaging in dishonest, deceit or misrepresentation, "regardless of whether it is directly connected to a legal proceeding."

­ Violation of a rule forbidding lawyers from abusing legal procedure by not making good-faith arguments and engaging in activities to harass or maliciously injure a person.

­ Neglect of a provision mandating lawyers observe standards of conduct, "professionally and personally," whether or not the acts or omissions occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship.

­ Failure to report instances of professional misconduct of peers in Westboro Baptist Church.

Targets of the ethics complaint are Topeka residents Phelps-Roper, Rachel Hockenbarger, Betty Phelps, Elizabeth Phelps, Fred Phelps Jr., Jonathan Phelps, Margie Phelps, Tim Phelps, Rebekah Phelps-Davis and Brent Roper. The majority of the group are children of Fred Phelps Sr.

The retired Air Force officers filing the complaint dated Feb. 4 are Lt. Gens. Brett Dula, Arlen Jameson and Thad Wolfe; Maj. Gens. Twitchell, Christopher Adams, William Davitte, Hugh Forsythe and John McBroom; and Brig. Gen. Joseph Shaefer.

The Westboro Baptist Church is subject of a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that centers on balancing the Topeka church members' right to demonstrate on important public issues and the expectation of privacy for families attending a funeral. That case stems from a picketing trip in 2006 for U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral.

Tim Carpenter can be reached at (785) 296-3005 or timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study ANS

Here is a different way of looking at salaries: at what the job being done is worth to society.  If we paid according to how much the work is worth to society as a whole, the relative salaries would be very, very different....
It's obviously an English study, because it's in pounds....And it's from 2009. I found it in the comments at WaiterRant.
Find it here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8410489.stm   
--Kim



Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

By Martin Shankleman,
Employment correspondent, BBC News
[]
Hospital cleaners steaming beds in a hospital  
Hospital cleaners play a vital role, the study found

Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests.

The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn. Meanwhile, senior advertising executives are said to "create stress".

The study says they are responsible for campaigns which create dissatisfaction and misery, and encourage over-consumption.

Waste recycling worker standing by a pile of plastic bottles  
Waste workers promote recycling, researchers note

And tax accountants damage the country by devising schemes to cut the amount of money available to the government, the research suggests.

By contrast, child minders and waste recyclers are also doing jobs that create net wealth to the country.

The Foundation has used a new form of job evaluation to calculate the total contribution various jobs make to society, including for the first time the impact on communities and environment.

Eilis Lawlor, spokeswoman for the New Economics Foundation, said: "Pay levels often don't reflect the true value that is being created. As a society, we need a pay structure which rewards those jobs that create most societal benefit rather than those that generate profits at the expense of society and the environment".

Ledger sheet and pen  
Tax accountants are said to destroy £47 in value for every £1 generated

She said the aim of the research was not to target individuals in highly paid jobs, or suggest people in low paid jobs should earn more.

"The point we are making is more fundamental - that there should be a relationship between what we are paid and the value our work generates for society. We've found a way to calculate that," she said.

A total of six different jobs were analysed to assess their overall value. These are the study's main findings:
  • The elite banker

"Rather than being wealth creators bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse

Paid between £500,000 and £80m a year, leading bankers destroy £7 of value for every pound they generate".
  • Childcare workers

"Both for families and society as a whole, looking after children could not be more important. As well as providing a valuable service for families, they release earnings potential by allowing parents to continue working. For every pound they are paid they generate up to £9.50 worth of benefits to society."
  • Hospital cleaners

"Play a vital role in the workings of healthcare facilities. They not only clean hospitals and maintain hygiene standards but also contribute to wider health outcomes. For every pound paid, over £10 in social value is created."
  • Advertising executives

The industry "encourages high spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12m top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate".
  • Tax accountants

"Every pound that a tax accountant saves a client is a pound which otherwise would have gone to HM Revenue. For a salary of between £75,000 and £200,000, tax accountants destroy £47 in value, for every pound they generate."
  • Waste recycling workers

"Do a range of different jobs that relate to processing and preventing waste and promoting recycling. Carbon emissions are significantly reduced. There is also a value in reusing goods. For every pound of value spent on wages, £12 of value is generated for society."

The research also makes a variety of policy recommendations to align pay more closely with the value of work.

These include establishing a high pay commission, building social and environmental value into prices, and introducing more progressive taxation.