NATIONALVIEW.ORG
www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs in NJ, NYC & Eastern PA
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This is What Democracy Looks Like
We
have just one question for the supporters of
President Bush.
Why?
Click Here to View Our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter Archives
Click Here to Subscribe to our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter
Click on an Image to View all of Note From a Madman's "Mad-Pic" Thumbnail Images
The Latest Pics
A Simple Voting Idea
Incorporating the Paper Trail
-A voter comes into vote using one of the newer machines (you know... the
ones that don't offer any paper trail, at least as of now)
-They vote
-A 2-part receipt, with a perforation, comes out
-They compare the 2 parts to make sure they voted for whom they say they voted
for
-They tear the receipt at its perforation and put one end in a paper ballot box
(only to be opened if a hand-count is necessary)
-When they get home, they can log onto a government website, put in the unique
receipt number, and view their ballot
-If there are any discrepancies, there'll be a toll-free number to call or, if
they prefer, there will be an online form to fill out.
-Noah Greenberg
"YO-YO"
QUESTION: What's the new name for "G"lobal "W"arming
Bush and the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party health care plan?
ANSWER: "YO-YO"
As in "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN."
A New Blog Worthy of a Visit
I have set up a new blog at
http://www.usmediacorps.org/nj/. To blog, you need to log on using the Login
Form on the front page. Click "Blog" on the main menu, then "New." It's very
much like adding a published letter.
Note that you can set your post's "Published" state to "Published" to have your
blog entry appear right away.
-Eddie-Konczal
A New KKK
From now on former (and present?) Presidential Brain Karl Rove shall be known as
the following:
KKK - Kongressional Kontempt Karl
In lieu of the release of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's
book What Happened, and the dominant role McClellan says KKK (Rove) played in
the release of former covert CIA operative's name (Valerie Plame), even a
Republican Congress would have had no choice but to send for Rove (KKK) in
subpoena fashion.
The subpoena was issued for details he might know about the decision to
prosecute former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman; and the Bush DoJ's
decision to fire 93 federal prosecutors who weren't "Loyal Bushies" (the latter
also mentioned in the book), the time is ripe for KKK (Rove) to begin telling
the truth.
That is, of course, if he shows up.
There are two Bush Loyalists who are already being held in contempt for similar
reasons: White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel
Harriet Miers. Some of you might remember Miers as, arguably, the single-most
unqualified candidate ever to be nominated to the US Supreme Court. Even a
Republican Senate couldn't get the taste of her out of their mouths!
Again a Bush Loyalist (actually the guy who created Bush Loyalty), Rove (KKK) is
pleading executive immunity - or is that executive privilege?. In Bushland,
anything said inside the White House walls, to the President himself, or
anything they deem "executive" in nature cannot be questioned, even by the
governing body (The US Senate) whose job it is to do the questioning.
Of course there are exceptions: In the Siegelman case, where a former Rovie
(Klansman?) was the prosecutor and Rove, himself, was implicated in a scheme to
get the former Alabama Governor out of the way as a political obstacle, KKK has
decided that he will show up, with provisos, however. Rove wants there to be no
transcript of the event, he doesn't want to be sworn it and it must be a
closed-door session..
Siegleman was recently released after a second round of trumped-up charges, and
a conviction (the first 25 counts were thrown out due "With Prejudice", meaning
they could never be filed again) were overturned by a Federal Judge due to
serious questions about the charges filed and the prosecution itself.
I can understand KKK (Rove) not wanting to have a written or verbal record of
his closed-door meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, who
wants to hear their on lies read back to them? But why is he concerned about
being sworn in?
Has Karl (KKK) Rove developed a conscience? One has to doubt that.
The delay tactics might hurt Rove and other present and former Bushies if their
appeals aren't heard and decided before January 20, 2009 because on that day
George W. Bush will no longer have his powers of Pardon. Certainly if John
McBush wins come November, their problems will be solved, but it might be a
different story if Barack Obama takes the White House.
Maybe these Bushies ought to think twice about debating their fate - or are they
convinced that they still have the power to steal another November?
Only KKK knows for sure.
-Noah Greenberg, July 10.2008
The McBush Economy's Balancing Act
(More an "Act" than "Balance")
“American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I
will demand the same of the government,”
-John McCain
No, this isn't a recording or a reprint of something which John McCain (McBush)
has said before. This is a brand spanking new promise by the would-be Bush(44)
to undo what his GOP predecessor has done so well - swell the national debt.
And McCain-McBush says he'll do it by the end of his would-be first term!
Amazing. Just where does he get the chutzpah?
McCain's website plainly tells a story of pandering to those on the Right who
supported President Bush in both 2000 and in 2004. And, if memory serves me
correct, those who contribute want to pay less and less in taxes while we, the
middle class, pay more and more to make up the difference.
Of course, when the middle class runs out of money - something that has been
happening at an apparent geometric pace - there's no reason why they, the
Bush-McCain-McBush "base of haves and have mores" should make up the difference.
Instead, in the words of Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter."
Maybe we should call McCain McCheney instead?
Cheney's (the original, not the newer McCheney version) comment was a "tribute"
to the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan. Here's exactly what he said, in
context:
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter,"
-Dick Cheney
Ah but they do matter. In fact, they matter so much that the only time in the
past generation which our economy actually grew was when Bill Clinton took over
the reigns from George H.W. Bush. Clinton had a choice: Lower taxes or reduce,
and finally, eliminate the national debt. He chose the latter and we all
benefited.
But the Bush-Cheney's, and now McBush-McCheney - because that's what we're going
to get in a new John McCain administration, if we let that happen - want to cut
even more taxes, including taxes on the already unbelievably wealthy, to reduce
the deficit.
Ask yourself one question: Has lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans ever
worked? Reagan, the model of a President which present-day Bush and
future-McCain look towards as a role model, had to raise taxes because his
economy was out of control, and we, the middle class, did much of the suffering.
McCain's "Pro-Growth Tax Policy", as his web site states it, should be named the
"No-Growth Tax Policy" inasmuch as it is a continuation of the Bush(43)
policies. All one has to do is look at the economic news of the past six month,
which include: Stagnant unemployment; a net loss of jobs, nearing negative
400,000; and a dollar worth about half what it used to be worth on the world
market, as compared to other western world currencies, just a scant few years
ago.
Perhaps "No-Growth" is being too generous. it should be called McCain's
"Snow-Growth Economic Policy" because never has there been such a snow-job in
our nation's recent economic history.
Stay the Course, McCheney.
And as McCain throws more money at his new upper class "base of haves and have
mores", he looking at even more ways to expand the federal government's
expenditures in his effort to balance the budget. McCain's "plans" include
fixing health care by throwing an additional $700 billion in tax credits to only
those who pay taxes, leaving only those who can't afford health care still
without health care.
That'll fix it, right?
McCain-McCheney is also going to balance the budget by lowering the already low
commercial tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, taking even more money out of our US
Treasury.
The McCain-McCheney plan is a plan right out of the NeoCon playbook: Make the
people feel that they're going to keep the pennies in their left-front pocket
while taking dollars out of their right-front pocket, their wallets, their bank
account and their hide, if necessary.
As the man who said "I don't know much about economics", McCain is constantly
proving the point. All one has to do is look at his top economic advisors to see
how much trouble McCain's policies would be if they ever got put into practice.
Listed as his top people on the economy are none other than failed GOP
Presidential hopeful and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, who invented the
environment which caused the mortgage crisis, and then became a lobbyist for the
industry; and Carly Fiorino, the failed former CEO of Texas-based
Hewlett-Packer. Ms. Fiorino was forced to leave HP, complete with her golden
parachute, after her company slipped and fell under her leadership.
Lots of negative things come out of Texas - Perhaps McCain should move there
after the November elections.
In the end, McCain is attempting to distance himself from the Bush
administration while adopting their trickle-down plans which even their own
Congress, when the GOP held the majority - wouldn't let them completely get away
with.
Yes, McCain surely doesn't know much about the economy. The problem is that
those who he is counting on as his economic brain know the economy too well -
and they know how to make it the best economy for them, their friends and the
rest of the McCain "base of haves and have mores".
-Noah Greenberg, July 7, 2008
Real Health Care Reform - Yes, it's Still
Important
There are forgotten health care victims that almost no one speak of. By now
we're all familiar with those 47 million (or so) Americans who have no health
insurance at all. Likewise, we're also aware of those in our nation illegally
who use the system, as best they can, to get care for their children, spouses
and themselves. Unfortunately, we see them in crowded in emergency rooms or too
sick to help in our public hospital wards as they await death.
It isn't exactly what we, as the nation of the free and the brave, like to
advertise.
We're also familiar by now with those of us who simply don't have enough health
insurance coverage. We see them crowd into their doctors' offices before the end
of the year so they don't have to pay off Christmas gifts they purchased on
their 30-plus Annual Percentage Rate credit card and their health care plan's
deductible, which could cost them in the thousands of dollars.
These are the ones left out of the health care conversation completely. The
thought process is that they have the catastrophic care the others lack, so they
should be happy. Forget about the giant deductibles, the large co-pays and that
"flexible" payments due health care providers above and beyond the amount
actually paid known as "usual and customary". At least they have something...
right?
Those of us with jobs that provide some sort of health care coverage might find
ourselves trapped in jobs or positions without escape. Think of the average
family of four with one parent working full-time and one working part-time.
Assuming that the parent with full-time employment is lucky enough to have some
sort of health care coverage, at least partially paid for by his employer, how
tough would it be for that person to leave that job for any reason? How many
potential entrepreneurs are out there with a combination of a dream of starting
their own business and no reality of making that dream a reality because they
can't afford to not have health insurance?
Too many.
And it isn't only that they have jobs they feel trapped in. The manner in which
most small companies choose their health insurance provider - and remember, some
seventy percent of all employees are employed by small companies - consists of
an owner picking the best plan for them and their family. How many of you out
there were asked, or even informed, when your boss changed health insurance
companies because their doctor left your company's old plan?
I'm betting that not one of you got that phone call.
Perhaps I'm complaining too much. After all, I have a job which pays me pretty
well. So what does it matter that my company's old insurance plan listed my
handicapped daughter's doctors on their roster while the new insurance company
does not? At least my boss can see that cute ophthalmologist he has a crush on
every year or so.
Even though my salary, as compared to the median US income, is relatively high
(not even close to six figures, if you were curious), the amount I pay above and
beyond the "norm" for health care makes a real dent in my wallet, as I'm betting
it does many an American. Each and every month, like many of my fellow
countrymen and women, I pay nearly an additional one-thousand dollars a month
just to be able to take my daughter out of my company plan's included doctors.
Even still, I'm responsible for up to an additional $3,000 per year in
deductible, plus the copays and monstrous sums past the "usual and customary"
fee paid to the "out-of-network" doctors my daughter has no choice but to see.
Just a note to the "usual and customary" fee paid by the insurance companies to
"out-of-network" providers: Insurance companies get to pay an almost arbitrary
sum to doctors which they consider "usual and customary". Doctors and some
hospitals won't even give you a band-aid unless you agree to their terms to pay
for fees which "your insurance company" may not agree to. So even though you
paid your copay and your $3,000 deductible, you could still be liable for
additional sums which could add up to tens of thousands of dollars, or more.
Makes you want to invest in Euros or crude oil futures, doesn't it?
And according to most health care providers, they have no choice but to keep
their prices higher to those if us who have to see them outside of their
supported health care plans. They pay huge amounts of money to keep up with each
and every one of their supported health insurance company codes and such and
have to employ many people to do it. No wonder they have to make up their
"losses" by increasing the price to those of us, they assume, can afford more.
Even if we can't.
They even take credit cards!
The need for real health care reform just doesn't touch those without health
care, it touches just about all of us. How much more rhetoric do we need to hear
from the likes of George W. Bush and John McCain who said,
"We’re going to offer every individual and family in America a large tax credit
to buy their health care."
-John McCain
How much is he going to "give" those who pay no taxes at all? A tax break only
occurs if one actually pays taxes, and the unemployed don't pay taxes because
they have no incomes.
We know that the "plan" McCain proposes would cost the US middle class taxpayer
an additional $700 billion each and every year - an increase of about
thirty-three percent over our current $2.9 trillion national budget. Where will
he get this money from?
US - the same people without health care insurance, or without enough, who do
pay taxes
The word "reform" is only a word unless it's accompanied by real actions. And in
the case of health care reform, it's simply time for those real actions.
-Noah Greenberg, July 6, 2008
Another Black Friday
(One Day Early)
I dread looking forward to Friday afternoons nowadays. Friday afternoons, in the
era (or is that error?) of the Bush administration - a.k.a. The Administration
of Diminished Responsibility - has been hard on any and all of us since the news
began turning bad. And, let's face it, the news has been bad for quite some time
now, no matter how they spin it.
As each new Friday approaches, I sit and wait. I wait for the upcoming bad news
which the Bushies put out each and every Friday, and that bad news has never
been as bad as it's been since the beginning of 2008, with the exception of
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, of course.
Yes, under the Bush administration, each and every Friday is a brand new Black
Friday.
But this week something different happened. Friday came a day early. Today,
Thursday - yes, THURSDAY - July 3, 2008, the news came out of the Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics that another month has ended with a net loss
of US jobs. At the end of June, employers reported that an additional 62,000
jobs have been lost to our economy. At the rate we're losing them, and while
under this current administration, they don't look as if they're coming back.
Black Thursday, if you will, came about because our government will be closed
tomorrow. After all, us regular middle-class folk - some of us who are working
two and three jobs apiece - can't expect our federal government to report bad
news on Independence Day, July 4th, even if it is a Friday.
Can we?
And certainly we can't expect President Bush or any of his band of NeoCons to
work on our nation's birthday.
Why, that would be downright unpatriotic. wouldn't it?
For six straight months our economy has been bleeding whatever jobs have been
left over from the outsource bloodletting described by Bush's economic advisors
as "a good thing". For six straight months, as our population grew and more
workers attempted to join the once mighty US workforce, we have let their jobs
slip away.
No additional tax breaks for millionaires will bring back these jobs. No more
wars for oil and or profit will create the "jobs of the future". Solutions
cannot be found by this administration because it has no desire to find them.
This White house is not only compassion-less, but passion-less in any and all
efforts relating to making the lives of the 200-250 million or so of us
considered to be in the middle class. Make no mistake about it - when our
economy tanks, it comes up to us to make up the difference.
And we always do.
In actuality, all of the economic news is very bad. Even BLS.gov's US Import
Price Index - a unit of measure which shows increases in the goods which
originated in other countries which we buy here - has skyrocketed by a whopping
2.3 percent. To put that in perspective, imagine purchasing a made-in-China fall
jacket that cost you $100 today. Now imagine that you wanted to purchase that
same coat a year from now for a friend. Adding the 2.3 percent monthly increase
to the import price of the jacket over a twelve month period would increase the
price of the gift to $137.31!
You would have to be a very good friend.
Numbers which in another time might look good, stand out in a very bad way from
the BLS.gov report. To begin with, the Civilian Labor Force shrunk by some
144,000 workers. In good times that might mean that these people no longer need
to work. Today it simply means that their circumstances are left for hopeless by
the President Bush. Similarly, an additional 365,000 people joined the "Not in
Labor Force" statistic. Does that mean that these people no longer want to work?
Not in these times it doesn't. 365,000 people would mean 1,000 people a day for
a year lost their jobs - but this number is in just one month! In the month of
June, 12,167 people each and every day lost their job or no longer are looking
for work.
Maybe driving from minimum-wage job interview to minimum-wage job interview
without any hopes of obtaining work cost them too much in gas money.
The number of employed shrunk by nearly three times the number of jobs lost.
155,000 people who were listed as "employed" in May, 2008 are no longer working
while the ranks of the unemployed was stretched by more than ten percent (from
8.487 million Americans to 8.499 million Americans).
Somehow, even in spite of all the proof of his failed policies, President Bush
and his would-be successor John McCain-McBush think that the only way to cure
the economic ills of our nation is to provide more stimulus to their "base of
haves and have mores". The idea is that the more money the ultra-rich are
awarded, the more they'll spend on us peons.
Call it the Neo-Trickle-Down theory of screwing the middle class.
That stuff trickling down smells kind of funny, doesn't it?
Here's how the White House web site's economic page began (talk about spin!):
"Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures for June.
Non-Farm payroll employment decreased by 62,000 jobs in June and the
unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.5 percent, in line with expectations.
Although these numbers are disappointing, the unemployment rate remains below
the averages for the past three decades. Despite slow growth, the economy
continues to demonstrate resilience."
-Whitehouse.gov
Their theory? It's always darkest before the dawn.
I wonder how dark it will finally get before there is a spec of light?
-Noah Greenberg, July 3, 2008
McCain, McBush, McCheney and Energy
John McCain believes that you have to spend money to make money. The problem
is that it's us, the American middle class who's going to spend the money;
and it's the McBush "base of haves and have mores", such as Big Oil, who
will be making the money.
Yes, in yet another brilliant plan, John McCain, if elected President, will
give each and every man, woman and teenager still lucky enough to afford a
new car a $5,000 tax credit for purchasing a "zero emissions" vehicle.
Taken along with his health care plan, which would cost upwards of $700
billion per year; and his reduction in the tax that businesses pay from 35
percent to 25 percent, one has to ask the obvious:
Where are you getting all of this money from, Senator McCain? Maybe wife
Cindy has more in her trust fund than we all think.
The idea of giving huge tax breaks to people who purchase these vehicles
isn't a new one. In fact, as hybrids were approaching market, they had a
$2,000 tax break to any and all who purchased them. So why is McBush
presenting his plan as revolutionary?
Beats me.
American and foreign car companies know that the American people love their
SUV's and, as a result, are building SUV hybrids, trucks and other vehicles
which aren't really gas savers, except as compared with their all gas
counterparts. The idea is to save those of us who still can afford a whole
tank of gas a few extra MPG and allow us to keep our slightly more efficient
gas guzzlers rather than change our way of life.
And that's just stupid - Pandering always is.
Additionally, McCain says he will enforce CAFE Standards.
"Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and
add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties
for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all
carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles."
-McCain.com, from the last bullet-point in his energy plan
Nowhere is the idea that we should be building and buying cars which can get
from 50 to 70 miles per gallon. Certainly the technology exists today to
make that happen, so why not a peep about it on McCain's website? If McBush
was really serious about CAFE standards, the above comment would read
something like this:
""Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and
add it to the price of their cars. John McCain will not allow any car, SUV
or passenger van on the road that doesn't achieve the 50 Miles Per Gallon
goal by 2011."
-The way it ought to be
Again, McBush is simply pandering to his "base of haves and have mores".
To go along with his "zero emissions" idea is another McCain brainstorm:
:John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology
For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric
Automobiles."
-McCain.com
Sure... why not? After all, we (the American middle class) are made of
money, aren't we? Whatever happened to companies developing ideas because it
makes them their own money? I don't necessarily have an issue with our
government investing in ideas and new technology, but a prize? One would
think that the patent which comes out of an idea such as the next-generation
hybrid battery will be reaping their own rewards from each and every major
auto manufacturer in the world (except China, of course, who would rather
steal the idea than purchase it).
In the end, McBush's energy plan seems like it could have been written by
Dick Cheney, Big Oil and representatives from the auto industry. No mandates
makes for a bad plan. It's all the same rhetoric as George Bush used when he
stated "America is addicted to oil."
McCain's just the new "drug" pusher catering to our "addiction".
-Noah Greenberg, July 2, 2008
Iraq Today - Blame the Commanders?
Teeth marks on my computer. I bit the thing because that's what happens when I
read something so frustrating and so self-serving as this Associated Press
headline:
"Army blames poor planning for post-Saddam Iraq chaos"
-The Associated Press
After five-plus years on the ground in Iraq and at least an additional four
years in its planning (some of you will remember PNAC - the NeoCon Project for a
New American Century), the US Defense Department has finally come to the
realization that they weren't quite ready for the aftermath of what would happen
after a quick defeat of a much inferior (as far as manpower, training, tactics
and weaponry are concerned) enemy.
Although warned by such military experts as their own first ambassador to Iraq,
General Jay Garner; and even though they were foretold by the former Commander
of CENTCOM (Central Command), General Anthony Zinni in his Iraqi plan of attack
(one created during his tenure under President Bill Clinton should the need
arise), the Bush administration Department of Defense, led by loyal Bushie
Donald Rumsfeld himself, apparently didn't know the obvious, then, as reported
by the AP above, now.
In an effort to express blame, and shift it away from where it really belongs
(see above), the Contemporary Operations Study Team at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
reported this:
"'In the euphoria of early 2003,'" U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed
their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle
the occupation,"
-The Associated Press, quoting and summing up the report
It took 700 pages to tell the story of Bush's unprepared occupation.
However, that's not the whole truth. In his book, Plan of Attack, which used
interviews with various members of the Bush administration, Bob Woodward
reported that it was President Bush himself who refused to allow the correct
number of troops into Iraq in the first place. And to make matters worse, as the
pre-"Mission Accomplished" part of the war was coming to a close, the necessary
troops - the entire Fourth Army - was sitting on a ship awaiting orders which
never came. Instead, after weeks at sea, and while Iraq was turning into the
Dodge City of the Middle East, they were used as replacements for the soldiers
whose turn it was to go home.
Although the report, somehow, places the blame on "the Commanders" in Iraq, it
also states the truth: They were ignored.
"In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of
the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S.
ground forces in Iraq,"
-the Report
But the truth is that Franks did come to Secretary Rumsfeld a number of times
with plans that required as many as a half-million troops. The problem was that,
in their zeal for war, the Bushies couldn't stand to wait for such a force to be
mobilized. "Rummy" decided that he could not go to President Bush with a real
war plan and instead chose to tell Franks to make it smaller and faster. And
Franks did. Time and time again, Franks came back to his immediate superior
(Rumsfeld) with a modified plan for less and less troops.
And it was exactly what The President ordered.
"Planners who requested more troops were ignored and that commanders in Baghdad
were replaced without enough of a transition and lacked enough staff,"
-The Associated Press, again from the Report
When the war - or should I say, the pre-"Mission Accomplished" part of the war,
ended - it was General David McKiernan who was the man in charge in Iraq. Franks
led the war effort from Kuwait, but McKiernan was the ranking officer in Iraq
itself. He was the man in charge on the ground during the battles with the Iraqi
army.
At the time of "Mission Accomplished", McKiernan was getting ready to take over
as a military governor in Baghdad. He was getting his troops ready for the long
haul which he, as a military leader, knew was going to be necessary to make Iraq
tolerable for its citizens and his soldiers.
As his reward, and much to his and all who knew what the situation on the ground
really was surprise, McKiernan was relieved of his duties in Iraq and a new
commander, the same commander who spent the war on the boat, General Ricardo
Sanchez took his place.
Some will also remember former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki who has
the temerity to say this about the occupation of Iraq after "Mission
Accomplished":
It will take "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers,"
-Shinseki
He was soon gone from the Bush administration as well.
In all of the Associate Press article, there is not one mention of Donald
Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or George W. Bush. In true Bushco format, somehow, they
are left blameless and those under them will take the brunt of the criticism.
After all "Stuff" runs downhill, doesn't it?
-Noah Greenberg, June 30, 2008
The Credit Card Crunch
So what does your credit card's annual percentage rate have to do with
inflation? Not a darn thing. Credit card companies, many of them the same banks
you put your money into for safe keeping, make a lot of money on the interest
payments, late fees and other surprises they throw your way to keep themselves
in business. With lowered interest rates, why is it that credit card companies
charge astronomical usury rates for their credit cards?
Because they can. Thee is no regulation stopping them.
In the old days, a bank would take your money and lend it to people buying a
house or financing a business. They would charge that person or company interest
while at the same time offering you a few points of interest for their borrowing
your money.
However, a funny thing happened on the way to fair play - the banks found other
uses for, and other ways of obtaining your money without the usual quid-pro-quo.
One of the main ways they "earn" your money is by charging you inflated fees,
increasing the APR (annual percentage rate) and anything else they can think of.
In a recent bank commercial, a man and a woman are climbing a mountain when the
woman's cell phone rings. You hear only her side of the conversation, which goes
something like this:
WOMAN ON MOUNTAIN: I'm overdrawn... Okay... thanks.
MAN ON MOUNTAIN: Who was that?
WOMAN (as she accesses her Internet banking account via her cell phone-PDA):
That was my bank. They told me I was overdrawn. I'm transferring money into my
checking account from my savings account.
MAN: Overdrawn?
WOMAN: Yeah. (the camera pans out showing the couple alone high on the face of
the mountain) Now that's scary.
VOICE OVER ANNOUNCER: Avoid overdrawn fees with a bank that cares.
Okay, so it's not verbatim. Hey, I'm a busy guy. But you get the gist. Doesn't
the bank own the bank? Isn't it their self-defined policy that causes the giant
fees you have to pay if you're late with a payment or overdrawn a few dollars in
your checking account? They make it sound as if they have no choice but to
charge you the sixty bucks a pop for each and every check you bounce.
In the spirit of fair play, I decided to check out the website of one of the
biggest banks in the US - Bank of America. With an advertising budget somewhere
in the tens, if not the hundreds of millions of dollars, surely a visit to their
website as a snapshot of the banking industry would be worth the time. Here are
some of the highlights (or is that lowlights?) of their Credit Card Interest
Rate web page:
BOA: The amount of interest, or finance charge, you pay is largely determined by
your interest rate, also referred to as your Annual Percentage Rate, or APR. The
APR on your account can adjust up or down over time from its initial point for a
number of reasons:
MADMAN: Of course, the big reason banks raise interest rates is "because they
can". In all the time, however, that I've had credit cards, I've never had a
credit card company call me, send me a letter or make a phone call to tell me
that they're going to lower my interest rate. As a matter of fact, just the
opposite is true. With about $800 on a GM MasterCard. our next bill came with
the notice that I was having my interest rate raised to 39.5 percent. Although I
pay my bills on time and have a credit rating in excess of 700 (I also have a
credit service which keeps me informed of these things, thanks to another bank
who accidentally allowed my personal information to be stolen), they decided I
was a higher risk factor and should pay more. I called them, cancelled the card
and sent them a check for the $800 which ended my relationship with them. During
the phone call, they said "WAIT! Maybe we can work something out? How does 29.5
percent sound instead?"
Click!
BOA: Everything that affects the larger economy can also affect your credit card
rate. For instance, if the interest rate banks pay to borrow money changes, it
may have an impact on your APR. APRs on a variable rate account will fluctuate
with the index to which they are tied. Most commonly, the prime rate.
MADMAN: As of April 30 of this year, the prime rate stood at 5.00 percent. So if
banks, such as the Bank of America, were lending money on credit cards based on
this rate, one has to ask just where the reasoning of interest rates as much as
eight times the prime rate came from.
Additionally, I find it funny (as in ironic) that they charge us figures such as
39.5 percent. I guess it sounds more official than 40 percent, huh?
BOA: Changes in your personal financial situation, including changes in your
income, your amount of debt, your overall credit history and how you use and
maintain your Credit Card account with us can all affect your interest rate.
MADMAN: No doubt that "change" which BOA is referring to is a downward "change".
Consider this: If you have a credit card with a balance and you run into some
sort of bad luck (loss of a job; medical bills due to illness, a large
deductible or co-pay; personal property damage due to a natural disaster not
covered by your insurance company; etc), the credit card company has the
unfettered right to change the amount of money you owe them. Since you already
owe them a decent sum of money, they can now charge you a higher interest rate
while you get back on your financial feet.
In other words, the credit card company makes you pay them more when you have
less. Must be a part of that compassionate conservatism I hear so much about.
BOA: Over the life of your account, Bank of America may also make periodic
changes to your Credit Card Agreement. Any changes to the rates or fees on your
account will be fully disclosed to you before the changes are effective, and if
an increase to your APR is included, you'll be given an opportunity to reject
that portion of the amendment. Should you decide to reject the change, you will
probably lose future charging privileges with your card but will be given the
opportunity to payoff your existing balance at the current rate.
MADMAN: Now there's a rule which I have never seen. That one must be in the
really, really, really fine print. Anyone have a magnifying glass?
BOA: Avoiding Default Rate Increases
You can avoid automatic triggering of a higher default rate on your Credit Card
by following two simple rules:
-Pay at least the minimum monthly amount by the payment due date.
-Never exceed your credit limit.
* Note that Bank of America will not automatically increase your APRs without
notice based on your account performance with another creditor, including if you
make a late payment to, exceed your credit limit with, close your account with
or have a payment returned from that party.
* Note by MADMAN: So even if you follow all of their rules, someone else has the
ability to screw up your deal with just about anyone else, including your
current bank. Simply closing your account with another credit card company
allows your current credit card company the right to change their deal with you.
Sounds like a sweet deal - for them, that is.
On June 29, 2006, the prime rate (the rate banks get to borrow our middle class
tax dollars from the Federal Reserve Bank) stood at a whopping (by today's
standards) 6.25 percent. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan's replacement at the Fed,
and his band of compassionate conservative commissioners have since lowered that
rate to the 2.25 percent. That's where it stands today. How much has your credit
card bill - by lowering your APR - been lowered as a result, I wonder? My bet is
that it went the other way - up.
WE are the Fed. The money the banks borrow at that very favorable 2.25 percent
rate is coming from us, the US middle class taxpayer. And while we're lending
these institutions such enormous sums at very favorable rates, we get bigger and
bigger fees, larger interest rates and nothing much else in return. And,
somehow, the Bush administration, John McCain and all of the Wall Street Big
Money McBush experts say that it's going to, somehow, save the US economy.
It hasn't and it won't. But it will make the McBush "base of haves and have
mores" the "have so much mores."
-Noah Greenberg, June 29, 2008
Gas and Dollars
It's no secret that the falling dollar has been one of the top reasons for our
soaring gas prices. Conversely, our rising gas prices have caused our formerly
strong dollar to collapse. So, which came first - the falling dollar or the high
gas prices? Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
Allow me to answer that question with another question: Who cares?
The bottom line is that gas prices are high. I am personally tired of hearing
those on the Right making excuses for the meteoric rise in the fuel we use to
get to work, play and the hospital (for those of us with health care insurance).
The big excuse, of course, is that gas prices are right where they ought to be
when adjusted for inflation.
That is, simply put, crap.
Gas prices are high. In June of 2001, when our dollar was worth more than a
Euro, we were paying about $1.80 on regular unleaded fuel nationwide. That in
itself was a great increase from when George W. Bush took over just five months
previously from Bill Clinton. Two years later it was even lower at less than
$1.60. Today the national average is hovering around $4.25 per gallon, and
whether your inflation calculator can adjust that high or not doesn't matter -
it's out of hand.
The price today is at least three times what it was when George Bush took office
in 2001, and it's getting worse. Ask yourself this question: Are you earning
three times more in income than you were in 2001? I know I'm not. (And I'm
really, really trying!)
As a percentage of our income, gas has now taken a bite too big for many of us.
Add to that equation the increase in our health care bills (going up to nearly
20 cents on every dollar), the cost of groceries and the fall of our homes'
values one has to question what is left.
The Bush administration - a.k.a. The Administration of Diminished Responsibility
- has done nothing other than to insist that we drill for oil in Alaska and on
our own coastlines to cure our gas price ills. They tell us that we need to
obtain our own crude oil from new, domestic sources. The mere fact that any "new
oil" found wouldn't make a dent in out wallets for about ten years doesn't seem
to matter to anyone other than the very few who are actually paying attention.
The Right wing has been pushing the "global marketplace" as a cure-all for
everything that is wrong financially with America. As jobs go overseas at a
seemingly unending pace and our dollar falls as compared to just about any other
world currency, the "global marketplace" is killing us.
In other words, when it takes less Euros to purchase a barrel of crude oil than
dollars, we lose.
Wasn't it just two years ago that George Bush came to the realization that
"America is addicted to oil"? How will giving the addict more of the drug they
need make them less dependent on that drug?
Ask yourself another question: If we were to give in to all of the Bush and John
McCain's demands to allow drilling everywhere (with the exclusion of the
Kennebunkport, Maine coast) who will make the profits? Allow me to make this a
rhetorical question and answer it myself: Big Oil. They're not only going to
sell it to us - they're going to put it on that open market and sell it to
whoever will pay the most.
And we, the American people, won't see a dime of it.
-Noah Greenberg, June 25, 2008
Choose Pandering
I'm on vacation. I made the mistake and asked my daughter what she wanted to do
for her twenty-first birthday. She chose a cruise, but times being what they
are, and prices being what they are, we took the cheap way out and booked a
four-day, three-night, two-island deal out of Miami. That's the same Miami which
lays about 1300 miles from our home in New Jersey. And, yes, we drove it (and
are still driving home as I write this).
But this little story I write isn't about the fun time we had on the dolphin
encounter in the Bahamas or even the long, but fun trip we took as father and
daughter down I-95. It's about license plates - one license plate to be
specific.
CHOOSE LIFE.
It's a cute little license plate with the smiling faces of a young cartoon girl
and boy drawn on the left, FLORIDA stamped on bottom and the words "Choose life"
(Capital "C"; lower case "l") written as if a child wrote it with their shaky
little just-learning-how-to-write on the top.
Isn't that cute.
But it wasn't the cuteness of the license plate that got my attention. In fact,
the first time I saw it I wasn't quite sure that I had read it right. After all,
such a political and obvious pander to one group certainly couldn't have made it
passed the Florida legislation, could it?
Florida has many different license plates with numerous designs, and I saw them
all. However, this was the only truly memorable one.
In New York you may have the logo of your favorite New York sports team
emblazoned on your license plates (Go Yankees!). Why, you can even offer your
fellow drive a virtual "terrorist fist-bump" as you speed by him on the Cross
Bronx Expressway if you like.
But this is different. Choose life is the only political issue for many
Americans. In 2000, up to twenty-three percent of those who voted described
themselves as "values voters" with seventy-eight percent of them casting their
ballots for George W. Bush. And in Florida, they certainly would have made up a
large number of those who fit into that category.
The Choose life plate idea began in 1997 and instituted in 1999. For those of
you wondering, that was the year Jeb Bush was sworn in as Florida's governor.
Some original ideas about the plate were to have it say "Choose Adoption" or
"Support Adoption" rather than the more controversial and politically motivated
"Choose Life" slogan which ended up on it.
Imagine having a means of identifying those whose "values" are the same as yours
on election day in 2008. Some of you will remember those in Democratic-leaning
areas of Florida on election day 2000 who complained that their normal routes to
the polls were blocked by Sheriff's deputies making it harder for them to cast
their vote. How convenient it is then to have a way of actually seeing who
should and who shouldn't have their right to decide removed.
Makes things a lot easier, doesn't it?
Perhaps Florida didn't go far enough with their license plate choices. They
could offer the John McCain plate which says something like, "I'm 4 McCain - Let
Me Through", for example.
So in the spirit of good will, I offer up some more Florida license plate
choices for people from the Sunshine State:
-Choose Pandering
-Choose Incompetence (in case anyone from the soon-to-be-out Bush administration
moves to Florida)
-Choose Death - after all there should be an alternative to choose life, right?
-Choose War (see Choose Incompetence)
-Choose Stupidity (need I say more?)
-Choose A Closed Mind
And how about Choose-a-Partner. Similar in design to the children on the Choose
Life plate, there can be a cartoon of a man and a woman, a man and a man or a
woman and a woman on the plate smiling happily. Certainly they would sell some
of these "alternative" license plates in South Beach.. They could even charge a
premium for them and make a fortune!
The Choose Life plate is simply pandering for votes from a state who relies upon
dividing their citizens for political gain. And even thought other states have
the "Choose Life plate as well, but in Florida its purpose acts more out of
politics and pandering than anything else. This license plate isn't the same as
having "Save Wildlife" or your alma matter printed on it. No, this was put there
as yet another wedge to be thrown between people to divert their attention away
from the other issues such as health care, the Iraq war jobs and the economy.
I think I want a license plate of my own. How about Choose All People with the
proceeds going to supplying health care for those without. let's call it HEALTH
CARE FOR ALL NOW instead. What do you think?
-Noah Greenberg, June 24, 2008
Missing Opportunities in Iraq
Nouri al-Maliki and his Iraqi government are learning from president Bush and
his administration. This is not a good thing.
In a time when gas prices are rising like never before (the effect) and crude
oil is selling at record prices (the cause), the Iraqi government and people
should be raking in the dough from their black gold. And according to the looks
of their treasury, they are.
But much like our President and his administration, any spoils go to the
victors; and like in the United States, those victors don't live in poorer or
middle class neighborhoods.
According to "experts", the Iraqi army is getting better at doing their job.
Whereas that sounds like reason to bring our troops home sooner than later,
there still remains many other problems in Iraq, not the least of which is the
lack of jobs and the lack of infrastructure. One would think that the Iraqi
government, with oil money coming into their nation, that the latter would help
the former.
Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, it appears that one of the lessons their
leaders learned from the Bushies is to keep the people down. One of the ways in
which FDR helped bring us out of the Great Depression (an event forged under the
true model of the Bush administration, President Herbert Hoover) was the great
public works program which put Americans to work and took them out of the
streets.
What the Public Works Administration did was to take out of work Americans - and
they numbered about 25 percent of the workforce during the Great Depression -
and put them in jobs that bettered our infrastructure. They built roads; they
built bridges; and they began great works that transformed this nation from a
burgeoning third world-type nation into the beginnings of the world power it was
to become.
Then people work, they spend money, and they spend money putting other people to
work. It has taken nearly eight years for President bush to realize that and the
pittance of a rebate given to most of us will not make much of a difference in
most of our lives.
In a similar fashion to our nation, Iraq doesn't have jobs to employ their
people. Our jobs in this nation have been lost to overseas manufacturers and
have been taken away by the greedy global corporatists who call George Bush
"Friend". Iraq has their own problem and it's a problem that reminds me of the
time of the Great Depression.
The Iraq government should be funding public works projects. They should be
hiring engineers, architects, road designers and workers to build the new Iraq
instead of sitting on their hands an their wallets in similar fashion to their
American counterparts.
Perhaps Iraq needs their own FDR to get things going. However, as long as George
W. Bush, or his would-be successor John McBush-McCain are in office, don't hold
your breath.
-Noah Greenberg, June 19, 2008
Fox News' Not-So-Covert (or Clever) Racism
They are just so good at it. The people at Fox News Channel are experts in the
art of damaging and insulting, then taking it back. Surely some of you will
remember when REPUBLICAN pedophile Representative Mark Foley from Florida was
trying to get overly friendly with some underage male pages in his House of
Representatives. And surely those of you familiar with the tactics of Fox News
Channel will also remember the graphic underneath Foley's picture on Fox News
that evening.
The incident happened on none other than the O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly,
and it happened three times. Even after the incident was reported to Fox News,
O'Reilly's producers felt thee was no need to set the record straight.
"no on-air correction necessary,"
-An O'Reilly producer
And in keeping with tradition, NewsCorp's Newsmaxx website followed suit.
Today's election brings forth a new candidate for Fox News to ridicule then
apologize to - Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. To date,
Fox News employees have had different things to say about the "Oh - He's Black?"
candidate.
A "terrorist fist jab,"
-Fox News Channel anchor E.D. Hill, referring to a fist jab between Barack and
Michelle Obama on stage in front of a packed house full of supporters
Now I personally didn't know that terrorists fist jab each other after setting
off bombs or shooting up markets or any of the other horrific things they do.
Maybe Fox News has a picture of Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri bumping
fists somewhere along the terrorist trail, but I haven't seen it.
FOX NEWS "EXPERT LIZ TROTTA: some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody
knock off Osama...
THE FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Obama
TROTTA: Obama. Well...both if we could!
I like the "we" Trotta put in there. After all, it is "we" as in "they, at Fox
News Channel" who would like to see Osama -er, Obama - disappear. And calling
Senator Obama, or using his middle name Hussein (or both) is a way that "they"
use to put Obama in the terrorist camp. Like anyone could have done more for the
terrorists than George W. Bush has.
And, finally, the latest in a series of categorizing Senator Obama so those who
watch Fox News think of him the way in which "they" want them to was a graphic
under Fox News Host Megyn Kelly and Conservative Columnist Michelle Malkin which
read, "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking On Obama's Baby Mama."
What a cute way to "Ghetto" the man, his wife and all other African Americans in
the eyes of those easy enough to manipulate who watch Fox News.
Some will remember when a Dan Rather producer was duped into reporting some
questionable facts about George W. Bush. Rather was forced to resign from his
anchor chair at CBS and was labeled as a Liberal agent.
I guess at Fox News all they get is a raise.
Race-baiting and "clever" racism will be the mark of those on the Right in this
election. The sad thing is that there will some who fall for it. Let's just hope
that the new voters who promise to get out the cote this year can make up for
it.
-Noah Greenberg, June 16, 2008
A Child of Viet Nam
I was born into the Viet Nam war. No, I'm not Vietnamese or anything like that.
I was simply born in 1960 when that particular quagmire was really just getting
into its groove, so it and I have a common thread: We grew up together.
There was always a veil of concern in my parents' home. You see, I have three
brothers, all considerably older than I, and there was always this concern that
one, if not more of them, would have to go off and fight this war. Fortunately,
due to various reasons (including medical), they didn't have to fight and my mom
and dad didn't have to go through the hell of having a well-groomed military
officer come to the door voicing his regrets, as so many other military (and
reluctant-military) families have had to do over the years. Over 58,000 American
families went through it during the Viet Nam era and in excess of 4,000 have
gone through the same thing in relation to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so
far.
My father, Abraham Greenberg, will always be linked to the Viet Nam war in my
mind. My brothers, being fifteen, twelve and ten years older, don't have the
same memories of their early years as I have. My father died in March 1975, just
as the last US troops were coming home from over there. To add to that was his
insistence that I not watch television on weekdays during the school year,
except for the news. So every night I sat on the floor in front of the TV and
watched Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News with (of course) Walter
Cronkite. And each and every night we got the casualty report together. If my
memory serves me correctly, it went something like this:
CRONKITE: Today in Viet Nam, 25 soldiers were killed in action and 45 were
wounded.
I got desensitized to it. I remember when the number was low it felt like a
"good day", and when the number was high, it was a "bad day". As that child, I
looked at the loss number much in the same way I looked at a New York Yankee of
Giant loss.
And I got over it... quickly.
But the truth of the matter was that my father and mother looked at those
numbers differently, much in the same way I look at them today. And I fear for
my son much in the same way my mother feared for my brothers back in the 1960's.
And I know what death is and it's far different than what an eight year old
thinks it is.
We Americans, today, don't look at the Iraq war in the same way we looked at the
Viet Nam war all those years ago. There are no draftees, just volunteers who
"knew what they were getting in to" as some who will use any rationale to keep
this war going have suggested.
The Viet Nam war was ended, in part, to the children who knew that they would
have to go fight in their generation's war. There is no draft today so it's easy
for the children of those protesters to not be touched by their war the way
their parents were touched by theirs.
My brothers' generation marched on Washington; they protested and made the kind
of noise which couldn't fall on deaf ears indefinitely. This non-draft war is
just the medicine which the Bush administration would have ordered. I remember
in the 2004 election, one of the bumper sticker slogans being, "Bush in 2004;
Draft in 2005". But there wasn't any draft. A draft would have put an end to
this war already. Our nation's families wouldn't put up with the loss of their
draftee children's lives for long. And as a nice side effect, the non-draft army
allows for war profiteers to make profits from the horrors of this war. They
provide food; they provide security protection for DC dignitaries who want to
tour Iraq; they make the profits of war.
If we had death, wounded and missing counts on the CBS Evening News with Katie
Couric today, perhaps this war would be brought home a bit more. maybe this war
wouldn't be a conflict fought "by someone's else's children" only.
The network and cable news channels are shirking their responsibility for not
showing flag-draped caskets coming home for the last time. They are not doing us
a service by excluding the horrific news from Iraq which contain the names,
ranks and home towns of our deceased heroes.
And if they were, perhaps this war would already be over.
-Noah Greenberg, May 20, 2008
Health Care Mandates
It's funny when you consider the things the Right wants to make mandatory. Take
school prayer, for example. I'm not against anyone praying but I am against
using prayer as a means to either convert or ostracize those whose beliefs are
different than yours.
In a nation where we mandate that our taxpayers subsidize insurance companies
who take huge premiums then cry poverty when they actually have to pay a claim,
we ignore the most obvious need of making sure each and every person living
within our borders has the right to see a doctor when they are sick. A mandate
which forces each and every one of us to have health care is not only a good
idea which requires consideration, it's the only choice we have.
By now, we're all familiar with the moral reasons that a health care mandate is
the only choice, but there's another reason as well, and it all comes down to
dollars. Any health care plan which our new Democratic President (and it has to
be a democratic President because John McCain has already taken the Bush Health
Savings Accounts as his own) puts forth has to account for those of us who don't
go to doctors when they are sick. How many of us have looked at "that little
thing" on our arm or leg and ignored it? And how many who ignored it found out
later that it was a skin melanoma? And how many of those people found out when
it was too late?
I often wonder how many of us don't go to a doctor when we're not feeling well
because we're out of shape and just don't want to hear what the medical advice
is going to be. After all, no news is good news, right?
Making sure all Americans have health care will allow each and every one of us
who needs to, or merely wants to see a doctor be able to see that doctor. it
will also reduce the costs of health care nationally because a great many of us
who don't see a doctor before it's too late will have the ability to get that
checkup to either find our that they're healthily, need a little work, or hear
the words, "It's a good thing you got here when you did."
But a financial mandate isn't enough. What I think should be included in any
health care mandate is a floating national health check up day. Most of us who
are actively employed today get sick and/ or personal days to either take off
when we're feeling ill, go to the DMV or use for any other number of reasons. My
proposal is to mandate that employers give their employees an extra personal day
each year to go to the doctor. It would work something like this:
-Each employee makes a doctor's appointment;
-The employee would get that day off, with pay;
-The employee would then have to bring a note back from the doctor merely
stating that the employee showed up.
A health care plan which not only mandates its purchase, but its use, will be
the safest and the most cost effective health care plan we could have. Certainly
some would object to being forced to have to go to a doctor for regular, annual
checkups saying that it would be a restriction on their first amendment rights,
and it might actually be. For those individuals I say okay, but you don't get
that extra day off.
A Single Payer Universal Health Care (SPUHC) plan might be the idea we should
strive towards but it isn't going to happen any time soon. We have seen the
power of the health insurance industry and the destruction which Hillary Clinton
lived through in 1993-1994 when she tried in vain to gain health care for all as
First Lady. It didn't end well and many say that it was the reason the Democrats
lost control of the Congress in 1994. I'm one of them. There will be no SPUHC
plan as long as the legal system of bribery - a.k.a. paid lobbyists - are
allowed to run unperturbed throughout our halls of government. But the cry for a
universal health care plan has grown to not only include those of us without
coverage, but those of us without enough coverage. It also includes those of us
who are paying way too much, whether it be in co-pays, deductibles, employee
participation fees or the dreaded "usual and customary" holes which force too
many to pay for the health care bills that insurance companies simply don't want
to pay. There is no recourse for the latter except to pay or fight, and lose.
Any health care plan which comes out of our next Democratic government has to
address the cost factor. Everyone has to be able to afford their health care.
Whereas some of us are paying our employee participation out of our paychecks
today, too many are paying too large a sum. Employee participation rates, as
well as health care insurance costs, in general, should be based on what we can
afford, not what they can get out of us.
In the end, health care has to take care of our bodies and our pocketbooks. If
allowed to continue, the health care industrial complex is going to have to have
regulations and watchdogs and be a part of the solution instead of being the
major part of the problem.
Finally, with all Americans included in the new health care family, everyone
would have a national health insurance card which states the insurance company
name and contact information on its face. A national database of individuals
should also be available on a secured government website to look up an
individuals insurance when a card is forgotten of an emergency occurs. Medical
records could be kept in that same database at each person's request and
approval.
-Noah Greenberg, February 10, 2008
Another "YO-YO" (You're-On-Your-Own) Health Care Plan
Courtesy of Senator John McCain
John McCain is now the guy to beat in the Republican party. After Rudy
Giuliani's self-destruction (yes - I'm writing him off even before all of those
displaced New-Yorkers-turned-Sunshine-Staters vote just over one week from
today); and Mitt Romney's ability to only win the states he calls "home" (don't
laugh - there's at least ten of them!), the senior Senator from Arizona has
risen like the phoenix from the ashes and is now 'da GOP man.
So in honor of his new-found title, it's time to examine Senator McCain on the
issues, and, as most of you might have already guessed, there is no more
important issue to me than health care.
After listening to the Democrats talk about their plans for the nation's un- and
under-insured, with most of the original candidates making health care a
mandate; and cringing when hearing the "ideas" that the Republican candidates
came up with (or took from President Bush), I wanted to examine "The Maverick's"
plans to help us out of the crisis which will eat up 20 cents out of every GDP
dollar by 2016 (the last year of the new President's second term, if he, or she,
makes it that far). McCain's website "straight talks" health care
(http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm)
in just the same manner that the GOP, the Right Wing and the Bush "base" of
"haves and have more" talk about health care: It's the YO-YO
(You're-On-Your-Own) plan all over again.
"John McCain is willing to address the fundamental problem: the rapidly rising
cost of U.S. health care."
-"The Maverick's" website
It's good to know that McCain is "willing" to address the fundamental problem"
that is health care in the United States today. Even though some might consider
it to be more of a "crisis" than a "problem", it's still good to know that he's
"willing" to offer up some lip-service towards what more than 25 percent of us
consider to be the most important problem facing America today. And while it's
true that the cost of US health care is "rising" at a pace that is hundreds of
times greater than the "rise" of our wages (for those of you whose wages have
actually risen - like the Global CEO's), it's also true that McCain's - like
President Bush's - "plan" is to say whatever he can to get elected an do nothing
once he achieving his goal.
"John McCain believes that insurance reforms should increase the variety and
affordability of insurance coverage available to American families by fostering
competition and innovation."
-from JohnMcCain.com
Allow me to interpret: If you can't afford health care insurance today, there is
little to suggest that you'll be able to afford it if McCain is elected. In a
nation where the median family of four's income is about $50,000, that same
family is paying almost $12,000 per year in health care insurance premiums
alone. That doesn't include what the average American family will have to pay
for deductibles, co-pays, medicines they need that the insurance companies will
consider "not proven effective for your disease", and the amount of the doctor's
fee that is out of the "usual and customary" fees that insurance company execs
determine that you, their insured, will pay.
By the way, not once did McCain's website mention bother that all bankruptcies
are due to health care. So as he's screaming about the pseudo-rich who bought
homes that were over their heads and the banks that we (the American middle
class) will be bailing out, many of "we" (that same American middle class) won't
be able to afford our health care bills.
That's a crisis.
"Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health
insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for
families) to increase incentives for insurance coverage. Individuals owning
innovative multi-year policies that cost less than the full credit can deposit
remainder in expanded health savings accounts."
-Part of the McClain plan
Well if the Republicans get their wish, there will be no more tax code because
there will be no more taxes. And what will a $2,500 or $5,000 tax cut do for
most Americans? When it comes to purchasing health care coverage for yourself
($2,500) or your family ($5,000), not much. Let's face facts here: The Average
American family without health insurance doesn't even pay $5,000 in federal
income taxes (remember - federal withholding taxes are for Social Security and
Medicare). So what will their minor adjustment net them? Not much.
And how with this great tax-cutter, as all of the GOP hopefuls claim to be,
going to pay for such a tax break anyway? Let's do the math: There are 180
million American households, most of which containing families (husband, wife,
children - husband, wife - one parent with children). If two-thirds of these
households get $5,000 each; and the other third are given $2,500 each to pay for
their health care, the total increase to our nation's annual budget would be
around $700 billion ($700,000,000,000.00).
President Bush has expanded the 2008 federal budget by about four percent from
207 to 2008 - larger than even the inflation rate. Today it stands at $2.9
trillion, which doesn't include the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which
are paid for by "appropriations". It would be well in excess of $3 trillion if
they were included.
John McCain wants to increase it - yes, increase it - by nearly one-third and it
still wouldn't cover most of the 47 million Americans who have no health care
coverage today.
Stupid, huh?
And to add insult to injury, McCain's plan would force states to pony up even
more of their taxpayers' dollars.
"Require any state receiving Medicaid to develop a financial 'risk adjustment'
bonus to high-cost and low-income families to supplement tax credits and
Medicaid funds."
-"The Plan"
Just as George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind educational program forces states
to pay for their federal mandates, John McCain's health care plan would force us
- the middle class taxpayer - to pay to cover those who still wouldn't be able
to afford their doctor's bills. We'll still have jammed emergency rooms; we'll
still have thousands of Americans dieing because they can't afford even a simple
check-up; and we'll still have health insurance companies running amok on our
middle class while their CEO's take millions in bonuses and perks.
"Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that
they choose,"
-JohnMcCain.com
hey John... We're allowed to do just that now, but 47 million of us still can't
afford it.
As McCain closes his health care web page, he talks about making sure Americans
take care of themselves. He talks about "Childhood obesity, diabetes and high
blood pressure" as if those who develop these diseases should be considered
pariahs. Of course McCain himself might be one of those people who had brought
his own disease upon himself. After all, he hails from Arizona - the state with
The Sun on it flag - and probably spent too much time in the sun himself. Should
we, the US taxpayer, have been responsible for his skin caner treatment? Using
his own logic, the answer would have to be "No".
In the balance of health care plans being offered by the candidates left in the
race for the White House, McCain is just like the others on the Right side: A
lot of rhetoric with no substance.
It may make for good GOP politics, but the lack of health care for every
American is bad for every American, whether they have insurance or not.
-Noah Greenberg, January 20, 2008
A Social Security Idea
Raising the retirement age for regular, middle-class Americans to begin
collecting the Social security Insurance which they have spent a lifetime paying
into is not a choice I'm willing to make. In fact, there is a much better choice
that would keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent well into the latter half
of this century and beyond.
Step 1: Stop Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund
President Bush has raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his war of
choice in Iraq. Of that there can be no doubt. During the 2000 campaign, sitting
Vice President and Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore said he would put our
Social Security dollars into a "lock box" and not use that money for other
purposes. President Bush also swore the same thing, but went back on his word.
Today the Trust Fund is nothing more than a series of worthless I.O.U.'s that
the Bush administration has no intention of paying back.
Step 2: Lowering the Tax on Middle-Class and Lower Income Americans
No one should have to pay taxes on earnings when they're trying to make ends
meet. To that end, I recommend not charging any Social Security Tax on the first
$10,000 of income earned. That is a savings to everyone of some $620 per year,
regardless of your total income.
Step 3: Lowering the Tax Rate from 6.2 percent to 5.95 percent on Employee-Paid
Social Security Insurance
Next would be to lower the tax rate paid on Social Security insurance from 6.2
percent to 5.95 percent. This would allow for another $150 saved per $50,000 of
income earned for all Americans.
Step 3: Remove the Cap
Today, all taxes paid on Social Security insurance is capped at $97,000 of
earned income. If the cap is removed and all Americans pay equally on all earned
income over $10,000, Social Security not only will become solvent indefinitely,
but its cost will be spread evenly across the board for all Americans.
In a time when the Bush administration is looking to give those which President
Bush called his "base" of "haves and have mores" even more in tax breaks, we
should be looking for fairness in our tax structure. It's time for all Americans
to pay for Social Security fairly. As it stands now, Americans earning up to
$97,000 per year are paying over $7,400 in Social Security taxes while some CEO
earning $1 million per year pays the same. Under my plan, the American earner at
$50,000 would save some $770 per year while that CEO would more than make up the
difference.
With President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan costing its
beneficiaries 95 percent of their drug's costs during the "Donut Hole" period,
aren't our elderly paying enough? Making sure that Social Security remains
stable at the cost of only six percent of our richest Americans is the only
choice.
If our economy is truly reliant on the middle class, this plan would be just the
spark that would ignite it once again.
-Noah Greenberg, November 19, 2007
Out of the Brain of a Madman
How much is too much? Well into his seventh year in office, President Bush is
surprised yet again. He can't understand why gas prices have risen and,
likewise, doesn't get why there's no answer as an alternative.
It's like someone else is sitting in the Big Chair in the oval office at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. Too bad there isn't.
So far under the administration of the man who called those ultra rich campaign
contributors his "base" of "haves and have mores", we have seen tax cuts that
have evaporated a budget surplus; a war begun with intelligence gathered to
prove a predetermined conclusion; an immigration proposal with a design to allow
a forced servitude of an entire race of people; the loss of a city without any
real effort to recover it; an education bill called "No Child Left Behind" which
performs exactly the opposite of its name and punishes schools in poor
neighborhoods by removing the money they need to become better; and the end of
an era of good relations after the horrific 911 attacks because of bullying and
name calling that was just plain stupid.
And instead of trying to make things better, this president keeps on attacking.
He attacks Democrats for getting nothing done in Congress, even as they get
members of the President's own party to side with them during the SCHIP
negotiations. As President Bush vetoes that bill yet another time, the burden
for insuring those who cannot insure themselves - the children of the
"not-poor-enough" - is going to be put on the states who feel that they have no
choice but to make sure the infirmed get to see a doctor when they are sick.
The President and the GOP - those on the Red side of the aisle not willing to
talk to the Democrats and many other members with sense in their own party -
have made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They have taken their marginal defeat
in the 2006mid-term election and have used this opportunity to blame the
opposition party as obstructionists. If it doesn't sound familiar, it ought to.
After all, it's the same thing they claimed even as they enjoyed their place in
the White House and as the majority in both Houses of Congress.
Take the Iraq war, for example: When the Democrats in Congress decided to take a
stand, the GOP, led by Bush, Fox News and his cronies of the GOP yelled and
screamed that they were traitors and care nothing for the troops. Even prior to
the elections, a newly elected Ohio Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt, claimed that
Rep. John Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was a coward for his views on war.
The freshman representative had to be reminded that Rep. Murtha was not only a
decorate veteran, but that he was decorated in not one, but two of America's
wars: In Korea, as an enlisted man and in Viet Nam as an officer. But that
wasn't important. The only important thing was the label affixed to a political
foe.
In fact, any time a Democrat of "Liberal" makes a remark, he or she is demonized
by the Right Wing media and every NeoCon in arm's length of a microphone. But
what happened when Tom DeLay, the de facto leader of the GOP pack was put on the
hot seat for things proven that he did and laws he is going to be tried for what
he appeared to break? They rallied around him and even tried to get him
re-elected before realizing that the heavily Republican district he represented
near Houston Texas was smarter than the GOP leadership was, and they asked him
to resign.
Does anyone remember Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who brought home real tax
dollars and 911 money to the last US place on Earth that the terrorists want to
attack? And now that Sen. Stevens is answering serious charges in State Number
49 about his questionable dealings and freebies he received for
"considerations"? Stevens was also the guy who called email "The Internets" and
computers a "Series of tubes" while heading the committee that oversaw those
very same things.
Amazing!
And what about the pass Rep. Mark Foley got from his GOP brethren, which
included then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (REPUBLICAN-IL)? While
defending Rep. Foley for his indiscretions with underage pages on staff in the
House, and even after being informed of his actions well before the rest of the
American people found out, the GOP leadership was standing firmly behind the
pedophile while they, and he - Foley himself - opposed those who sought the
company of those of the same sex as a right of freedom.
Let's face it, as far as the "party of morality" is concerned, the GOP is
lacking thee too.
Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
have decided to get tough on President bush in relation to the war in Iraq.
Every time the Dems say they want accountability, the GOP points that cold,
stale finger right at the flag and calls them traitors. In my opinion, those who
seek and keep war as a matter of polarizing the people they represent are the
real traitors.
So far, these GOP scoundrels have succeeded in many ways of getting America to
blame those in Congress who want real change as those who stand in the way of
it. And considering they have the Presidential bully pulpit and a willing main
stream media led by Fox News, can it be any wonder that they've had any success
at all.
In the end, it's up to the Democrats and those of the Republican Party who
represent all of their constituents to stand up for their real base: all of the
American people. Let's just hope that they're smart enough and willing enough to
do that.
-Noah Greenberg, November 15, 2007
They Even Admit It!
The Bushies know that health care for all would
actually reduce costs
I've written this one quote for three days now. And it's the quote that
testifies to the FACT that the Bush administration knows that no health care for
all actually costs more than no health care for some, not enough health care for
others and great health care, as long as you can afford it.
"Denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in the long
run,"
-Kerry Weems, the Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services , the guy who runs the S-CHIP program
But perhaps I took the quote out of context. here is the Original question,
along with Weems response and my thoughts (the following is taken directly as a
copy and paste from Ask the White House):
Wesley, from Fort Worth, Texas writes:
How much is health insurance for poor children expected to cost, after one year,
after ten years? The government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
Madman, from the middle of New Jersey:
First, let me state that Wesley from Fort Worth, Texas is right. The government
is not a bottomless pit of money. But why attack the children of the less than
fortunate, Wesley? After the Florida hurricanes of 2004, President Bush couldn't
wait to go down to his brother Jeb's state and hand out food and water to those
who were doing without. President Photo-Op was there with the Fox News cameras
(as well as others) in tow doing some manual labor that didn't involve the
switch grass on his Crawford, Texas ranch for the first time... perhaps ever.
Doesn't that food and water cost the American people money?
And what about Hurricane Katrina, who my Republican brother put in perspective
for me when he said, "If Katrina had hit in 2004, President Bush would have lost
in a landslide,"? Why are we providing any money at all to those hit hard by
this natural disaster when they can simply move? As Barbara Bush put it, "And so
many of the people (New Orleans refugees) in the arena here, you know, were
underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Maybe they could
have just stayed in the Astrodome as a sort-of new kind of public housing. The
good people of Texas, like "Wesley", could have charged them rent while energy
companies, such as Enron, could have charged them for the power the dome uses.
And to pay it all off, the "underprivileged", as Mrs. Bush calls them, could
have worked off their new debt as indentured servants to the wealthy people of
Texas. Why, they could have even done some of those jobs that "Americans won't
do," as the President likes to tell us. Maybe this could have actually been the
solution to the immigration problem we have been searching for, and it's all
thanks to people like Wesley and Barbara Bush.
But, perhaps Wesley meant to look at other areas where we spend our taxpayer
money poorly. Like bailing out the insurance industry who got billions of
dollars in "donations" by the federal government after the big 2004 hurricane
season. Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but aren't our nation's
insurance companies for-profit organizations who charge people whopping sums of
money to cover them just in case a catastrophe like a Hurricane Francis occurs?
What happened to all of that money anyway?
And what about American corporations taking advantage of tax laws which allow
them to move their offices and factories overseas to avoid paying any taxes in
the US at all, in some cases? What about those who "earn" their income - and it
is income - by playing the stock market and paying taxes on their "capital
gains" at a fraction of the rate that our middle class dollars are being taxed
at? I guess only OUR American dollar has been devalued after all.
Kerry Weems
Investment in the current and future health care of America's low-income
children is critical to the future of our nation. Not only is it this great
nation's duty to take care of its most vulnerable citizens--low-income children,
the elderly and the disabled--it doesn't make economic sense not to.
Madman:
And who makes the decision as to who can afford what? Sure people in the New
York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, etc., metropolitan areas earn more than
their counterparts performing in other areas of the US, but it costs more to
live there as well. So when Weems, and other Bushies say that families earning
above the national medium income can afford to pay for their children's medical
expenses, they are simply talking out of their asses. Sure, $45,000 might rent
you a three-bedroom house in some areas of the United States, but you couldn't
get a one-bedroom apartment within 60 miles of New York City for that sum.
So "low-income children" is a term with varied meaning in relation to one's
circumstances. My own definition is any child of any family who can't afford to
provide health care for their children, or any child who simply doesn't have
enough health care provided for them for their needs.
Go on and try to find a private health care plan on your own. Then try and find
one that will cover you when you, or your child has a pre-existing condition.
Then tell me what you found.
Weems:
You are correct that government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
However, denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in
the long run.
Madman:
Notice the Freudian slip that Weems makes here. "those in need" is the correct
assumption here, not only "children in need" as the Bush administration would
have you believe. In truth, health care for all will not only save money for
those of us who pay taxes in the long run, but it will do so in the short run as
well.
Weems:
Children who don't have access to regular, quality health care have more
preventable illnesses, miss more school days due to preventable illnesses and
have parents who miss work days to stay home with sick kids. Children who are
denied routine well baby care can have illnesses that go undiagnosed and
untreated until a crisis develops. Not only does the child suffer, but the
expense of caring for a medical emergency for a preventable illness is
exponentially greater. The question is not whether programs like Medicaid and
SCHIP are vitally important to the health and economic future of the nation,
that is without question. The issue at hand today is just how much support is
the right amount of support for government to provide and how can we encourage
the use of private market solutions.
Madman:
In true Bushie-logic, Weems is able to steer this health care argument towards
what it means for business, as opposed to what it means for the individual. Kids
get sick, businesses'' bottom lines suffer. The Bushies solution revolves around
what they can get away with and still appear as if they care. In their view,
"private market solutions" is key and if Congress came up with a "solution" that
would have cost two or three times the $35 billion over five years program, that
would have included Blue Cross, HealthSouth and the other health care giants in
the equation, there can be no doubt that president bush would have jumped at it.
The proof is in their actions Seven billion dollars is roughly what it costs us
each month in Iraq alone! And much of it is spent on private contractors who
don't fall under any rule of law, as supplied by such firms as Blackwater. How
can anyone doubt the obvious?
Weems:
The Bush administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the SCHIP
program as well as the continued financial health of Medicaid for all the
children in this country who depend upon them. What we want to see, however, is
a return the SCHIP program's original goal of covering the lowest income kids
first before considering adding other, higher income children.
Madman:
But, in fact, the SCHIP program as authorized by a veto-proof majority in the
Senate and a near-veto-proof majority in the House does exactly what Weems wants
it to do: It continues to provide for those who were covered by it before; and
it will expand to include an additional 3.4 million Americans, most of which are
children whose meager allowances won't afford them health care premiums,
themselves.
Weems"
We will continue to work with Congress to reach an agreement over the future
direction of this vital program.
Madman:
Let's face the facts here: If the President supported the SCHIP program, he
would have signed the bill. Period. Nowhere in time has President Bush offered
more than lip-service towards programs for the poor and those who cannot protect
themselves. The "free market" taking care of everything are just empty words and
hollow promises never to be kept or realized.
-Noah Greenberg, October 7, 2007
-----
As it appeared on "Ask the White House, without commentary:
Wesley, from Fort Worth, Texas writes:
How much is health insurance for poor children expected to cost, after one year,
after ten years? The government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
Kerry Weems
Investment in the current and future health care of America's low-income
children is critical to the future of our nation. Not only is it this great
nation's duty to take care of its most vulnerable citizens--low-income children,
the elderly and the disabled--it doesn't make economic sense not to.
You are correct that government does not have a bottomless pit of money.
However, denying healthcare to those in need only RAISES health care costs in
the long run. Children who don't have access to regular, quality health care
have more preventable illnesses, miss more school days due to preventable
illnesses and have parents who miss work days to stay home with sick kids.
Children who are denied routine well baby care can have illnesses that go
undiagnosed and untreated until a crisis develops. Not only does the child
suffer, but the expense of caring for a medical emergency for a preventable
illness is exponentially greater. The question is not whether programs like
Medicaid and SCHIP are vitally important to the health and economic future of
the nation, that is without question. The issue at hand today is just how much
support is the right amount of support for government to provide and how can we
encourage the use of private market solutions.
The Bush administration strongly supports the reauthorization of the SCHIP
program as well as the continued financial health of Medicaid for all the
children in this country who depend upon them. What we want to see, however, is
a return the SCHIP program's original goal of covering the lowest income kids
first before considering adding other, higher income children.
We will continue to work with Congress to reach an agreement over the future
direction of this vital program
The Health Care Tax
I get a little tired of hearing "the other side" tell us all that Universal
health Care, let alone Single Payer Universal health Care, will cause our taxes
to rise to a point where the average American would be left with nothing. If
watching the bush administration has showed us anything, it has showed us that
no matter what is being paid for, the average American - a.k.a. the middle class
- is paying for it.
The average cost of a family's health care insurance policy - all through
private insurance - has risen to nearly $1,000 per month. And making matters
worse are other factors such as the rising cost of deductibles and co-pays, the
rising cost of prescription drugs, employee participation (the amount paid for
by employees versus the amount paid for by their employer), the loss of
disposable income and family savings and, for many families who have to go out
of network, the amount they pay outside of "the usual and customary" fee allowed
by the private health insurance providers.
America.... make no mistake about it... you are paying a health care tax right
now.
Many employers have had to either eliminate purchasing health care for their
employees altogether or are requiring their employees to pick up much more of
their monthly premiums. Many of us who live in New Jersey will remember the
outcry to require teachers to pay for some of their health care insurance with
cries of "We have to, so why shouldn't they?" This misses the point. We
shouldn't have to.
American health insurance companies are recording record profits while, at the
same time, claiming poverty. They show overhead costs of up to 40 percent and
their CEO's boast of million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses
and "golden parachutes". If ever collusion and conspiracy were taking place, it
is surely taking place among the America's insurance providers. And the Bush
answer is to tell us all that the free market will take care of everything. More
than any other president, this one has shown that the free market is not the
cure-all for all that ails us.
Many companies use some kind of formula to figure out what their employees will
pay. I have found that many will pay for the employee and make them pay the
difference in cost to cover their families. For arguments sake, let's use that
formula here and figure that employees are paying for approximately half of
their health care insurance costs.
If one were to factor in all of the health care related costs which we, the
average American family, pay for "out of pocket" expense, we can assume that
this family throws more than $600 per month of their salaries at health care.
Taking into account that this family earns less than $4,000 per month (before
federal, state, local and social security taxes), this means that, at a minimum,
we're paying fifteen percent of our income for our medical expenses. This
translates to nearly 20 percent of our take home pay, and that's just for the
average American family of four with four basically healthy members. If you
happen to be, or take care of, one of the chronically ill, you're probably
paying much, much more.
This is the American health care tax and most of us are paying much more than
our fair share. Just because it isn't collected by the government doesn't make
it any less of a tax.
it's too bad that when creating the Social Security Administration FDR hadn't
had the foresight to see what a national health care plan could have done for
his nation in its future. If he and the US Congress had that foresight then,
today, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no health
care companies to form lobbies with the dual purpose of bribing our elected
officials and mis-informing the American pubic that we have the greatest health
care system in the world. We don't and we had better stop thinking that we have
the greatest of everything before we become more third-world-like than we would
ever admit.
Imagine, if you will, that the Social Security administration were never created
(a thought which many Republicans still dream about). How much would Social
Security cost those of us who might be able to afford it? How many would have to
go without any retirement benefits at all? Who would pay for their living costs?
While health care companies claim their 40 percent overhead; and while doctors'
offices pay exorbitant amounts of money on pushing the paper which health care
companies require, the Social Security Administration pays less than two percent
of its collected monies in overhead. Using that same formula, we could assume
tat a national health care policy would cost us at least half of what it costs
us today.
Even more to the point, if we were to base our national health care costs, in
taxes versus premiums, those who earn more would pay more for the benefit of
all.
We look at other western nations and say their health care systems don't work.
It's a lie. England, where they have real socialized medicine and all doctors
are paid by the government, have more healthy people and less infant
mortalities, on average, than we do. Canada has more of a hybrid approach to
health care coverage and everyone pays their fair share of taxes for it.
Everyone has health care coverage there.
Is the Bush administration trying to tell us that our national health care costs
would be greater than 20 percent for the Average American Family? How stupid do
they think we are?
Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, was the first to come out with
a comprehensive health care plan. Others seeking his party's nomination have
followed with their own plans to cover the near 50 million Americans without any
health care insurance. While President Bush is still trying to push his health
care plan, which seems to be "plan to stay healthy", by telling us all to save
money, which we don't have, for our future health care needs; and while those on
the GOP side seeking the Oval Office say "I'm going to fix health care" but show
us nothing in the form of any real plan, most of us either go without or without
enough.
A true free market society, which President Bush and the GOP push and push in
the form of corporate welfare programs, will never succeed for the average
American because it isn't designed to. It's design is to make us a feudal
society where the rich stay rich and the rest of us can barely keep our heads
above water. Fixing health care is a way of helping not only our sick, but our
economy as well. After all, with more money to spend, the American middle class
will take more trips, buy more goods and strengthen our economy from the inside.
Electing a Republican president in 2008 will do nothing towards fixing our
nation health care crisis. Now that we have, finally, a national health care
dialogue we need to make it stick. Newspapers like the New York Times. which
barely give the debate any print space at all, need to come forward and take the
lead. They have to ignore their health care insurance company advertisers and
need to start doing their job as our nation's watchdog. That goes for all of the
other mass media outlets as well. Maybe we'll have to embarrass them to do so.
It's time to get rid of our national health care tax and institute a better
plan. Beginning to speak about it is a good first step, but rhetoric isn't
enough.
-Noah Greenberg, Friday-Sunday. June 15-17, 2007
Click Here to Read Madman's Thoughts About September 11, 2001, 4 Years Later
Bad Luck Bush - Click Here to Read More
Definition: The GOP - GREED OVER PEOPLE
Click Here to Read What you have to believe to be a "Bush Republican"
SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
Here's How
-
REDUCE THE PAYROLL TAX on employee earnings from 6.2% to 5.95%
-
NO PAYROLL TAXES ON THE FIRST $10,000 OF EARNED INCOME, to reduce the burden on the NATION'S MOST NEEDY
-
LEAVE THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AS IS - 6.2% of all earned income to $87,900, with Consumer Price Index increases yearly
-
REMOVE THE CAP ON ALL EARNED INCOME
Click here to see the whole SOCIAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION PLAN and to download the PDF files
An Open Letter to Stockholders of Corporate USA
by Herbert M. Greenberg, Ph.D., President and CEO of the Caliper Group, Princeton, N.J.
I have been a corporate CEO for 43 years. Over the years, my company has helped scores of organizations, large and small, to select CEO’s and evaluate their performance. As a stockholder in a great institution – the United States – I, along with millions of other stockholders, have a critical decision to make: Do we fire or rehire our CEO based on our evaluation of his performance? A CEO needs to demonstrate that he or she is capable of continually moving that institution in a progressive, steady growth manner. (Continue reading here)
Click here to see what President Bush's Drug Plan REALLY means to Seniors
Send your comments to: mailto:comments@nationalview.org
Compiled by Noah Greenberg