Verdict on the Health Care Legislation

July 30, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The health care legislation vigorously contested by the opponents of the economic recovery and the unemployment deterrence. Sometimes, it’s easier to deal with the ‘devil’ you know than the ‘devil’ you don’t. The existing health care crisis contributed by the health care and insurance conglomerate’s profit raking strategy fits in with the metaphor.

When the people strive to make it to the top of the slippery slope titled the sensible health care legislation their harnesses are either tampered with or forcibly pulled off by the groups posing as the ‘rescue guards,’ i.e. the representatives in the House and the Senate obligatory to their financiers – the special interests.

In the interim, the ‘so-called’ bipartisanship in the Senate with some prominent legislators and selective House members from both sides of the aisles holding substantial investments in the health care stocks are focused on safeguarding their investments with assurances to the health industry – ‘your wish shall be my command.’

The House and the Senate version presented thus far is directly contradictory to the populist requirement and the President’s initial plan. The shameful tactic in the twentieth century – apart from paralyzing the health care reform, it’s also instrumental for the status quo and they are indicated in the article below.

Deal with ‘Blue Dogs’ sets up health care vote

Associated Press – 07/29/09

“The House changes, which drew immediate opposition from liberals in the chamber, would reduce the federal subsidies designed to help lower-income families afford insurance, exempt additional businesses from a requirement to offer insurance to their workers and change the terms of a government insurance option.

More problematic from the Democrats’ point of view is a tentative agreement to omit a provision in which the government would sell insurance in competition with private industry. In its place, the group is expected to recommend non-profit cooperatives that could operate at the state, regional or even national level.

Nor is any bipartisan recommendation likely to include a requirement for large businesses to offer insurance to their workers. Instead, they would have a choice between offering coverage or paying a portion of any government subsidy that non-insured employees would receive.”

What is wrong with the classic ‘pro-industry’ proposal to appease the health care enterprise at every insured and uninsured American taxpayer’s peril?

Firstly, the House bill to reduce the federal subsidies designed to help lower-income families afford insurance, instead of demanding the health care system comprising the AMA, health care providers accepting Medicare and Medicaid, Pharmaceuticals, the hospital industry…and the insurance industry mark-down the preposterous profit margins hidden in the superficially inflated costs driving the economy and every citizen to bankruptcy.

If there is any resistance from the groups in this regard, then taxing the expensive insurance coverage ensuring the tax liability on the industry rather than the end-consumer is absolutely necessary. If it was already agreed to by all negotiators then the measure combined with higher taxes on capital expenditures by the industry should adequately cover the increase in federal subsidies to the economically disadvantaged.

The health industry in their defense might argue that the supply and demand market forces drive the costs in a free market system. In this context, the commonly unknown fact being, the health industry unlike other industries are uniquely advantaged to thrive throughout with excessive demand arising from the myriad of sources causing illnesses to a vast population of which an alarming proportion fall in the >‘unhealthy’ category.

In the absence of robust competition from a government provided affordable health care, the industry giants have the expansive field wide open to themselves with a huge demand as the catalyst for the exorbitant profits in products and services.

In addition, the major market-share by the big players lay overcast of monopoly for others to compete effectively with the price factor, notwithstanding the industry protocol on limited choice and coverage of care at disproportionate costs.

The non-profit cooperatives have been recently involved in financial mismanagement as reported in California and severely lack in efficiency, ultimately benefiting the current private care system by default. Therefore, it’s not surprising for the industry groups to lobby for the non-profit cooperatives against the government run program.

The bill doesn’t end there. Ice cream is more delicious when served with toppings.

With respect to the businesses and large corporations exempt from the insurance coverage requirement to their workers and employees, it’s yet another ‘dessert’ moment for the legislators playing gracious hosts to the corporate musketeers.

Obviously, the lawmakers more appropriately the lawbreakers are falling head over heels in their romance with the corporate sponsors by relieving them from the fundamental responsibility to care for their workers and employees with health insurance while leaving the underemployed American workforce to fend for themselves in the profit manifested exclusive private health club.

As for the Blue Dogs, a misnomer to the species iconic for their unflinching loyalty, unequivocally clarify that ‘conservatism’ motto regardless of political factions is to delay, defeat and derail national progress. Clearly, the democratic electorate will be able to overcome the obstacle by replacing the obstructionists with the supportive ones in the 2010 elections.

To summarize, the health care casserole prepared by the House and the Senate in the Congress is palatable to the industry as the primary patrons and the caterer of the special menu. The remaining large starving population having peeked at the menu items forced to fake satisfaction from the aroma of the dish, although meant for the populist but served to win over the mighty health care industrialists.

Seriously, if this health care legislation meant to be a ‘reform’, then the bill must include the public option plan, increased federal subsidies, free health care for the most impoverished and a nondiscretionary business/Corporate health insurance for all workers and employees.

Failing that, it would be a band-aid treatment for a widespread chronic ailment in the industry gorging profits at every opportunity and the ‘so-called’ solution will be a cyclical nightmare for the nation attempting its way out of the quick sand economy.

The proposal funded through compromise from the industry with costs reduction equalizing profit contraction proportionate to market sustainability and tax increases suggested in the earlier House Bill itemized per extraordinary income category is the ideal gateway to true ‘reform.’

Otherwise, under the present deal the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ not found in Iraq would appropriately apply to the millions dependent on the democratic majority controlling all three branches of the government to do the right by the people.

Because the welfare of the people is paramount for the success of corporations in a capitalist or any other economic systems as people are the consumers and workers alias human capital in the economy.

Politically, irrespective of the massive corporate investment earned from the sweat and blood of the workforce, there will be no power without the people’s vote in a democracy.

Again, the health care reform will be truly meaningful and purposeful when the recommended changes addressing the plight of the people are reflected in the lifetime legislative matter.

It’s time for every American to stand up for their rights and claim the authentic universal health coverage favoring them and not the profit oriented health care industry.

Please call your local representatives and the Senators to oblige to your needs and not the special interests. Only you can make it happen this time.

Power is powerless against the will of the people in politics and economics.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Judge Sotomayor’s Confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee

July 29, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Supreme Court Justice Confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee

Heartfelt congratulations! to judge Sonia Sotomayor on her confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the highest court in the land.

Surviving a grueling confirmation hearing qualifies for a ceremonial victory. Judge Sotomayor exhibited perfection in the process that requires patience, knowledge, and skills to address issues and concerns set forth by the committee.

The final confirmation for a full Senate vote scheduled the following week will be a historic event. Besides complementing the existing judiciary talent and expertise, it would transcend identity politics that dominated since the President’s choice of the nominee for the United States Supreme Court.

However, the vehement opposition from the right side of the political aisle authenticates the partisanship prevalent in every national matter. The following news report citing the conservatives’ principles for future nominees – to prioritize fidelity to the law over personal emotions and prejudice is contradictory to their own doctrine and nine years late… considering the Presidential election outcome in the year 2000.

Judiciary Committee OKs Sotomayor for high court – Associated Press July 28, 2009.

Even though they never stood a chance of defeating Sotomayor, her Republican opponents said they gained ground during the confirmation process by getting Democrats to agree that judges should above all be faithful to the law — an idea they said counters Obama’s stated view that a justice should have “empathy.”

“We agreed that judges should be impartial and not pick winners and losers based on some subjective empathy standard or whatever is in the judge’s heart,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “We’ve defined where the judicial mainstream is … and we’ve set expectations, I believe, for future nominees.”

My best wishes to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the imminent justice to the United States Supreme Court with her challenging new career and look forward to the voice of the democracy legitimized per the constitutional rule based on the humanitarian law.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Revelation

July 21, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The special interests through their government talking heads i.e. the legislators and specific media are engaged in the preposterous propaganda convincing the naïve majority that are insured to claim utter satisfaction with the status quo, when in reality those who are currently insured are ‘safe’ in the same reference to their stock market holdings.

The truth of the matter is – in the highly volatile job market, the employers ripped off by the exploitative health industry through exorbitant premiums will not be able to sustain the health care costs and soon forced to withdraw the contributions to maintain overheads. Then the crisis will transform to a personal level for all those in agreement with the deceptive misguided policies of the self-serving legislators obligatory to their sponsors’ prosperity.

United States cannot possibly procrastinate on this health care issue any longer as the economy is drained from corporate greed, unscrupulous practices, and gross abuse of legislative power solemnly pledged to the special interests directly responsible for the economic ruin of the state, country and the entire world. The narcissistic policies of the authorities in the State of California with the Republican Governor and the minority are a classic example in the recent declaration of ‘closing the deal’ on the budget crisis.

As for the legislators contemplating on the issue of meeting the President’s deadline, it is a test of their courage, commitment and competence in the health care battle between the people i.e. the constituents holding the key to the power in a democracy, vs. the special interests, also dependent on the people as the consumers in a capitalist society.

The special interests tactics is to stall the legislature through their paid employees i.e. legislators objecting to the reform by detecting flaws on unrelated pretexts given the past triumphant record in extinguishing the national health care scheme.

Citizens across the nation on their part must vigorously campaign by calling the local representatives and Senators to act immediately by embracing the President’s public option policy dedicated to revive the economy and the job market with a guaranteed low cost yet quality insurance for every citizen.

By doing so, the citizens can free themselves and relieve the future generation from the existing corporate bondage essentially liable for the crippling economy.

Regardless, the people will prevail because without consumers and constituents’ vote the ‘power’ is powerless despite the substantial wealth investment in the legislative votes.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Why Health Care Reform must not fail?

July 21, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

People vs. Special Interests, GOP and Conservative Democrats aka Blue Dogs

The opponents to health care reform – the conglomerate with legislators as spokespersons and the conservative media specifically a network dedicated to the hampering of national progress in every respect deserve scrutiny and appropriate response.

It’s no surprise to witness the ‘grandstanding’ against the President by the opposition retaliating to the brutal defeat in the ’06, ’08 and inevitably the 2010 elections.

Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint made it pretty clear why the opponents of health care reform are fighting so hard.

As he told a special interest attack group,

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Here’s how the President responded:

“Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy. And we can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.”

What does the devious modus operandi mean to the national interest?

In a democracy, the constituents might have elected the health care opponents in the Democratic Party and GOP (The Grand Old Party) more appropriately ‘The Grand Obstructionist Party,’ however, their allegiance clearly sworn to special interests famished for atrocious profits at the expense of national interest.

The health care industry surpasses every other sector in this context.

Such betrayal in the light of naked truth in their face prompts the nation to question the patriotism of these legislators vehemently opposed to the welfare of their electorate representing the democracy.

It’s time for America to reign in on the ideology driven idiosyncrasies of the party that appears to be determined to lead the great state like California and the resilient USA to peril. As though it’s not enough that the once thriving state and national economies now on the brink of bankruptcy due to the failed ‘so-called’ fiscal policies by the fiscal conservatives operating exclusively to benefit their own and the benefactors’ agenda.

Where were the crusaders during the Republican controlled executive, legislative and judicial branches inheriting a surplus economy in 2000 went wild on a safari to a territory called ‘Iraq’ that predominantly led to the national status quo?

Perhaps, if the ‘apparently’ concerned lawmakers and persistent critics of the President Obama then displayed similar passion and emotions through kindergarten ‘Show and Tell’ dioramas to rescue the nation from an economic disaster titled ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ by posing the relevant questions currently aimed at the health care reform such as:

1. How much is it going to cost the American taxpayers?

2. Is it self-funded or a dead weight on the taxpayers’ backs, which interestingly rested on the donkey’s back?

3. Is there an exit strategy or earmarked for a golden jubilee?

4. Any consideration for the possible if not imminent loss of lives from the Machiavellian adventure.

5. Lastly, Why should the government indulge in the oil exploration, (the real motive behind U.S. invasion of Iraq) when the private enterprise equipped to flourish through market manipulation of choice, quality and price?

Their ‘die hard’ fiscal sentiments on health care reform would be meaningful and justified.

The irony with the major hooplas on health care reform targeting costs reduction and saving lives rejected by the same ‘pro-life,’ fiscal conservatives otherwise the lobbyists funded loyalists, while each and every one of them are the proud signatories to a reckless mission viz. Iraq that bankrupted the economy besides mass production of corpses.

According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation data – Combined Iraq and Afghanistan war costs since Fiscal Year 2001 to date – $872.6 billion, of which Iraq’s share alone to national deficit is $661.1 billion and rising, costing more than three-fifths of the proposed trillion-dollar health care overwhelmingly approved and authorized by the fiscal stalwarts.

Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayers and the businesses health care costs in the exclusively private sector run with the insurance industry dominance compared to the industrialized nations’ health care is attention worthy.

Please refer to the sequel on the health care topic literally matter to life and death.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Saving Grace – California Fiscal Crisis

July 14, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The beautiful Golden State pawned over obstinate leadership and legislature in Sacramento. If the minority representatives and the head of the state confined to their political dictum and ideology, the majority on their part let the myopic view of the state of affairs undermine the social challenges confronting the constituents.

There were too many opportunities aided with pragmatic solutions to resolve the ever-rising budget shortfall (previously at $24.3 billion and now increased to $26.3 billion deficit) without draconian cuts hurting the weak and the most vulnerable in the society.

Sometimes, when there is intellectual deficiency in the leadership to deal with crisis, a wise option for the authority in power is to display humility, heed to genuine concerns and adhere to remedy offered to the problems rather than a Kamikaze approach headed for a disaster. Although, the leadership ignoring sound advice implies personal egocentric satisfaction, the false notions and misguided policies rejecting the population’s misery have led to the status quo.

Sacramento could have averted California fiscal debacle back in November 2008 when the path towards the state budget appeared difficult and beckoning swift reactionary measures to reign in on the economy tumbling downhill.  Instead, the legislature and the leadership stalled action with no respect for the constitutional rule of law mandating the state budget reconciliation by a deadline. The reality being the deadlines have come and gone with no state budget in place.

To reiterate earlier statements, the embarrassing performance by the entire legislative force with the head of the state leading in this respect squandered taxpayers’ valuable resources in political bickering, finger pointing and even assigning the duty to the taxpayers/voters through Special elections on May 19, 2009.

Since Sacramento abdicated their legislative responsibility to approve a functional state budget and a rescue plan for the following year, California is in dire fiscal state with a direct impact on the national economy. The only action from Sacramento seen thus far is the sedative talks to calm anxious residents dependent on social programs and services and the rest of the population eager for the state’s economic recovery.

Contemporary politics seeks comfort in lip service rather than concrete action focused on relief to the victims.  With no end to the on-going tug ‘o war, the ruthless slashing of funds continues with respect to education, health care, environment and the overall economy wounding the present and the future of the society.

In the absence of state budget for the fiscal year, the state treasury forced to issue IOUs declined encashment by the major bailed out banks defaulting on their lending commitment during taxpayer bailout to stimulate the local and national economy. The cumulative effect of the incompetence in Sacramento obvious in the degradation of the once stellar credit rating of the Golden State possibly reduced to junk status in the near future.

As experienced by the national economy, budget financing and legislative funding for reform and economic revival depend on both revenues and savings through spending cuts. The recommendations to raise income taxes from the following sources at the bare minimum slighted when it could have adequately provided for the budget shortfall.

Tobacco and alcohol tax, Vehicle registration fee and most importantly closing loopholes for the Corporations evading state income taxes through tax havens, collecting hefty fines from the environmental polluters i.e. oil, aviation and automobile industry, overhauling of the criminal justice system viz. the state prisons absorbing enormous amount of the budget to name a few.

The administration’s cavalier approach in demolishing the society’s foundation i.e. education, health care, and small businesses…with merciless withdrawal of funds from the budget indicates governance in the barricades, the elitists out of touch with the plight of the populists.

Why California is important for the Naitonal Economic Recovery?

Source: Wikipedia.org – Thanks

Gross domestic product (GDP)

California is responsible for 13% of the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP). The state’s GDP is at about $1.7 trillion (as of 2006).

The GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.1% in the first quarter of 2005.[13]

According to the California Department of Finance, if California were an independent state, it would have had the seventh largest economy in the world.
————————————————————————————————–
California is the epicenter for Science, Technology, and Entertainment besides representing every other sector —
Finance, Manufacturing, Construction, Health, Education, Hospitality, Energy as the pioneer of Green Technology, Environment, Trade, Transportation and Utilities, Information dealing with Motion Picture Broadcasting, Publishing, Internet businesses and Telecommunications to Agriculture and Mining are some of the many core activities creating jobs and contributing to the National GDP.

The impressive growth in California during the Silicon Valley boom stunningly boosted the National GDP with the state experiencing labor capital depletion in many industries. Subsequently the profit earnings in the California technology sector from 2002 to 2007 contributed to the stock market rally with the trend continuing until date. One of the reasons for the current enlarged National Unemployment figures is the double-digit jobless rate in California and the budget crisis exacerbating the national productivity.

With the escalating job losses and the stalemate in Sacramento holding the state budget and the children’s future hostage, the national economy will further deteriorate if the California budget shortfall not met immediately.

The taxpayers’ bailout of the finance sectors and the automobile industry with no accountability or transparency deprived the states like California from receiving generous federal funding to various programs. These bailouts primarily passed to enable liquidity in lending and job protection across the nation. Again, the proof of the pudding reflected in the dismal unemployment figures arising from defaults by the finance sector withholding lending to small and medium businesses as well as the average consumers.

Such violation of trust by the finance sector has attributed to poor consumer spending adversely affecting the retail sector with a ripple effect on the entire economy.

So much for the free market integrity and reliability in turning the economy around through capitalist mechanisms, that is generating job losses rather than job creation.

California on the other hand could emerge out of the existing crisis with federal assistance and approval of $26.3 billion in borrowing at nil interest rate. The amount returned progressively through state bonds over a set period would benefit both the state and the national economy in alleviating the financial meltdown. The Federal Reserve and Treasury could lend the necessary amount to California recovery plan from the residual amounts of the previously approved financial bailouts and TARP funds returned by some Investment banks like Goldman Sachs.

Meanwhile, the citizens of the great Golden State must engage in changing the political system with efficient bipartisan legislature and leadership in Sacramento. When the programs and services restored to benefit the people of the state, the interim relief and long-term stability to the nation’s largest GDP growth state is inevitable.

If the Federal Reserve or the Treasury unable to provide any relief to California then,

Considering the grave fiscal scenario facing the state of California, the SOS from the citizens of this state require urgent action by the Congress, Senate and the White House in the swift approval of the amount – $26.3 billion. Unfortunately, any opposition to the financial aid will have serious political backlash in 2010 and 2012 elections – demonstrated by the electorate during the special elections on May 19, 2009 rejecting both political parties for their insensitivity to the crisis.

As for the head of the state – The actions or the lack thereof until now evidenced in the areas identified below –

Following the electorate dismissal in the Special elections on May 19, 2009, the Governor appointed committee has business representatives with deep pockets favoring their own agenda against the less fortunate citizens to resolve the budget crisis, confirming the authority’s allegiance to the special interests.

The disingenuous remarks on the immigration issue related to the undocumented workers without any progress in issuing drivers license that could have not only generated state revenue but also moved the matter from the back burner is yet another political gimmick.

Recently the Governor’s controversial posturing threatening to fingerprint i.e criminalize the food stamp recipients targeting the disabled, the jobless and the elderly as the means to detect alleged fraud and forgery in an effort to saving costs against above mentioned nominal tax increases is beneath the humanitarian character and deplorable on all accounts.

The opposition minority has no time left to procrastinate by wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the ‘so-called’ fiscal-responsibility when the exercise proven counterproductive.

Similarly, the ruling majority must review and revise the union based workers’ and state employees’ disproportionate employment benefits costing taxpayers excessively, more relevantly in the public safety employment, and other government jobs.

A dilemma for the California voters is, if the right pledged to the appeasement of the Corporations investing thousands of dollars in political campaigns and legislative matter, the left compensated with the Unions and Corporations’ influence on the legislative issues.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the nation to reform private contributions in political campaigns and promote public financing to implement checks and balances apart from maintaining costs at all levels of the electoral process. Also, the open primaries in the state elections will facilitate moderate representation from the right.

Given the unacceptable partisanship creating gridlocks and a colossal failure to balance the budget, it is appropriate for the State of California to end the term of the administration and those responsible in leading the state from prosperity to an economic ruin.

Effective immediately, the countdown begins for Sacramento to follow the guidelines by sparing the education, health care, energy, environment and all the essential programs and services benefiting the people and enacting the relevant tax increases with the elimination of redundant spending in other areas.

It’s incumbent on Sacramento to finalize on the meaningful state budget in order to settle the debts to different creditors and restore the pre-recession California image and credit ratings.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Reform

July 11, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The U.S. Senate is reviewing the components of the much-required health care reform bill. Obviously, the free market profiteers represented by the Insurance industry, hospitals, healthcare providers, Pharmaceutical companies and the entire enterprise strongly lobbying against the public option involving federal health care. Simultaneously, a tentative agreement by the hospitals and health care providers to reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs by $155 billion over a decade has been subject to immense speculation.

The opposition minority along with the cynics and the skeptics are vigorously contesting the legislation on the pretext – ‘tax’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’, an all time favorite issue.

Since the national health care estimated to cost over trillion dollars, the debate premised on choice, costs, and quality in accordance with President Obama’s primary objective of this crucial legislation.

Therefore, it’s important to address the concerns and criticisms from the respective quarters in all three perspectives.

Choice or Option:

Evidently, the free market’s resistance via lobbyists against the federal health care confirms the unwillingness to compromise on disproportionate profits at national expense and dominance in the national health care desperately due for major overhaul, even though the opposition minority claims satisfaction with the existing system regardless of the exorbitant costs enforcing the ‘average’ millions to remain uninsured and underinsured.

Unequivocally the present health care is fabulous for the privileged few particularly the lawmakers, the corporate executives and the fortunate healthy population with health insurance in reserve for emergencies. Unfortunately, the same system is neither empathetic nor conducive for those with pre-existing illnesses or children in families with congenital medical conditions and millions simply unable to afford the ‘supposedly’ competitive state of the art health care as declared by the opposition.

The reasons offered by the opposition defending the special interests investing millions of dollars in legislative votes to oppose federal health care, do not correlate with the status quo.

Despite the misnomer that current system is inexpensive without federal health care option, the exclusively private sectors run industry unable to offer any affordable insurance for a sizable population urgently in need of health care.

The real explanation being the system superbly efficient at a premium price, cost effective although draining the national economy predominantly profit driven with an utter disregard for the ethics or economics ultimately hurting the core national base, the vulnerable majority.

It’s clear from the defiance to the public option comprising federal health care viewed as a threat to phenomenal profits by the free market saturating the system with higher costs, limited choice and substandard care through the selection and elimination process leading the other competitors to adapt to similar strategy for survival and success.

Such practices and policies have allowed the free market to override harsh realities experienced by the ailing and dying population deeply affected by the ominous system prioritizing profits over public health.

It’s no surprise that the lobbyists are enabling the selective legislators and the media with the ammunition to curb the federal health care option favoring the entire population wellness against the broken system.

Another form of public option with the co-operatives by non-profit private groups or state run system considered an alternative to the federal health care. Again, it’s not a viable course of action to compete effectively with the health care conglomerate specifically given the dismal fiscal crisis like in the state of California. Nevertheless, the irony in the firm stance against government program is intriguing with the acceptance of states’ operation while rejecting the federal management.

The federal health system foes are fostering ideas and strategies doomed to fail in an effort to prevail in the free market monopoly with some legislators seemingly complicit in the agenda not barring the conflict of interest revealed in the latest disturbing news reports against them.

In the ‘choice’ aspect, the legislators must execute the power granted by their constituents to stand for the people against special interests by enacting the federal health care in public option as an integral part of the health care legislation.

Costs or Funding:

Yet another contentious issue creating huge barriers between the people and the profit seekers supported by the partisans is the trillion dollar costs to fund the program. The self-funding proposal aimed at saving costs from the non-functional system replaced with efficient and innovative techniques along with costs reduction by health care industry should facilitate insurance for the uninsured through federal option.

Conventional wisdom and experience dictates that it’s not possible to derive the trillion dollars funding from savings alone without generating payments from accessible sources – as it is the case in the state or national deficit reduction. Hence, President Obama’s proposal to cap deductions on employee health benefits claimed by corporations is a reasonable approach to health care financing.

Further, costs distribution via nominal tax surcharge applied on avenues earning extraordinary income i.e. over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, along with employer contribution through a fee or tax based on percentage of worker’s salary to aid health benefits should adequately solve the equation.

It’s necessary to underscore the surtax and employer contribution fee favoring the small business owners with huge savings in providing the necessary health benefits via federal health care to their labor force, a vital capital resource to survive in the competitive cash strapped economy. Something, the free market could have offered in the non-governmental environment instead stayed focused on exploiting the system with mega profits.

Of course, there is going to be outcry with political humor like – nation socialized with ‘Robin Hood’ motto, President Obama please spare us with your “Change” theme as we might all end up asking one another to spare a ‘change’ in the revolutionary health care reform.

Humor apart, the seriousness lies in the lack of robust competition to keep the costs down and provide quality care. Another opposition’s grievance against federal participation deserves attention i.e. legislators perpetually scornful towards anything to do with their own organization viz. government sponsored projects, programs and services, reaction strangely implying self-deprecation of the political power representing the people.

Interestingly though, such entities are surely elected by their constituents i.e. people in a democracy but they swear allegiance to the Corporations funneling money into their campaigns and beyond.

It’s technically a democracy electing officials to protect the interests of the free market triumphant in widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots aside from dragging the nation to insolvency as witnessed in the finance sector and automobile industry.

In the tax issue, the opposition argument targeted at equalization of tax code. What it means is while the corporations claim deductions from health care benefits to their employees, similar tax relief not extended to private individuals presumably forced to purchase health insurance under the impending plan.

Although, the presentation posed as advocating for the people, essentially it helps the Corporations selling insurance in the strictly private run industry by transferring the liability on to the government through tax credit and revolving back to the tax payer funded health insurance only benefiting the profit seeking corporations rather than the taxpayer themselves.

Clearly, there are many opportunities to provide for the long overdue national health care costs and tragically, the legislative matter politicized by the opponents in compliance with the special interests order.

Care/Quality and Quantity:

The major objection from the opposition is the apparent government rationing of the health care and subsequent effects on the quality citing examples such as the Canadian and the British National Health Care system allegedly dysfunctional because of the government engagement with emphasis on the prolonged waiting period having a direct toll on the patients diagnosed for certain medical conditions. In other words, the deterioration in quality linked to the neglect of preventive medicine proven cost effective than treatment care.

The opposition argument might be legitimate; however, it does not transcend reality.

In this context, the Insurance industry dominated free market authored the “pre-existing” illness code apart from emerging as the champion in discounting and dismissal of genuine medical conditions leading to numerous lawsuits and out-of-court settlements. Notably all of them attributed to negligence and excessive insurance company intervention as evidenced in the grueling and agonizing experiences shared by thousands of victims and health care providers through various outlets.

On several occasions, the pro-health care reformers confronted by the anti-reform movement demanding the name of an international system successfully meeting the national requirements in terms of choice, cost and care. In fact, among the many industrialized nations the Scandinavian country Sweden provides excellent national health care from preventive medicine to cure and the achievement made all possible primarily as the world’s highest taxpayers.

Other hypothesis includes the Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals escalating beyond the actual costs over the decade calculated on the number or quantity and not the quality. The private groups reflecting the opposition’s sentiments against the federal health care suggested ‘Pay for quality’ in the bill resembling the Obama plan pledged to promote prevention, treatment and cure.

Amidst agreements and fallouts, a common flaw detected in both groups i.e. the federal system consisting federal agencies for approval on minor to major patient care as a stopgap measure to curtail expenses from medical practices shielding itself against malpractice lawsuits and investment recovery on medical equipments through patient insurance. Any form of over-indulgence will drive the costs in this matter.

It’s best for both federal and private health care to remove bureaucracy and intrusion between patients and health care professionals with unnecessary pre-authorizations causing delay in diagnosis and cost increase. Electronic guidelines on standard medical procedures for common illnesses are an ideal cost reduction method.

Finally, as there are many other issues to address in the immediate future, the analysis with solutions in the health care topic concludes strongly recommending federal run health care as a public option competing on even keel with the private sector to accomplish the general mission – universal health coverage guaranteed to heal the frail economy and the suffering citizens.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Universal Health Care

May 24, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Health Care is not an individual matter. It’s a national crisis as clearly expressed in President Barack Obama’s message.

“American families are watching their premiums rise four times faster than their wages. Spiraling health care costs are shackling America’s businesses, curtailing job growth and slowing the economy at the worst possible time. This has got to change.”

President Obama’s Health Care Policy aimed at three core principles — "it must reduce costs, guarantee choice, and ensure quality care for every American.”

The combined forces of the Health Care industry represented by the Insurance, Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, Academic institutions (e.g. University of Chicago), Hospitals, Medical Centers and Private Medical facilities not barring Wall Streets’… dominance in the highly commercialized and profit driven enterprise has led to the status quo of the most important economic structure in the society.

Industrialized nations have experimented with both socialized and privatized medicine. Some commonwealth nations viz. United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have blended the national health care with private and taxpayers’ funded policy. In the exclusively privatized medicine, the privileged segment of the society thrives while leaving the remaining population at the mercy of their faith and own ability to bear the financial burden in medical costs. Such situation has forced families to deal with unparallel traumatic and tragic ends.

Meanwhile, socialized medicine despite criticisms benefits most if not all. President Obama’s strategy directed towards the universal concept of sharing the costs and benefits to insure every individual. The proposal is flexible with choices between the government plan and the private sector offer. Also guaranteed in the plan is affordable and quality care, an ideal and a rare combination.

Evidently, the health care costs rising disproportionately to the benefits have contributed to an alarming proportion of the population uninsured and in most cases underinsured, thereby worsening the crisis. Sadly, in both scenarios the patient deprived of longevity in life due to the lack of national health care. Life being uncertain, a private citizen without health insurance is like a fish out of water. It is particularly harsh on the patients who are unwell and more so with the chronically ill struggling between life and death. The impact is even greater among the socially and economically disadvantaged class.

The suffering exists across the board with hospitals and community health centers/services shutting down as the primary targets of state and national fiscal crisis.

The Insurance industry thus far the most influential entity dictating terms and conditions entirely in their favor from eligibility by eliminating patients with ‘pre-existing illness,’ to co-payments, deductibles and access to health care providers and services. Further, the industry’s excessive intervention in patient care proved intrusive and fatal in many circumstances with lawsuit settlements in millions of dollars.

It doesn’t fall short of forging alliance with drug companies and some health care providers instructing patients to limited care and bypassing vital preliminary tests in the protocol with the substitution of medications overriding the preventive care of early diagnosis, the desirable and sensible approach to saving lives and costs.

Again, the flip side has a potential ethical issue with the health care providers stretching the limit on rigorous testing as an insurance against malpractice lawsuits aside from recovering investment costs on expensive medical diagnostic equipments. Either way, the patient/consumer is the victim of flawed system.

Pharmaceutical and biotech industries exploiting the uninsured and underinsured dying patients in their overzealous marketing and promotion of new drugs developed through volunteer participation in clinical trials have risen lately.

The industries seek immunity in the clinical trial patients’ written consent assuming responsibility to the calculated risks notwithstanding loss of life. The argument may rest on justification to find cure and aid humanity, however it’s not equivalent to actions governed by ethics.

Ironically, the recent medical news reports claimed the terminally ill without insurance mostly volunteered with the hope of getting new life in the unmitigated experimental cure.

There are more compelling facts regarding uninsured pregnant mothers foregoing antenatal and postnatal care, including the newborns from the neonatal attention subsequently leading to serious complications costing the tax payers horrendously in the county hospitals.

In a similar context, the ailing and wounded war veterans returning from war zones for treatment in the state-of-the-art medical center recently stranded by the closure of Walter Reed Memorial Hospital and other V.A medical centers.

The veterans’ post combat care and facilities have deteriorated to an appalling condition in the past years and the veteran affairs legislation initiated by President Obama enacted the medical provision for armed forces personnel.

Youth population has been worst hit in the health care crisis. Teenage pregnancies on the rise along with an epidemic level obesity due to unhealthy food choices surging in the market combined with limited sports activities from the lack of educational funding.

Senior citizens aren’t any better in the health care gamut. The geriatric population is marginalized with skyrocketing drug costs, forcing them to other avenues like Canada to purchase relatively cheaper medications and others travelling to South Asia for surgeries and treatments requiring hospitalization.

In a nutshell, the health care in the United States is in shambles. Policy embracing the health coverage for all Americans in an efficient system that delivers cost effective, valuable care without compromising patient’s health and life in exchange for profits is in order.

Further, the overhauling of the system is imperative with technology-oriented operation in the multifaceted management. Cost saving strategy should focus on the appropriate use of human expertise with complete utilization of qualified health care professionals in the hierarchy such as nurses, nurse practitioners, dieticians/nutritionists, counselors, therapists, technicians and everyone engaged in the wellness program.

Both private individuals and the employers would benefit from the platter with free market competing against the government plans. This would not only promote checks and balances in the highly disorganized and profit motivated sector but also remain competitive in keeping the costs down for the providers and the consumers.

Research and development instrumental for advanced care and United States has been in the forefront in that aspect. Funding stem cell research, regenerative medicine and the promising personalized medicine -‘Genomics’ is the direction for United States to lead the rest of the world.

According to the biotech industry –

“Genomics – Personalized medicine is a movement to use advancing knowledge of an individual’s molecular makeup to provide better preventive care, as well as better diagnosis and treatment.”

Genomics, apart from being revolutionary in the preventive care field, appears far more cost effective as well.

Keeping NIH well funded is representative of commitment towards general well being of the society. Also equally important is the easing of immigration laws for scholars, scientists and students to visit U.S. universities and research centers for scientific exchange programs.

United States isolated as an industrialized nation in the failure to meet the highest challenge with health care. The partisan politics and special interests holding almost every crisis hostage for profits and political agenda is detrimental for their own and the country’s future.

Approval of President Barack Obama’s comprehensive health care including the above recommendations would help the United States earn due recognition on the topic avoided for fear of political backlash.

It’s no longer possible to procrastinate having lost precious time, as too many lives are at stake. The lawmakers taken to the daunting task of doing it right with the issue literally matter to life and death.

The critics, attack the proposal with nick names ‘Robin Hood’ principle of socialized medicine. Nonetheless, the lack of action in health care compares with the paradoxical “DR. Jack Kevorkian” in the society-assisted euthanasia.

Finally, Health Care is a necessity not a choice.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

.

.

National Security Act – Torture

May 6, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Torture

The nation riddled with recent events pertaining to national security.  In the past few weeks, there have been vigorous debates and discussions on the release of the torture memos describing the torture tactics applied on the speculative terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay and those held in Bagram Prison, Afghanistan.

There are polarizing views regarding the release of these materials claiming the potential threat to national security including the CIA and FBI operatives’ difficulty in performing their duties to keep the country safe.  Those in favor of transparency welcome the Obama administration’s gesture subject to further course of action. Merely releasing the materials will not suffice considering the misuse of power and gross violation of humanitarian laws.

In addition, the subsequent argument on the possible prosecution of the individuals responsible for torture against the Geneva Convention contributing yet another dilemma in the definition of torture and accountability factor.  Obviously, the predecessors’ supporters vehemently oppose the entire action thus far – from revealing the information to investigation.

The Obama administration‘s ambiguity on the humanitarian issue perceived as the White House conspicuously avoiding ‘retribution’ smear and possible distraction from the legislative matters like the universal health care.   Meanwhile, concerned citizens intrigued by the extreme strategy implemented to justify the imminent danger hypothesis, a constant practice by the previous administration notably the successful fear-mongering tactic during and after the Iraq invasion and occupation.

A full disclosure of the interrogation techniques particularly the notorious water boarding , ill-treatment and the indefinite imprisonment of the ‘so-called suspects’ in these captive centers confirm the serious violation of International Code namely the rejection of GCIII and Habeas Corpus.

It is important to examine the exact interpretation of the International laws set up for guidance and ethical purpose.  Further, the enforcement of these laws is to ensure precisely the state/the authorities remain confined to the jurisdiction of power against unarmed human beings in detention.

Source: The Wikipedia.org (The Free encyclopedia) – Thanks

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (abbreviated GCIII or GPW) , one of the Geneva Conventions, is a treaty agreement that primarily concerns the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), and also touched on other topics. It replaced the Geneva Convention (1929).

According to Article 3, Part 1, General Provisions referred to as ‘Convention in miniature,’

“Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees, which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.  Article 3’s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.”

Habeas corpus (IPA: /ˌheɪbiːæsˈkɔːpəs/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person.  It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system.  The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Simply put,

Habeas corpus, a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority.  The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something.  Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party.  This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.”

Here are some news articles detailing the torture on presumed ‘suspects’ held in captivity by the U.S authorities.

Warning: The following articles are graphic and may not be suitable for all.

“I Could Not Stop Screaming”

“The British newspaper Guardian (2/18/2005) reported that one Bagram prisoner, a Palestinian named Mustafa, was blindfolded, handcuffed, gagged, and forced to bend down over a table by three American soldiers.  He said, “They forcibly rammed a stick up my rectum… I could not stop screaming when this happened.”

In another case reported by the Guardian, a Jordanian prisoner, Wesam Abdulrahman Ahmed Al Deemawi, said that during a 40-day period at Bagram he was threatened with dogs, stripped and photographed “in shameful and obscene positions” and placed in a cage with a hook and a hanging rope.  He says he was hung from this hook, blindfolded, for two days.

Both men were freed from U.S. detention last year after being held at Bagram and Guantánamo.  Neither has been charged with anything by any government.

Dilawar, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and farmer, was killed by U.S. torturers at Bagram in December 2002.  He had been beaten and chained by his wrists for four days. After his last torture session, Dilawar was chained back to the ceiling.  Several hours passed before a doctor saw him—by which time he was dead and already beginning to stiffen.

“An official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission questioned –

“Are They Going to Vanish Forever?”

“The Americans are detaining people without any legal procedure. Prisoners do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.”

Despite the unprecedented human rights violations… translated barbaric in modern times, the defense for the authorities authorizing and executing the medieval customs against unarmed detainees charged guilty without due process is astonishing.  The world witnessed the pervasive prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Bagram, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay through explosive visuals, editorials, columns and interviews predominantly from the international sources and on-line mass media.

Incidentally, the torturers’ loyalists cry ‘foul’ against the latest revelation.  Even though, the international news organizations and human rights groups have been reporting these incidents all along per above articles.  Contrasting the detainees position, all those responsible for the unconscionable crime against humanity involving innocent victims in the witch-hunt for terror suspects, are also exempt from due process however, with the distinction of them proclaimed “Patriotic” in their utter disregard for International laws and human rights.

Clearly, the abuse of power in this context from the pyramid‘s apex to the base is symbolic in the embarrassing chapter of American history.  Ironically, the explanation for torture attributed to national defense while ignoring the brutality against other nationals and their families’ ordeal.

One might argue if it’s worth treading the retribution path rather than moving forward.  It’s possible to move forward if the past had no remnants of violation of the laws involving global citizens in prolonged detention specifically in the absence of any evidence or trials.  Similar treatment of American nationals would have created pandemonium at all levels.

Besides, such practices open the floodgates for misuse of power by future administrations notwithstanding other nations…currently witnessed in the treatment of American journalists imprisoned on allegedly espionage charges by Iran and North Korea.

Whenever there is excessive abuse of power, unequivocally democracy threatened aside from the Constitution made irrelevant.  Therefore, it’s incumbent on the people in a democracy to ensure that neither the state nor any authority is above the law in the land of justice.

Please stand by for more information and analysis on related topics.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Bailout Débācle

March 22, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The past two weeks dominated with AIG and oligarchs debating over the controversial $165 million and now increased to $218 million bonuses to executives instrumental in driving the insurance giant to the brink of collapse along with the financial markets of the world.

As usual, Washington vs. Wall Street dispute contributed to media frenzy and aptly reflected in the roller coaster performance of the stock market. The interesting factor in the blame game is those pointing fingers at others fail to acknowledge that remaining fingers are pointing towards them as they are equal partners in this charade.

By now, well-educated American taxpayers upon the quest to secure their future convinced that both Wall Street and Washington have serious credibility issues in wealth management and nation governance.

The back and forth allegations in the political crossfire reveals the true sense of Washington politics and Wall Street free market systemic corporate management failure. Again, the beneficiaries in this deal are the legislators responsible for the bailout approval and the corporations rewarded with taxpayer’s funds for unprecedented incompetence in modern economic times.

They are the beneficiaries because the legislators secured their emoluments by rushing the operating budget $410 billion omnibus bill ladened with pork projects to the tune of $8 billion to curb ‘government shut down’ rather than passing the required operating budget and isolating the earmarks spending for individual scrutiny through separate legislation.

The Corporate executives in due diligence spared no opportunities to collect remuneration, bonuses retrospectively and in the foreseeable future to maintain their status among the top 10% wealthiest hierarchy.

Let’s not forget in the Darwinian "Survival of the fittest contest" the weak, fragile and frail average taxpayer doesn’t stand a chance against the ferocious Corporate executives (compared to sharks) and Capitol Hill crusaders.

Events unfolding in the entire scenario deserves attention from every citizen involuntarily pledged to carry the burden of national debt currently projected at $9.3 trillion i.e. $1 trillion budget deficits every year for a decade, 2010-2019.

It is worth examining the role of legislators, corporations and lobbyists in securing taxpayer bailouts more prevalent in the past year 2008 and continuation of it in 2009. Prior to the diagnostic procedure, it is essential to shed light on the alliances forged by the key cabinet members and Wall Street merchants.

According to http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paul-s23.shtml – Thank you.

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Who is Henry Paulson?

By Tom Eley, 23 September 2008

Henry Paulson rose through the ranks of Goldman Sachs, becoming a partner in 1982, co-head of investment banking in 1990, chief operating officer in 1994. In 1998, he forced out his co-chairman Jon Corzine “in what amounted to a coup,” according to New York Times economics correspondent Floyd Norris, and took over the post of CEO.

Goldman Sachs is perhaps the single best-connected Wall Street firm. Its executives routinely go in and out of top government posts. Corzine went on to become US senator from New Jersey and is now the state’s governor. Corzine’s predecessor, Stephen Friedman, served in the Bush administration as assistant to the president for economic policy and as chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC). Friedman’s predecessor as Goldman Sachs CEO, Robert Rubin, served as chairman of the NEC and later treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.

Agence France Press, in a 2006 article on Paulson’s appointment, “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?” noted that, in addition to Paulson, “[t]he president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Jeffery Reuben, are Goldman alumni.”

Prior to being selected as treasury secretary, Paulson was a major individual campaign contributor to Republican candidates, giving over $336,000 of his own money between 1998 and 2006.

Since taking office, Paulson has overseen the destruction of three of Goldman Sachs’ rivals. In March,

Paulson helped arrange the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. Then, a little more than a week ago, he allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, while simultaneously organizing the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. This left only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as major investment banks, both of which were converted on Sunday into bank holding companies, a move that effectively ended the existence of the investment bank as a distinct economic form.

In the months leading up to his proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Paulson had already used his office to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars. After his July 2008 proposal for $70 billion to resolve the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, Paulson organized the government takeover of the two mortgage-lending giants for an immediate $200 billion price tag, while making the government potentially liable for hundreds of billions more in bad debt. He then organized a federal purchase of an 80 percent stake in the giant insurer American International Group (AIG) at a cost of $85 billion.

These bailouts have been designed to prevent a chain reaction collapse of the world economy, but more importantly, they aimed to insulate and even reward the wealthy shareholders, like Paulson, primarily responsible for the financial collapse.

Paulson bears a considerable amount of personal responsibility for the crisis.

Paulson, according to a celebratory 2006 Business Week article entitled “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington,” was “one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits.” Under Paulson’s watch, that meant “taking on more debt: $100 billion in long-term debt in 2005, compared with about $20 billion in 1999. It means placing big bets on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities.”

According to the International Herald Tribune, Paulson “was one of the first Wall Street leaders to recognize how drastically investment banks could enhance their profitability by betting with their own capital instead of acting as mere intermediaries.” Paulson “stubbornly assert[ed] Goldman’s right to invest in, advise on and finance deals, regardless of potential conflicts.”

Paulson then handsomely benefited from the speculative boom. This wealth was based on financial manipulation and did nothing to create real value in the economy. On the contrary, the extraordinary enrichment of individuals like Paulson was the corollary to the dismantling of the real economy, the bankrupting of the government, and the impoverishment of masses the world over.

Paulson was compensated to the tune of $30 million in 2004 and took home $37 million in 2005. In his career at Goldman Sachs he built up a personal net worth of over $700 million, according to estimates.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Washington and Wall Street Analysis:

By Padmini Arhant

The beginning of the chain link usually found on the campaign trail, when corporations fund election campaigns through donation loopholes despite contribution limits by electoral commission and reign in on the successful candidate for the entire term.

After all, in the contemporary world focused on “What’s in it for me” deals, there is no free lunch with the exception of debt-consumed public yearning for believable change and better future offer available resources in terms of time, energy and money during the electoral process and beyond.

Who gets preference by the elected officials in the so-called democracy?

Indeed the Corporations due to the inter-dependency of sweetheart deals and brokering that take place throughout the election campaign. The deafening noise in the Capitol Hill about identifying the guilty party and pursuing disastrous course of action such as 90% tax on AIG bonuses after having approved without any stipulations predictably backfired at the victims none other than the average American taxpayers, presumably the majority shareholder at 80% of the multinational conglomerate.

In a bizarre development, more appropriately deterioration of the bailout fiasco, the headlines, news across the nation reverberate…
—————————————————————————————————–
AIG sues its biggest shareholder – us

By David S. Hilzenrath, Washington Post – March 21, 2009. Thank you.

As AIG takes billions of dollars from the federal government to stay afloat, it is suing the government for millions more.

The big insurer is trying to recover $306.1 million of taxes, interest and penalties from the Internal Revenue Service. Among other things, AIG is contesting an IRS determination last year that the company improperly claimed $61.9 million of tax credits associated with complex international transactions.

AIG has also asked a court to make the government reimburse it for money spent suing the government.

Given that the government owns 79.9 percent of AIG and has been using taxpayer money to fill a seemingly bottomless hole at the company, the lawsuit might seem like a case of biting the hand that feeds it. But an

AIG spokesman said the company has an obligation to press its case.

AIG believes it overpaid the IRS, and it “has a duty to its shareholders, including the government and other shareholders, to insure that it pays the proper amount of taxes,” spokesman Mark Herr said by e-mail.
Washington tax lawyer Martin Lobel agreed with that assessment.

‘If in fact they honestly believe that they’re entitled to a refund of those taxes, it would be a breach of their fiduciary duty not to” sue, Lobel said.

“On the other hand, the sense of entitlement from AIG is awesome,” Lobel said.

Because the dispute pits the government against a company that has essentially become a ward of the government, the only clear winners are likely to be lawyers, legal experts said. The legal expenses could consume millions of dollars, they said.

Lawyers at the firm Sutherland Asbill & Brenan, which is representing AIG, did not respond to an interview request.

For partners of similar stature to those representing AIG, fees can run $700 to $900 an hour, said Dan Binstock, managing director of BCG Attorney Search, a legal recruiter.

AIG’s dispute with the IRS focuses on taxes for 1997 and dates at least as far back as March 2008.”
———————————————————————————————————————

L.A. congresswoman defends actions

Husband Linked to Bank that got AID

By Richard Simon – Los Angeles Times – March 14, 2009 – Thank you.

Excerpts from the article:

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, on Friday defended her efforts to help minority-owned banks – including one with ties to her husband – scoffing at the notion that she, a liberal Democrat, could influence George W. Bush’s presidential administration in deciding what financial institutions would receive bailout funds.

Waters, a senior member of the congressional committee that, oversees banking, has come under scrutiny because OneUnited Bank, on which her husband Sidney Williams had been a board member and stockholder, received $12 million in bailout funds. The money was provided in December, three months after Waters helped arrange a meeting between officials from the bank and other minority-owned institutions and Treasury representatives.

“I followed up on the association’s request by asking Treasury Secretary (Henry) Paulson to schedule such a meeting, as did other members of Congress,” she said.

She said she did not attend the meeting. She released letters by the National Bankers Association requesting the meeting and following up on it – signed by the group’s incoming Chairman Robert Patrick Cooper an officer with OneUnited.

Waters said the decision to provide bailout funds to OneUnited was “based on the merits of the bank’s request, not based on anything said at the September meeting and not based on political influence.”

She said that she has fully disclosed her husband’s ties to the bank. Williams served on the bank board until early last year and held at least $500,000 in investments in the bank in 2007, the most recent year for which public financial disclosure statements are available.

Waters could not be reached for an interview Friday. OneUnited Chief Executive Kevin Cohee said Friday he didn’t have time to speak with a reporter.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said she found Waters’ behavior “inappropriate and certainly has the appearance of impropriety, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of an actual conflict-of-interest under House rules.”

Sloan said Waters’ comments that the meeting focused on the general problems of minority-owned banks “don’t seem credible” in light of statements from Treasury officials that the session became a discussion of one bank’s troubles. “At a minimum, Treasury officials should have been apprised of her interest in the bank before the meeting took place.”

Waters’ efforts, she said, raise a question: “How many members of Congress are having meetings with the Treasury Department pleading for funds for certain banks?”

“Treasury has said they’re going to list the lobbying contacts,” Sloan said.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Voice of the Electorate:

San Jose Mercury News – Readers’ Letters – March 18, 2009

Obama’s earmarks stance disappoints

I am disappointed that President Barack Obama backed off his campaign pledge to eliminate earmarks. The process subverts democratic government by avoiding votes on specific issues. It encourages our representatives to compete to spend more—if they fail to “bring home the bacon,” they may be seen as ineffective and not be re-elected. The further we move from specific votes for specific programs, the less inclined people are to support the government and the more inclined to resist taxes.

We must promote responsible stewardship. While many of the projects are meritorious, that hardly means they should be funded. Tax dollars are a scarce resource and every expenditure should be carefully scrutinized. Obama was right on this issue during the campaign; he is sliding off track now.

Christopher K. Payne

Stanford
———————————————————————————————————————

Ethical Lapse

By Padmini Arhant

The sparring political factions, the far left and the far right along with the centrists is in a strange dilemma today as they witness their reflection in the image of the accused parties in the most expensive soap opera entertainment.

As more Washington and Wall Street scandals are exposed, the more disingenuous the legislators appear to be in their pledge to turn the nation around.

An average citizen struggling to make ends meet asked the following questions –

“Why should I vote for anyone in the next election when I see politics as usual prevailing over the promised inevitable change?

Can the elected officials with public housing, guaranteed regular and several other sources of income, supreme health care, and free transportation relate to the suffering population dealing with job loss, foreclosure and other miseries?”

Unfortunately, the Washington atmosphere is secluded as elitist not making connection with the plight of the populist. The deepening of the recession combined with the multi-trillion dollar national debt forecast is a matter of great concern for the vast majority of population in precarious economic conditions due to job insecurity and declining prospects all around.

The American electorate enthusiastically elected the new administration with the hope to experience the “change” they deserve and the recent events are adversarial to the optimism built during the campaign.

Campaign promises involved Accountability, Transparency and changing Washington by eliminating corruption, cronyism and conventionalism. The passing of the $787 billion stimulus bill and subsequently the $410 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with earmarks confirms the status quo in Washington.

The pet projects, however meritorious they might be, cannot be more important than supplementing K-12 educational funding by retaining qualified teaching professionals and providing after school sports activities for students from lower income families and scores of other important social services for the constituents in California and other states.

It is obvious throughout the legislative process from the authorization of illegal invasion of Iraq war to Wall Street bailouts that lawmakers as representatives of the electorate in a democracy no longer consider it important to peruse the budget and other legislative bills because of the voluminous content. Hence, hastily resort to wasteful spending at taxpayers’ expense.

With the national debt projection in multi-trillion dollars, the wasteful spending in billions doesn’t seem to matter to the sponsors of the pet projects. Apparently, $8 billion added to the national debt for projects experimenting swine odor, road to nowhere, monuments ‘supposedly creating jobs’ when the industries are crumbling apart clearly signifies misplaced priorities by the legislators expected to be in touch with reality of their respective constituency.

The people are hurting and their mere existence is challenged by the hour while Washington and Wall Street continue to engage the nation in burgeoning financial crisis through legal and constitutional confrontations of the bailout débācle.

Perhaps it is time for the victims and the lame duck, the average taxpayers to rise to the occasion and execute power in the mid-term election to restore democratic values, ethical and moral standards desperately lacking in the corporate and political system.

It is best to eradicate the narcissistic culture that permeates the surroundings like weeds destroying the grassland and fertile grounds.

Evidently change is necessary and necessity is the mother of invention.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Earmarks, Pork-barrel Spending

March 8, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The budget vote delayed due to enormous ‘pork’ in the $410 billion spending bill. The defenders of various pork projects may have their own justification.

Nevertheless, Washington must relinquish wasteful spending through several pet projects carried out on behalf of lobbyists by lawmakers concerned about their own job security in the future elections.

As stated earlier in the article “Omnibus Spending” on the website www.padminiarhant.com , the nation is grappling with dire economic situation due to significant job losses and housing crisis at this time and families are desperately seeking relief from both free market system and the government.

Unfortunately, the free market system dependent on taxpayers’ bailout is barely capable of remaining solvent despite unprecedented capital infusion in modern financial history. The root cause of all these problems attributed to lack of ethics, accountability, transparency and importantly executive management failure.

The critics of taxpayers’ bailout argue in favor of non-interference in the market economy on the assumption the system would correct itself in due course. They fail to recognize the fact that the economic meltdown commenced in the early 2000, though the impact was not acknowledged up until late 2007.

During that limited or non-regulatory period, the capitalist system had ample opportunities to review and reassess their performance and prepare them for the worst scenario.

However, it did not happen, even though Wall Street witnessed and experienced the collapse of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing all in the year 2002 resulting from failed Corporate management, unethical accounting practices and blatant greed.

Somehow, the free market advocates seem to have forgotten these events because of their inability then to envision the domino effect on the entire economy in the immediate future. Another reason for the denial of economic crisis previously was the skyrocketing of the technology stocks combined with oil and defense stocks at the phenomenal cost of American taxpayers’ dollars and human lives in Iraq war.

The financial sector created its own superficial boom during that time with the concoction of subprime mortgages and diverse toxic assets bundled together and sold by the hedge fund managers in the overseas markets. This entire taking place while the past administration was preoccupied in the implementation of unjust Iraq war.

It is unequivocally a miserable failure on the part of the predecessors in Federal Reserve, Treasury department as well as the Securities Commission primarily responsible for monitoring and evaluating the daily market events and executing necessary precautionary measures to prevent the economy from overheating.

Surprisingly, with the history of ‘Great Depression’, Oil crisis, economic recessions, one would assume that the authorities would remain alert and watch over the economy with prudent advice against extravagant spending in unnecessary wars or at least demanded the administration engaging in wasteful spending provide legitimate cost and benefit investment analysis.

The gridlock in Washington or State legislature is contributed by political ideologies resisting flexibility to resolve any crisis. The fiscal conservatives steadfast against tax increases, the predominant revenue source for any government, consistently target essential programs designed to promote consumer spending vital for economic recovery.

Similarly, the spendthrift legislators on both aisles with a penchant for pet projects or pork spending refuse to yield to frugality and prioritize their commitments to lobbyists and local governments assuring their re-election over national interest.

The electorate voted for Change in 2008 and change has hope only with representatives in Congress and Senate quitting habits that create rather than solving crisis.

It is evident that the $410 billion spending bill is injected with significant pork projects and it would be appropriate for the sponsors to present cost / benefit ratio in monetary terms to justify inclusion in the bill.

Again, these projects must be evaluated to benefit the taxpayers and the nation as a whole rather than the individuals regardless of them being legislators or the lobbyists.

The lawmakers have lately advised ordinary citizens to downsize their lifestyle according to their means, the same should apply to them as any sermons, preaching, and advice is meaningful when individuals demonstrate through action.

After all, shouldn’t one practice what they preach others?

No matter how one circumvents the legitimacy of earmarks particularly at these tough economic times, it is inappropriate now and in the future to squander taxpayers’ dollars for far-fetched projects with beneficiaries being the authorizing entity and/or special interests rather than the entire nation.

Please refer to the following articles from other sources for data confirmation on earmarks / pork barrel spending.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
——————————————————————————————————————-

Senate Republicans force delay on budget vote:

GOP Members want to offer Amendments on $410 billion plan criticized for Pork – By Andrew Taylor,

Associated Press – Thank you.

Washington – Senate Republicans, demanding the right to try to change a huge spending bill, forced Democrats on Thursday night to put off a final vote on the measure until next week.

The surprise development will force Congress to pass a stopgap-funding bill to avoid a partial shutdown of the government.

Republicans have blasted the $410 billion measure as too costly. But the reason for GOP unity in advance of a key procedural vote was that Democrats had not allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled the vote, saying he was one vote short of the 60 needed to close debate and free the bill for President Barack Obama’s signature.

The 1,132-page spending bill is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties.

Democrats and their allies control 58 seats, though at least a handful of Democrats oppose the measure over its cost or changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba. That meant Democrats needed five or six Republican votes to advance the bill.

None of the GOP’s amendments is expected to pass, but votes on perhaps a dozen are now slated for Monday night, Reid said.

The huge, 1-132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The measure has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Once considered a relatively bipartisan measure, the measure has come under attack from Republicans – and a handful of Democrats – who say it is bloated and filled with wasteful, pork-barrel projects.

The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Obama’s economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash.

To the embarrassment of Obama – who promised during last year’s campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways – the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama’s opponent in last fall’s presidential campaign, called the measure “a swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending.”

The earmarks run the gamut. There’s $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo., $238,000 to fund a deep-sea voyaging program for native Hawaiian youth, agricultural research projects, and grants to local police departments, among many others.”

—————————————————————————————————

Further Excerpt of the article –

Sen. John McCain blasts $237,500 for Japantown museum – By Frank Davies, Mercury News Washington Bureau – Thank you.

Reps, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Mike Honda, D-Campbell, secured that money to help the museum.
Honda, who is Japanese American, – “Jap. Museum boost tourism (thus jobs) in SJ Japantown, last of 3 authentic US Japantowns, Zoe & I proudly supported its funding.”
—————————————————————————————————-

« Previous PageNext Page »

PadminiArhant.com