Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension...It`s a Matter of Life & Breath/Death !

Lungs

Heart for Transplant

( LtoR) Dr. Robbins ~ Dr. Hemnes ~ Dr. Wigger ~ Dr. DiSalvo
Vanderbilt`s Finest !

Shortness of Breath...Not Much Fun !

by Don Jones

9/27/10

This writer has said for sometime now, That I have Pulmonary Hypertension. I`ve learned recently that Vanderbilt Pulmonary is now, not sure of my diagnosis ! I visited Vandy Pulmonary September 23, 2010 My appointment was with Dr. Anna Hemnes, Pulmonary Specialist. I also saw my PH Nurse, Amy Mulican. After a long interview and going over the medicines I take. Dr. Hemnes arrived in my holding room. She sat down and we talked for a very lengthy time. The end results, was that she nor Dr. Ivan Robbins, Dr. Robbins is a specialist in Pulmonary Hypertension were sure that my diagnosis was/is correct ? Now, that might upset some, but I was delighted over her honesty and candor ! I have the option of going somewhere else, but, I really see no reason to leave Vanderbilt`s fine medical facility or those two wonderful Dr.`s Hemnes and Robbins ! Please be aware that, I`m a Vanderbilt Heart-Transplant 16 years post ! I`m a total success. I have written a letter of "Thank You" to Dr. Hemnes. I truly believe she is trying to find out what my problem is. I have informed her, how pleased I am with her care and treatment. I also informed her, if I was not too old, I would like Lung Transplant?

Alas, she informed me, I`m too old ! Would I have the Surgery ? In a Heartbeat(no pun intended)I also asked her not to give up on me, as I was not going to give up on myself or her ! This is a very sensitive matter. In her honesty and candor, (most would call it COPD and let it go at that) She chose to tell it, like it is, and for that I am most thankful. I once had a Pulmonary Dr. inform me that, we know a lot, but, we don`t know everything. I`m hoping that they have a monkey that they are trying out a new drug on and are having success with, I will volunteer to be their first human to try it on ! Life is a precious thing, I know that, and Vanderbilt is aware that. I`m not a hero, But Vanderbilt Medical Center and Hospital definitely are ! Vanderbilt is on the cutting edge of most medical treatments and new procedures, they develop them all of the time. Dr. Anna Hemnes, Pulmonary, is a great Dr. and human being. Dr. Ivan Robbins, Pulmonary is not only smart, but caring. Dr. Mark Wigger, Heart-Transplant Director and my Dr. is of the same cut. Dr. Thomas DiSalvo, Heart-Transplant is out of the same mold ! I`m not going to another facility unless Vanderbilt recommends it ! Why go somewhere else, when you`ve had the very best ? If I get a new diagnosis, I will pass it on to you. In the meantime, I am a mystery man !

They Call it Obama Care...I Love It !

Working Families Benefit from New Health Care Rules Effective Today
by Mike Hall, Sep 23, 2010

Government Health Care > www.healthcare.gov/

Today marks the six-month anniversary of the day President Obama signed the landmark health care reform law and also is the start date for several important provisions that will make quality health care more accessible and affordable for working families.

Starting today:

•Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage for children with pre-existing conditions (though some are trying to dodge the new rule);
•Insurance companies will not be allowed to drop people, from coverage when they become sick;
•Young people will be able to stay on their parents’ policy until 26 years of age;
•Insurance companies cannot put a lifetime cap on benefits;
•Consumers who join a new plan will be able to keep their own doctors;
•Preventive care must be covered; and
•Consumers will have expanded rights to appeal insurance company decisions.
Also, early retirees with high cost cases will have assistance from a new program that will allow plans to continue to provide benefits for 55 to 64 year olds. And rates for Medicare drug plans and Medicare Advantage will remain stable in 2011, compared with 15 percent increases this year.

Says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:

Today we are one step closer to achieving quality, affordable health insurance for everyone in America. The legislation will help people who were previously uninsured and strengthen the protections offered to those who are already insured.

Speaking at a backyard health care gathering in Northern Virginia yesterday, Obama said:

All these things are designed not to have government more involved in health care. They’re designed to make sure that you have basic protections in your interactions with your insurance company; that you’re getting what you pay for; that you have some basic measures of protection in interacting with the health care system, which means that you’re not going to go bankrupt, you’re not going to lose your house if, heaven forbid, you end up having an accident, and you’re able to get the quality care that you need.

Over the next 10 years, the new law will cover 32 million uninsured Americans and reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion. Click Below to see how it has helped seniors already !

Click here> http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/09/21/seniors-join-biden-in-medicarehealth-care-reform-conference-call/#more-36371 <

Editorial : I would have liked to see a National Medicare Health Care Program for all Americans, like the one, in place in Canada ! I did`nt get it ! This is better than what we had ! I believe that every ones insurance premium$ will be reduced by this program. Better stop listening to the Republicans !

Get Rid of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy !

Robert Reich : Former Secretary of Labor

September 19, 2010

The Defining Issue: Who Should Get the Tax Cut -- The Rich or Everyone Else?
Not a bad issue for Democrats to run on this fall, or in 2012.

Republicans are hell bent on demanding an extension of the Bush tax cut for their patrons at the top, or else they'll pull the plug on tax cuts for the middle class. This is a gift for the Democrats. But before this can be a defining election issue in the midterms, Democrats have to bring it to a vote. And they've got to do it in the next few weeks, not wait until a lame-duck session after Election Day. Plus, they have to stick together (Ben Nelson, are you hearing me? House blue-dogs, do you read me? Peter Orszag, will you get some sense?) Not only is this smart politics. It's smart economics. The rich spend a far smaller portion of their money than anyone else because, hey, they're rich. That means continuing the Bush tax cut for them wouldn't stimulate much demand or create many jobs. But it would blow a giant hole in the budget -- $36 billion next year, $700 billion over ten years. Millionaire households would get a windfall of $31 billion next year alone. And the Republican charge that restoring the Clinton tax rates for the rich would hurt the economy -- because it would reduce the "incentives" of the rich (including the richest small business owners) to create jobs -- is ludicrous.
Under Bill Clinton and his tax rates, the economy roared. It created 22 million jobs. By contrast, during George Bush's 8 years, commencing with his big 2001 tax cut, the economy created only 8 million jobs. And as the new Census data show, nothing trickled down. In fact, the middle class families did far worse after the Bush tax cut. Between 2001 and 2007 -- even before we were plunged into the Great Recession -- the median wage dropped. It's an issue that could also be used to expose the giant chasm that's opened between the rich and everyone else -- aided and abetted by Republican policies. As I've noted before, in the late 1970s, the top 1 percent got 9 percent of total national income. By 2007, the top 1 percent got almost a quarter of total national income. These figures don't even count in taxes. The $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001 was a huge windfall for people earning over $500,000 a year. They got about 40 percent of its benefits. The Bush tax cut of 2003 was even better for high rollers. Those with net incomes of about $1 million got an average tax cut of $90,000 a year. Yet taxes on the typical middle-income family dropped just $217. Many lower-income families, who still paid payroll taxes, got nothing back at all. And, again, nothing trickled down. As I've emphasized, the U.S. economy has suffered mightily from the middle class's lack of purchasing power, while most of the economic gains have gone to the top. (The crisis was masked for years by women moving into paid work, everyone working longer hours, and, more recently, the middle class going into deep debt -- but all those coping mechanisms are now exhausted.) The great challenge ahead is to widen the circle of prosperity so the middle class once again has the capacity to keep the economy going. In other words, this is the right issue. It's the right time. It allows Democrats to explain what the Bush tax cuts really did, why supply-side economics is bogus, and the economic challenge ahead. Even if Democrats feel they have to respond to the Republican charge that taxes shouldn't be raised on anyone when the employment rate is 9.6 percent, they have a powerful fallback: Extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone through 2011, then end them for the rich while making them permanent for the middle class.
Get it, Democrats? Please don't blow it this time.

Social Security, Work Longer, Draw Less ! I Think Not !

New York Times Spotlights Perils for Older Workers if Retirement Age Increased

This week the New York Times ran a powerful portrait of life on the job for many older Americans, showing just how devastating a retirement age increase would be for millions of workers [ http://nyti.ms/cy4CHz ] . Against a backdrop of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) pledging that a Republican-led Congress would increase the age to 70, the Times told the stories of several workers - an airline baggage handler, a nursing assistant, and a tire maker - including one who noted that at work, "dessert with lunch is ibuprofen." A recent study by the Center for Economic Policy Research found that one in three workers over age 58 works a physically demanding job [ http://bit.ly/cZnt6k ]. Older Workers have a chance to prevent this nightmare for older workers. Please click here http://bit.ly/aXlAGA to urge your elected officials to support two efforts in Congress to save Social Security for current and future retirees. The first is a resolution by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) to oppose an increase in the retirement age, and the second is a letter from Representative Grijalva to President Obama opposing any cuts in benefits or any form of privatization that would turn Social Security over to Wall Street.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health Law Has New Benefits for Seniors, Young Adults

Recognizing the difficulty many young workers are having in affording their own insurance, the new health reform law will now allow those up to age 26 to stay on their parent's health insurance programs. For more information, check out http://bit.ly/c8R1nH. "Please encourage your family and neighbors to learn more about these exciting new benefits," said Alliance President Barbara J. Easterling, who added that "for retirees the new law will help them better afford to fill a prescription, see a doctor, and obtain free life-saving tests and screenings for many diseases." Over one million seniors in the Medicare Part D "donut hole" coverage gap have already received $250 checks to offset this hardship. For more information on benefits for retirees, see Alliance fact sheets at http://bit.ly/cQTDL9. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told the Cincinnati Enquirer this week that one of his goals if he were to become Speaker would be to deny the Obama administration the funding to implement the new health law's benefits. "They'll get not one dime from us. Not a dime." Boehner told the paper.

Editorial : Hey Senior`s, better Wake Up ! Hey That`s me ! It seems that good ole John Boehner (top right), does`nt care if you eat dog food ! As long as his fat cats on Wall-Street get your Social Security !

Fair Trade not Free Trade !

USW Pres. Gerard Gives Testimony Before U.S. House Committee

American workers expect government action on China’s currency manipulation

Washington, DC (Sept. 15, 2010) – Leo W. Gerard, International President(top left) of the United Steelworkers (USW), today testified on behalf of the AFL-CIO before a packed hearing of the Ways & Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on China’s exchange rate. The hearing was led by Chairman Sandy Levin (D-MI), who stated: “There is no real question that China’s deliberately undervalued exchange rate is unfair, contributes to global trade imbalances, and cost the U.S. jobs and economic growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector.” Gerard responded by saying, “The question now is do we have the will to act to level the playing field and provide the support and assistance that millions of American workers and their communities expect and deserve?” He said the American economy remains mired in a deep recession. “Unemployment, underemployment, wage stagnation, foreclosures all paint a grim picture of an economy still struggling to recover.” Describing the past decade of soaring annual trade deficits with China, the USW president said they started from $84 billion in 2001 and have reached $227 billion last year. “This is clearly not the trade profile that the U.S. government predicted as the likely outcome of China’s WTO accession. But it is the result of concerted strategic interventions by the Chinese government over many years – and inaction by our own.” He declared, “These trade deficits are unsustainable and require immediate action. What we desire is a mutually respectful, functional and sustainable bilateral economic relationship.” Strongly asserting that the Chinese government’s practices amount to as much as a 40 percent subsidy for the products they export to the U.S., Gerard adds it in effect is “a tax on products we try to send there, while siphoning investment dollars vital to keeping the U.S. at the forefront of research and development.” In his testimony, Gerard revealed the drag on GDP growth that comes from the bilateral trade deficit has significantly broader economic implications. He said, “Preliminary estimates from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) points to as much as a $500 billion reduction in our nation’s federal budget deficit over the next six years from ending China’s currency manipulation.” He argued before the committee, “Lost manufacturing jobs lead to lost tax revenue and higher budget deficits that limit our ability to invest in our future. This puts substantial pressure on federal, state and local budgets resulting in layoffs of teachers, police and other emergency responders. It doesn’t have to be this way.” The USW president wrapped up his comments by forcefully saying, “American workers, communities and industry have every right to expect their government to take action. It is long overdue. Speaking directly to the full House Committee, Gerard emphatically said: “The time for talk is over. We can create jobs by enforcing our trade laws consistently and proactively. On behalf of the working families of this nation, I urge you to take action now.” Gerard advocated the legislation to stop China’s currency manipulation was the Ryan-Murphy Bill, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act of 2010 (H.R. 2378).

The USW testimony submitted to the US House Ways & Means Committee is at: www.usw.org/.

Editorial : This writer has maintained for sometime now, that it`s TRADE, TRADE, TRADE !

Don`t Mess With Social Security

Do Not Cut Social Security...

Dear Readers,

I have just read and signed the petition: "Don't Cut Social Security"

Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in
signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a
difference. Please sign here link below or Click on title of this blog.

http://www.democrats.com/dont-cut-social-security?source=donjones90%40gmail.com

Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and
family to sign as well.

Thank you !

Don Jones = Underdog

Tennessee Hunting, An American Tradition ! Vote Yes !

Hunting in Tennessee, A Historical American Right !

http://www.tnwf.org /

On November 2, 2010 we will go to the polls to elect a new governor in Tennessee . On that same ballot will be the right to vote for an Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution allowing for the right of Tennesseans to hunt and fish. Even though we have been hunting and fishing in Tennessee as long as I have been alive, it is not a guaranteed right. With the amendment, it will make it much more difficult for anti hunting and fishing folks to challenge. In the last election for a Tennessee Governor, 1,900,000 votes were cast. In order to pass the amendment fifty (50%) plus one votes must be cast as a YES vote. If this election follows the pattern of the last election, we will need 950,001 votes. There are not enough registered voters who hunt and fish to pass this amendment by ourselves. Therefore, we need to make sure our spouses and our friends know to vote YES for the Amendment to the state constitution. I have talked to several folks about this and they have said "but we already have the right to hunt and fish". Yes we do but the animal rights folks (PETA) are very well funded and they are passionate about stopping hunting and fishing. If we stand by and do nothing, there very well may come a day when we no longer have these rights. Fourteen states have already passed an amendment to hunt and fish. Tennessee , Arkansas and South Carolina will vote for the amendment in November. Please, don't take your rights for granted. Send this email to everyone who believes we should have the right to hunt and fish.
If you want to know more about this issue, go to the Tennessee Wildlife Federation Web site at > http://www.tnwf.org/ < to get more information.

Editorial : Ever wonder how stuff like this gets on the ballot ? If PETA would use their energy`s in a productive way, it would be great. They do not. So Vote Yes ! and save an American/Tennessee Tradition.

Big Money to Oust an Honest Senator ?

THE CORPORATE ASSAULT ON AN HONEST SENATOR
September 8, 2010 Posted by Jim Hightower

http://www.jimhightower.com/

If you look at the whole flock of 535 congress critters, it's hard not to giggle – or break out in uncontrollable sobs at the thought that – oh my God! – this is the United States Congress. As Peggy Lee sang years ago: "Is that all there is ?" Well, no – within the manure pile, there are quite a few genuine gems, and one of the finest is a fellow who consistently stands for common sense and the common good. He's Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin. He's a Democrat – but really he's a populist maverick who has refused to go along to get along, even when that means going against his own party and against what the political consultants tell him is his own best interests. For example, he was the lone senate vote against the autocratic, liberty-busting Patriot Act in 2001. Feingold also had the stuff to vote against Obama's escalation of the misguided war in Afghanistan, and not only did he oppose the 2008 bailout of Wall Street banksters, but he also said "no" this year to Obama's Wall Street regulatory reforms, blasting them as too week and meek. So, this sensible senator is now targeted for defeat by the moneyed elites. They've found a multimillionaire corporate Republican (who made a fortune in plastic) to use confused Tea Party forces as a ramrod to oust Russ. The corporate contender attacks Social Security as "a giant Ponzi scheme," calls health care reform "the greatest assault on our freedom in my lifetime," and insists that the science of global climate change is "unproven." If this guy gets any dumber, we'd have to water him twice a day! But he's a rich corporate honcho, backed by the moneyed powers, so he could join the congressional manure pile – if We the People don't rally around one of our own. Connect with Russ Feingold at http://www.russfeingold.org/.

"Feingold faces unexpectedly tough race," http://www.msnbc.com/ , July 6, 2010

"Filibusters for the Big Money ," The New York Times, July 12, 2010.

"Obama's Awkward Speech: Not Quite Peace and Nowhere Near Prosperity," http://www.thenation.com/ , August 31, 31, 2010.

"In Wisconsin, An Incumbent Holds On Tight," The New York Times, September 1, 2010.0

Republicans Want Your Social Security Money !

Tell Congress: Don't Raise Retirement Age!

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) plans to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress against raising the retirement age when Congress reconvenes this month. In a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to members of the House recently, Giffords said that an increase in the retirement age is simply a cut in benefits. Current cosponsors include: Reps. Travis Childers (D-MS), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Diane Watson (D-CA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) and Joe Courtney (D-CT). To ask your Member of Congress to co-sponsor the resolution, go to> http://bit.ly/9SbUfN. < "For 75 years, Social Security has been a bedrock promise. Seniors have earned it with a lifetime of hard work and depend on it to live independently and with dignity in their retirement. That's why I unequivocally oppose proposals to cut Social Security benefits and balance the budget on the backs of seniors by raising the Social Security retirement age," Giffords wrote in her letter. Rep. Giffords listed several reasons for not raising the retirement age: the surplus within the Social Security trust fund is estimated to grow to more than $4 trillion by 2023; also, the normal retirement age, currently 66, was already increased by two months each year in 1983 until it reaches 67 in 2022. In addition, she wrote that raising the retirement age will place a greater burden on older, blue-collar workers in physically demanding occupations, like nurses, auto workers and teachers, who may not be able to continue to work in their jobs into their mid-to-late 60s; that the burden of raising the retirement age will fall most heavily on older workers with limited employment opportunities; and that life expectancy numbers are skewed in favor of men, higher income earners, and the more educated.

_______________________________________________________________

Republicans Want Your $$# Money !

Illinois Activists Protest Rep. Paul Ryan's "Road Map" for Social Security
Members of the Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans, the Illinois Main Street Alliance, and Citizen Action/Illinois met outside of Chicago's Four Seasons Hotel on Wednesday to protest U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) endorsement of Illinois' 9th Congressional District candidate, Joel Pollack (R). Ryan is the architect of the controversial "Roadmap for America" plan, which would dismantle Social Security. In the 10th Congressional District, nominee Dan Seals (D) has also taken a swing at opponent Robert Dold (R) for encouraging supporters to read up on Ryan's Roadmap. For pictures of Wednesday's event, go to http://bit.ly/d4Jp2F.

______________________________________________________________ Doughnut Hole

New Health Care Benefits Kick in, Address Early Retirees and the Doughnut Hole
This week, The Washington Post reported that 2,000 groups have now been approved for early-retiree health care funds > http://bit.ly/9MSAyV < . One of the provisions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is a $5 billion program to reimburse employers for health claims of early retirees (retired workers over 55 but too young to receive Medicare), encouraging employers to cover early retirees. Many companies and state governments involved in a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the health law applied successfully for the early retiree health care funds. The provision aims to curb the rapid decline of employers who offer health coverage to early retirees. Also this week, the Department of Health and Human Resources announced that the millionth $250 "doughnut hole" rebate check was mailed to a senior who falls in the Medicare doughnut hole. Many Alliance members across the country will receive partial relief this year, as a $250 one-time check is mailed to them - the first step to ultimately closing the doughnut hole in 2020. More on the closing of the doughnut hole here: http://bit.ly/cZWBPY.

Secretary Solis' Labor Day Address (2010)

We Finally have a Secretary of Labor !

Ever Wonder Why You are not Represented Properly ? It` s The Money for Lobbyists !

WALL STREET'S CONNECTED LOBBYISTS Tuesday, August 31, 2010 Posted by Jim Hightower

http://www.jimhightower.com/

Old Congress critters never die, they just fade away. Into lobbying firms, that is.

Take former House speaker Dennis Hastert, former House majority leaders Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt, and former Senate leaders Bob Dole and Trent Lott. The names of these one-time legislative powerhouses aren't mentioned in the news anymore, so perhaps you would assume that they've retired back to the old home place, or even passed away. But, no – they're very much alive and still plying the legislative arts. Only they now do it for million-dollar paychecks as lobbyists for Wall Street financial giants and other corporate interests.
Hastert, Armey, Gephardt, Dole, and Lott are among a cadre of 73 former members of congress who've been working in recent months to weaken or kill new regulations to rein in the gouging and reckless gambling of the big financial firms. They are not the only former public servants who're now using their insider knowledge and personal connections in Washington to serve the bankers. For example, at least 66 staffers for the House or Senate banking committees have moved from Capitol Hill to the K-Street lobbying corridor, and another 82 staffers for members of those committees also are now lobbyists for the finance industry. Adding even more firepower to this special-interest army of influence peddlers are 42 former officials from the treasury department. In an effort to slow down this shameless cashing-in on public service, the watchdog group, Public Citizen, contacted 47 current lawmakers who are retiring this year. The group asked them to pledge not to take a lobbying job for two years with any corporation that had lobbied them. Not a single one took the pledge. To see who the 47 are, and to get behind stricter lobbying rules, contact Public Citizen at link below ! Or the title of this article.

www.citizen.org/revolvingdoor.

Editorial : Never give a Voter/Citizen and even break ! Just lobby and make millions. Now you know, why !

CEO`S Earn Big Salaries ~ This is Disgusting !

CEO$ Earn Big $alarie$ Amid Large Layoffs
By Vicki Needham - 09/01/10

The heads of firms that laid off the most workers during the recession earned nearly $12 million a year on average, 42 percent more than other chief executives at S&P 500 firms in 2009, according to a report released Wednesday.
CEO's of the 50 firms that laid off the most workers earned a combined $598 million in 2009, according to the 17th annual executive compensation survey produced by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank. A majority of firms leading in layoffs -- 36 of the 50 or 72 percent -- announced layoffs during a time of positive earnings reports, the report said.
Two years into the recession, executive compensation is double the average pay in the 1990s and four times greater than the 1980s average, the report said. The 10 highest-paid CEO layoff leaders with firms that let people go between Nov. 1, 2008 and April 1, 2010 are: Fred Hassan, Schering-Plough, earned $49.7 million last year, $33 million after leaving the company when the firm merged with Merck. About 16,000 were laid off; Johnson & Johnson's William Weldon earned $25.6 million, laying off 8,900; Hewlett-Packard's Mark Hurd earned $24.2 million and laid off 6,400; Roger Iger, Walt Disney, earned $21.6 million, let go 3,400; Samuel Palmisano, IBM, $21.2 million, laid off 7,800; Randall Stephenson, AT&T, $20.2 million, laid off 12,300; Michael Duke, Wal-Mart, $19.2 million, 13,350; Alan Mulally, Ford, $17.9 million, laid off 4,700; Louis Chenevert, United Technologies, $17.9 million, laid off 13,290 and Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon, $17.5 million, laid off 21,308. Five of the 50 top layoff leaders were helped by the financial sector bailout in 2008. Of those, American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault took home the most last year, $16.8 million, including a $5 million cash bonus. American Express has laid off 4,000 employees since receiving $3.39 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding. No Wall Street banks made the list but three banks -- Citigroup, Bank Of America and JP Morgan -- showed up on the study's list of the 50 firms that laid off the most employees last year.

Editorial : So let me see, If we were worried about our CEO`S...There is no need to worry ! They do well, even when they take tax-payers money and lay-off the workers...whew...Now that`s good news ! We would`nt want them going without ! These CEO`S should absolutely be ashamed ! How Dare Them ?

Third World America ~ Our Race to the Bottom !

Third World America ?
Leo Hindery, Jr..Chairman, U.S. Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation
Posted: August 31, 2010 09:30 AM

Ms. Huffington has precisely described the current sad state of the middle class, with especially sharp perspective on what she calls the economic "nightmare on Main Street." And she offers particular insight into "America the dilapidated", her short-hand way of expressing her distress at the sorry state of the nation's infrastructure, which will require a staggering $3 trillion or so of capital expenditures to fix and upgrade. For years I have argued that the only economic measure that really counts is the vibrancy of the middle class, which needs to grow robustly from the bottom up. And the best indicator of that vibrancy is our nation's nearness, or not, to full and fairly compensated real employment. Ms. Huffington clearly shares this view. As a member of the "professional left", which is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' epithet for those of us who believe that campaign promises made by Candidate Obama in 2008 should be kept by President Obama in 2009 and 2010, it's easy for me to have distress over the true state of the U.S. economy. And this same sense and level of distress are what I believe motivated Ms. Huffington, obviously a fellow 'member', to write her book. She realizes, as I and others have,

that:

•The top 10 percent of Americans now earn half of our national income, while the bottom 90% collectively own less than 2 percent of the nation's wealth. There is more income inequality in America than at any time since 1928, when this statistic was first kept.

•61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which is up from 49% in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

•Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line, which is the highest rate in 20 years.

•Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income since 1975 to match the rise in housing costs.

•83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of just the top 1% of Americans. And the top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.

As Edward Luce wrote recently in an important piece for the Financial Times entitled "The Crisis of Middle-Class America", which theme Ms. Huffington picks up on, the slow economic strangulation of millions of middle-class Americans started long before the Great Recession of 2007, which merely exacerbated the "personal recession" that ordinary Americans have been suffering for years. This 'median wage stagnation' means that the annual incomes of the bottom 90 percent of U.S. families have been essentially flat since 1973, having risen by only 10 percent in real terms over the past 37 years. During this same period, the incomes of the top 1 percent have tripled. Ms. Huffington also distinguishes herself with her chapter entitled, "Who Killed The American Dream," and with her precise prescriptions. Her 'indictment' of lobbyists is sobering and her call for campaign finance reform compelling. Also compelling are her demands for modernizing our government institutions' technology, meaningful education reform instead of test scores chicanery, and "closing down the Wall Street casinos." But it's at the end of this great read where Ms. Huffington really got my attention with her not-so-gentle reminder that if middle-class Americans are to keep their American Dream alive, then "it's the jobs, stupid". For the past four years, during which I was first Senior Economic Policy Advisor for John Edwards and later an unofficial adviser on jobs and trade issues for Barack Obama, I have railed against the inanity of counting each month only those unemployed workers actively looking for jobs -- and leaving uncounted the millions of workers so "discouraged" that they no longer actively look for work or who've accepted, out of necessity, part-time jobs even when they want and need full-time ones. In 1947, both major Parties decided to adopt this flawed methodology because it was (and obviously remains) politically 'helpful'. Politically and statistically, this country has always cared about how many Americans are employed -- doing so lies at the heart of what we are as an economy. But in the last sixty years and especially in the last thirty years we've lost sight of how many of our fellow Americans are unemployed, which more importantly lies at the heart of our democracy and our commitment to equal opportunity. If we were focused today on all unemployed workers, we would be asking ourselves how our economy can create the 21 million jobs needed in order for the workforce to be fully employed in real terms. We would be developing jobs policies that are especially sensitive to those newly unemployed workers who will have more difficulty being re-employed: older workers, the less educated, the handicapped, African-American and Hispanic workers, and those previously employed in construction and manufacturing. In doing so we would quickly see that the root of our current jobs problems is the dogmatic free-market approach of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and the administration's other Bob Rubin acolytes, an approach which is keeping us from having an industrial and manufacturing policy, buy-domestic government procurement requirements, and fair free trade instead of the unbridled free trade we have now. It's more than illustrative that these individuals and the Obama administration decided to zero out in the FY 2011 budget request the very office within the Department of Labor that collects global economic and jobs statistics. Ms. Huffington is a committed ally of America's workers, which is why her latest book is such a critically important read. My only disappointment, and it's barely that, is that she did not add a full chapter on an issue that I know is important to her and workers everywhere, which is strengthening union representation and workers' rights, especially through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which right now is just another stalled if not broken campaign promise. When Ronald Reagan came to power in 1980, the conservative agenda which he advanced sped up the decline of unions and reversed the most progressive features of the U.S. tax system. Now fewer than a tenth of American private sector workers belong to a union, while workers in Canada and Europe, who are subjected to the same forces of globalization and technology as American workers, belong to unions in much larger numbers and are the beneficiaries of much more stable wages and benefits, especially health care.
But now I'm just picking nits. Third World America by Arianna Huffington is perceptive, eloquent and timely.

Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband.

Editorial : This writer has been saying this, for how long now ? Until TRADE is fixed, things are not going to get better !

"In Deo Fiducia Nostra"

Social Security ~ Leave it Alone ! Is Alan Simpson > NUTS ?

Simpson's 'Tits' Are the Least of It !
By Robert Kuttner

Posted: August 29, 2010

When you think about it, Alan ("Tits") Simpson is the ideal jester to deflect attention from the bigger joke -- the fiscal reform commission itself. The problem is less Simpson's dopey comments and more the idiocy of the rest of the commission.

Given what is happening to the real economy in the real world, the prospect of a double-dip recession and the prospect of a lost decade of high unemployment, the idea that the bigger menace is Social Security is just whacko. Let's recall that Social Security is in surplus until 2037! Yet the idea that the road to recovery leads though cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and other social outlays that are keeping the depression from worsening, if anything, is gaining traction among opinion elites. Exhibit A is a doubly dishonest column by the New York Times' new whiz-kid pundit, Matt Bai, who used a liberal congressman, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, as a prop to make his misleading case. According to Bai's column, Security is like a giant lottery, based on IOU's that will require a Ponzi Scheme of further debt. on the issue Now, it turns out that Bai is not just wrong, but Blumenauer doesn't believe what Bai attributed to him. In attacking the progressive coalition Strengthen Social Security, Bai wrote:
The coalition bases its case on the idea that Social Security is actually in fine fiscal shape, since it has amassed a pile of Treasury Bills -- often referred to as i.o.u.'s -- in a dedicated trust fund. This is true enough, except that the only way for the government to actually make good on these i.o.u.'s is to issue mountains of new debt or to take the money from elsewhere in the federal budget, or perhaps impose significant tax increases... So this is sort of like saying that you're rich because your friend has promised to give you 10 million bucks just as soon as he wins the lottery. But this is total malarkey. In fact, the 75-year projection of Social Security's finances shows that under fairly pessimistic assumptions about economic growth, the shortfall in Social Security's finances is just over half of one percent of GDP. Lift the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes, and the problem disappears. More importantly, get wage growth back to its historic trend of increasing as productivity increases (rather than the top getting the benefit of all the economic gains) and the problem vanishes without changing the tax code. Raise wages, and we could increase Social Security benefits. Bai not only distorted the reality of Social Security, but he also distorted Blumenauer's views, cherry picking quotes from two interviews to make it seem that the congressman favored such drastic measures promoted by deficit hawks as cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. But the quotes in the column don't say that -- only Bai's gloss on them -- and the congressman believes nothing of the sort. The trouble is that too many legislators make Delphic comments about whether Social Security should be "on the table," Bluenenauer's past vagueness gave Bai an opening, and Bai is all too representative of opinion elites -- including the Washington Post editorial page, columnists like David Broder, many Democratic as well as Republican congressmen, and some in the Obama administration. It was former Budget Director Peter Orszag, seconded by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the pollsters, who persuaded President Obama that the fiscal commission was a good idea. The theory was that the commission would give the president "cover" and demonstrate that he was fiscally responsible.
But as events have played out, this premise totally backfired. The commission provides plenty of cover all right, as in burial cloth. Its proposals could bury both the economy and this presidency. The commission has given a platform to clowns like Simpson. But worse, it has lent credibility to the idea that Social Security is somehow a drag on the economy -- creating a vicious circle of hawkish legislators and dishonest pundits like Bai feeding on each other. The reality, of course, is that if the economy (and Obama's fortunes) are going down the drain, the reason has nothing to do with Social Security's finances in 2037 -- and everything to do with slow growth, high unemployment, and the lingering effects of a damaged banking system right now. Yet the storyline being peddled by the commission, of a dire fiscal crisis, makes it politically more difficult for Obama to take the necessary steps to get a recovery going. There is a whole other path to economic recovery and fiscal balance. That other path has five parts:

•A lot more emergency federal spending now to create jobs and purchasing power.

•Increased taxes on the top two percent.


•A continued program of public investment in physical and social infrastructure


•A real public option on health insurance, to restrain medical inflation, which is the prime driver of federal deficits in the long run.


•A defense of Social Security as a key source of income for the elderly.

This strategy is better economics and better politics. Voters, by overwhelming margins, support Social Security. Over the years, Republicans have tried to tamper with it. And it is lunacy for Democrats to associate themselves with efforts to cut it. But Obama's own fiscal commission has painted the president into a corner. Virtually all of the remedies we need to get a strong recovery going are seen as fiscally too costly; and willingness to go after Social Security is being touted as the test of fiscal responsibility. The campaign to fire Simpson has the right spirit but the wrong target. Obama should draw a line in the sand and make clear that if the commissioners propose cuts in Social Security, he will consider the whole exercise tainted. Maybe we should be grateful for Simpson and his 310 million tits. If his antics lead serious commentators take a closer look at the commission, perhaps they will also look deeper into the fiscal foolishness of Simpson's colleagues.

Mr. President ~ Remove Alan Simpson from Social Security Commission

Demand That Alan Simpson Resign from Social Security Committee

Mr. President; Remove Alan Simpson...He is a Disgrace !

On Wednesday, the Alliance wrote President Obama to demand the resignation of Alan Simpson as Co-Chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Alliance President Barbara J. Easterling and Executive Director Ed Coyle wrote the White House in the wake of a growing pattern of offensive comments Simpson has been making about senior citizens, the most recent of which was an e-mail he wrote to the Executive Director of the Older Women's League, in which he said that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits." In his message, former Sen. Simpson also told the prominent aging policy leader to "call when you get honest work." Easterling and Coyle wrote that his remarks are "conduct unbecoming a person named to co-chair a presidential panel. Moreover, it is the latest in a series of derisive and inappropriate comments Mr. Simpson has made about our nation's seniors and the Social Security benefits they have earned and rely upon to make ends meet." Previously, he had referred to seniors as "greedy geezers," said that lower-income Americans are "lesser people in society," and declared that he is frustrated hearing from retirees who, "live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount." For a copy of the Alliance letter, go to > http://bit.ly/ci3x2S. <

Vote Them Out, If They Cut $ocial $ecurity...Hey, That`s Me !

Don’t Raise the Retirement Age
by Mike Hall, Aug 24, 2010

If anybody knows the ins and outs of $ocial $ecurity, it’s Henry Ballantyne. He was the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary between 1982 and 2000. Today, he told a telephone press conference that “Social Security is financially sound….We don’t need to raise the retirement age.” The press conference, held with several Social Security advocates, addressed the growing number of reports that the federal budget deficit commission is likely to recommend raising the retirement age and making other cuts when it makes its recommendations after the November elections. That post-election date is a convenient excuse for lawmakers, enabling them to dodge taking a stand to protect Social Security with the lame explanation that they are waiting to see what the commission recommends. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters that his colleagues should show some backbone and courage and take a stand now. Members of Congress should be saying we are opposed to raising retirement age, other cuts, taxes on benefits and privatization. We should state unequivocally that is something we will not support. Works for us. Also today, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) also released its “Top 10 Reasons Not to Raise the Retirement Age.” It’s not David Letterman funny, but then cutting Social Security is nothing to laugh at. Here are the top two reasons. Click here for the full list. http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/08242010_social%20security%20fact%20sheet.pdf

(1.)Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut, and benefits are already too low. The average retiree receives less than $14,000 a year from Social Security, which is less than the minimum wage.

(2.)Raising the retirement age cuts benefits for all retirees, whether they retire at age 62, age 70, or any other age—and it is a cut for retired workers’ spouses, widows and dependents as well. When the retirement age was raised from 65 to 67, it cut benefits by 13 percent for workers who retire at 65, meaning they lose, on average, $28,154 over the course of their expected retirement. Raising the retirement age further, to 70, would cut benefits another 19 percent, costing the average worker another $35,419, for a total loss of $63,573.

Editorial : Watch your Congressman/Woman and Senators closely, if they Vote to cut your Social Security, Vote them OUT ! Thanks to Mike Stanley for this one !

End of Tax Cuts for the Rich ! You Bet`cha !

Public to Lawmakers: End Tax Cuts for the Rich
by Tula Connell, Aug 20, 2010

A majority of the American public thinks Bush’s tax cuts should continue for families that make less than $250,000 a year but should rise to the previous level for those making more than that amount, according to a new CNN poll. Some 51 percent say the tax cuts, which expire at the end of this year, should end for the rich. Wise. Because as Dave Dayen points out, George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are thought to cost $830 billion over 10 years, adding massively to the nation’s budget deficit. Overall, it’s generally considered that extending all the tax cuts would increase the deficit by $3.1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is among those calling for an end to Bush’s tax cut for the rich, noting it has been a “huge windfall for the wealthy. About 40 percent of its benefits went to the tiny sliver of Americans earning over $500,000.” A final reason for allowing the Bush tax cut to expire for people at the top is the most basic of all. Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality. For many years, most of the gains of economic growth in America have been going to the top—leaving the nation’s vast middle class with a shrinking portion of total income. (In the 1970s, the top 1 percent received 8 to 9 percent of total income, but thereafter income concentrated so rapidly that by 2007 the top received 23.5 percent of the total.) The only way most Americans could continue to buy most of what they produced was by borrowing. But now that the debt bubble has burst—as it inevitably would—the underlying problem has reemerged. Extending the tax cuts for the rich would exacerbate the already massive income gap between the rich and the rest of us, and so, to end with Reich:

Why make it worse ?

Rigging The Rules Against Unions

RIGGING THE RULES AGAINST UNIONS
Monday, August 16, 2010 Posted by Jim Hightower

There's one direct, grassroots way that workaday folks can create more fairness in our country's plutocratic, corporate-controlled economy: unite in unions. Indeed, some 60 million workers say they'd join a union today if they could.

Well... why can't they ?

Because corporate chieftains and Wall Street financiers don't want us hoi polloi having any real say over such things as offshoring, downsizing, wages, benefits, and working conditions. So, for decades, they have deployed their lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians to rig the rules of unionization to keep people from joining together. For example, the Railway Labor Act, which sets union rules for railroads and airlines, has a tricky little provision to sidetrack nearly all new unionizing efforts in these industries. When a vote is taken among workers to decide whether they want a union, all employees who do not vote are counted as "no" – rather than not counted at all, as happens with non-voters in every other American election. However, the Obama administration has now repealed this absurdity, and – Whoa, Nellie! – the airlines have gone bonkers, unleashing their political partisans to howl in protest. Sen. Johnny Isakson, a well-funded attack dog for Delta Airlines, stood on his hind legs to declare that deleting non-voters from the "no" column was an "assault on employee rights."
Really Johnny ? Then how would you like playing by such rigged rules for your own elections? In his last run, 79% of eligible Georgians either voted against Isakson or did not vote – so non-voters would've soundly defeated him.
Hmmm... If it would get rid of all the Isaksons, maybe the non-voter system might be a good thing after all – which is why hypocrites like him would never be for it.
"NEARLY 60 MILLION U.S. WORKERS WOULD JOIN A UNION IF THEY COULD," http://www.aflcio.org/ , June, 2010.

Free Trade, Not So !

Congress Must Fix Trade Deficit by Addressing China Currency Manipulation
by James Parks, Aug 17, 2010

The U.S. trade deficit hit $49.9 million in June, the highest it’s been in nearly two years. But many in Congress don’t see the need to solve this dangerous imbalance by addressing the problem behind the deficit—China’s currency manipulation.
Economist Paul Krugman correctly opposes such a timid position. Today, he took issue with an editorial by the New York Times—his employer—that called for a soft approach to China. Krugman writes: My colleagues believe that we should lecture the Chinese on what a bad thing they’re doing, but not actually threaten sanctions, lest we start a trade war. My belief is that this gets us nowhere. Right now, China is following a policy that is, in effect, one of imposing high tariffs and providing large export subsidies because that’s what an undervalued currency does. That should be a violation of trade rules; it might in fact be a violation, but the language of the law is vague on the subject. Check out Krugman’s column, “Killer Trade Deficits,” here below >>>>>>>>> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/killer-trade-deficits/?scp=2&sq=paul%20krugman&st=cse .

Here’s the solution. When Congress gets back from its summer vacation, lawmakers should get down to work and pass currency legislation (H.R. 2378 in the House and S. 3134 in the Senate). Or as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said last month: At a time when our economy is more than 10 million jobs short of pre-recession unemployment levels, and when we are focused on boosting exports to create jobs, we simply cannot afford to look the other way as the Chinese government continues to manipulate its currency for an unfair trade advantage. Stan Sorscher, a labor representative for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace/IFPTE Local 2001 (SPEEA), says the crux of the problem is that our free trade policy is: A bankrupt theory with a predictable track record of failure. Writing at Huffington Post, Sorscher says the only winners in the free trade scheme are bankers, investors and large multinationals. Our trading partners have industrial policies to guide their development. If we really want to rebuild our economy, we need a national industrial policy, too, he says. Read Sorscher’s entire post, “Free Trade: Flawed Theory and Bad Policy,” here below >>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-sorscher/free-trade-flawed-theory-_b_682707.html