President Obama made history Wednesday afternoon when he signed into law legislation that guarantees healthcare for all Americans. “A struggle that began nearly one hundred years ago ends today,” said the president in a Rose Garden ceremony. “There is no doubt this is one of America’s finest hours.”
The bill’s co-sponsors were Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and, to the surprise of some, the actor Sean Penn. The Kennedy-Penn bill passed the Senate on a strict party line vote of 60-40.
The legislation calls for the immediate creation of a Healthcare Politburo, which will oversee the national healthcare system and meet in secret once a month inside a windowless concrete building shaped like Vladimir Lenin’s head. The legislation stipulates that members of the Healthcare Politburo must be either homosexual communists or Barbra Streisand. Members will be chosen by Mwai Obama, the president’s 23-year-old Muslim half-brother who deals drugs from the back of an abortion clinic in Nairobi.
Every year on Karl Marx’s birthday, Americans will be required to attend a fitness conference at the Healthcare Politburo’s headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela, where teams of rappers will curse white people and smoke crack while administering physical examinations. Afterwards, everyone will sit on the floor across from their government assigned doctor while atheists dressed as Nazis stand in between them issuing health decisions in Ebonics.
To reduce the financial burden on the American people, travel to and from Venezuela will be partially funded by a Cash For Fairytales program, whereby the federal government will give money in exchange for Holy Bibles, which will then be burned inside evangelical megachurches throughout the South. Afterwards, the ashes will be shipped to a factory outside of Moscow, where they will be mixed with the blood of Christians and then sent back and sold as refreshments at National Public Radio affiliates throughout the country. Several names have been floated as possible heads for the Cash For Fairytales program, including former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi and the rapper Bow Wow.
Proponents say the bill’s execution provision will dramatically reduce the rising cost of healthcare. It mandates that the federal government create hundreds of Death Squads which will travel throughout the country in Soviet made tanks and execute anyone 65 year of age or older, unless they can produce a union card or a dildo. The Death Squads will be made up entirely of illegal Mexican immigrants and, because of a last minute provision added to the bill by Senator Barbara Boxer of California, will be required to wear black power t-shirts and backless leather chaps.
Republicans strategists are privately admitting that in the weeks leading up to the vote they were not aggressive enough in publicizing the more controversial aspects of the legislation. “Sure, we had people at the town halls” said one GOP strategist. “But they played it way too nice and didn’t even mention the immigrant death squads or those rapper physicals. And now we’re all paying the price.”
[Salon]
Read more...
According to a survey done by dslreports Americans pay $635.85 on cell phone service, compared to $131.44 per year in the Netherlands or $137.94 per year in Sweden.
The study highlights how prices have decreased 21% for low-usage (360 calls per year, 390 SMS, 8 MMS) consumers, 28% for medium usage, and by about 32% for high usage (1680 calls per year, 660 SMS)consumers. Still, a medium use customer in the United States (780 calls per year, 600 SMS, and eight MMS) pays $53 a month for service, compared to $11 a month for service in the Netherlands.Are all of those high cellphone service payment it America bad indicator? The more business to do the more we have to pay so there is no embarrassment with this high bill. I guess the payment will increase more than this next year since now Sprint is trying to increase its wireless network around the country.
Read more...
1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans--whether employer plans or individual plans--would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan "upgrades" will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a "public option" is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector "competitors" out of business sooner or later.
4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. ... If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well." Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don't buy government-approved health plans.
6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business ownerswho are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America's top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions?Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn't explicitly exclude "abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan" or any bill that allows a federal health board to "recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package." Currently, these provisions do not exist.
9. It's Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.
10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We've been down this road before--with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours--without reading it--or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it's pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.
Read more...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Some Democrats are increasingly concerned about President Obama's $787 billion financial fix for the ailing economy, and are demanding greater transparency on further spending.
With the White House seemingly comparing the nation's economy to a house on fire, some congressional Democrats are asking, where's the fire truck?
One New Hampshire congresswoman said as much to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Capitol Hill recently.
"I said, hurry, please hurry, because people are waiting and they are hurting, and they need the help now," Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-New Hampshire, said.
She's one of a growing number of nervous Democrats on edge or at odds with some of the Obama's administration's plans on the economy. Some are taking aim at the president's budget proposals that would curb popular tax deductions for wealthier Americans.
"I don't think ultimately the criticism is surprising. That certainly happens and is all part of the process," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
As a nod to moderate concerns, Obama took steps to make his budget more transparent. He included items former President George W. Bush passed separately in recent years to obscure the true operating cost of the government, such as the money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an annual multibillion-dollar fix of the fees Medicare pays physicians and Alternative Minimum Tax relief for the middle class.
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, who along with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman is one of the so-called Gang of 15 -- a coalition of moderate Democratic senators -- says it's all about the messaging.
"Like getting health care costs under control is important to the economy and getting the deficit down," he said. "Sustainable sources of energy at reasonable prices is also important to the economy. Dealing with the financial crisis is obviously important to the economy."
Bayh added: "So what needs to be done is, Obama's got to move on all these fronts but also integrate them back to the same theme of always strengthening the economy, getting people to work, growing businesses, improving our standard of living." Video Watch more of Obama's solutions for the economy »
Rep. John Tanner, D-Tennessee, is a member of the "Blue Dog" group of 47 fiscally conservative Democrats in the House -- six of whom voted against Obama's stimulus plan. He said Obama at least is being honest about the dire condition of the economy.
"At least the budget that the Obama administration presented, even though it's huge and it's a huge deficit -- and that enables the other team to beat up on it -- the truth is that it's honest and truthful," he said.
Democratic media consultant Steve Murphy, who represents several moderate Democrats, said that Blue Dogs are all "deficit hawks," so they're "nervous about spending."
"They're against giving more money to the banks without any accountability, they want to zero in on wasteful spending and they strongly believe the shrinking deficit and eventual balanced budget was the underpinning of our economic success in the '90's," he said.
Murphy added that these Democrats do, however, realize that more money is going to be needed.
"So I expect them to be about greater accountability and fairness for the taxpayer. They won't join [GOP House Minority Whip Eric] Cantor's 'Hell No' chorus."
And that is something resonating with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said top economists told her a second stimulus package may be necessary.
"You have to keep the door open to see how this goes," she said.
House Democrats, CNN has learned, heard that message in a meeting with top economists, who predicted the president's stimulus plan will fall short of saving or creating three to four million jobs, as he promised.
"Over the first two years about 2 1/2 million jobs saved and created," said economist Allen Sinai. "A little less than the administration and perhaps Speaker Pelosi has said ... the jobs created may be a little disappointing."
Sinai said that over time, the economy may produce the jobs president Obama promised, but that people should try to be patient.
But budget hawks in the party don't like the sound of that.
"I mean, if we were to take a vote this afternoon, the stimulus package would probably fail," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota. "If they want substantial, more public funds committed, they're going to have to go out there and explain precisely how this is going to work."
Shea-Porter said she's simply on the message she's getting at town meetings back home, a message that's also aimed at some in the media.
"It's terrifying people. Before, people were very optimistic and the leaders were optimistic. Then we hit a spell here where we're hearing a lot of media ... people who are frightening without necessarily giving both sides," she added.
For now, the White House says it has no plans for another stimulus, arguing its plan needs time to work.
Read more...
Features: News
by worldnetdaily
President Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate – and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all.
"This isn't like a convenient oversight. This is intentional. This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold religious beliefs," Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today.
His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.
The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: "PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."
The wording that specifically targets religious speech already has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House – all GOP members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep the provision targeting religious instruction and activities.
Read more...
Features: News by nytimes
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.
Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plan to announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday morning at the White House.
The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.
Executives at companies that have already received money from the Treasury Department would not have to make any changes. But analysts and administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses, largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have already received federal money may well be coming back.
Crucial details remained unclear on Tuesday night, including whether the restrictions would apply to all companies that receive money under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, or whether they would apply only to the “exceptional” companies that were being rescued from collapse.
Under the Treasury’s $700 billion rescue program, most companies that have received money so far have been considered “healthy” rather than on the brink of collapse.
But five of the biggest companies to get help — Citigroup, Bank of America and the American International Group, General Motors and Chrysler — were all facing acute problems. And top executives at those companies made far more than $500,000 in recent years.
Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, took home more than $20 million in 2007. Of that, $5.75 million was in salary and bonuses.
Vikram Pandit, who became chief executive of Citigroup in December of 2007 and previously held other senior positions at the bank, made $3.1 million.
Richard Wagoner, the chief executive of General Motors, made $14.4 million, much of it in stock, options and other non-cash benefits. He earned a $1.6 million salary.
“That is pretty draconian — $500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if there is no bonus,” said James F. Reda, founder and managing director of James F. Reda & Associates, a compensation consulting firm. “And you know these companies that are in trouble are not going to pay much of an annual dividend.”
Mr. Reda said only a handful of big companies pay chief executives and other senior executives $500,000 or less in total compensation. He said such limits will make it hard for the companies to recruit and keep executives, most of whom could earn more money at other firms.
“It would be really tough to get people to staff” companies that are forced to impose these limits, he said. “I don’t think this will work.”
President Obama last week branded Wall Street bankers “shameful” for giving themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation’s most prominent financial institutions.
“If the taxpayers are helping you, then you have certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday, in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”
Mr. Obama’s new rules are coming just as he is expected to ask for additional sums of money, beyond the $700 billion already authorized, to prop up the financial system, even as he pushes Congress to move quickly on a separate economic stimulus package that could cost taxpayers as much as $900 billion.
If the new pay limit applies to all companies that receive Treasury money, it would be almost as tough as a $400,000 limit proposed last week by Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.
Senator McCaskill, reacting to reports of extravagant perks and bonuses at companies like Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, had blasted Wall Street executives as “a bunch of idiots” who were “kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer.”
The banks that have received bailout funds already are subject to limits on compensation, but the Bush administration intentionally left them lax. The top five executives at banks that get an equity infusion from the government are restricted from offering golden parachutes, as rich severance packages are called, and any compensation above $500,000 is not tax deductible to the company.
Companies that received emergency money, like Citigroup, faced somewhat tougher restrictions, including a requirement to reduce the bonus pool for the top 50 executives by 40 percent. But even those restrictions come nowhere near the $500,000 cap.
In a letter to Congress last month, Lawrence H. Summers, director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council, suggested that the new pay restrictions would apply to all companies that get Federal help.
Without mentioning a particular dollar limit, Mr. Summers wrote that “executive compensation above a specified threshold amount be paid in restricted stock or similar form that cannot be liquidated or sold until the government has been repaid.”
Eric Dash contributed reporting.
Read more...
Resulting Funding Gap Could Be "Final Stake in the Heart" Of U.S. Defined Benefit Pensions
Thursday, January 29, 2009 Stamford, CT USA — U.S. pension funds are projecting sharply reduced investment returns from major asset classes through 2013, according to new research from Greenwich Associates.
Every year, Greenwich Associates asks more than 1,000 U.S. institutions to disclose the annual rates of return they are expecting on individual asset classes for the next five years. Overall, corporate pension funds interviewed from July to October 2008 said they had reduced investment returns on plan assets to an annual 7.4% in 2008 from 8.2% in 2007 and public funds cut overall portfolio return expectations to 7.6% from 8.5%.
"U.S. pension funds are not expecting a quick recovery in investment markets," says Greenwich Associates consultant William Wechsler. "To the contrary, they are planning for a slow-growth environment for asset valuations that they expect to continue for the next five years."
Pension funds have dramatically reduced return expectations for U.S. equities, with projections for annual rates of return dropping to 7.8% in 2008 from 8.6% in 2007 among corporate plans and to 7.9% from 9.1% among public plans. Both groups also cut return expectations on fixed income, with public plans reducing annual expectations to 5.0% from 5.8% and corporate plans reducing expected returns to 5.2% from 5.6%. Pension funds also reported substantial reductions in expected returns on international equity, equity real estate, private equity and hedge funds.
Both groups expected private equity to generate the highest returns of any asset class over the next five years, with public funds projecting an annual 11.3% return from their private equity investments and corporate funds expecting 10.1%. "It is important to remember the extent to which markets have deteriorated since these interviews were completed in September," says Greenwich Associates consultant Dev Clifford. "If anything, these expectations for private equity and other asset classes might prove overly optimistic."
A Stake in the Heart of Corporate Defined Benefit Pensions?
Declines in investment returns have produced a gap between pension funds' actuarial earnings rate and their actual expectations for returns on plan assets. The average actuarial earnings rate reported by corporate pension plans increased modestly to 8.3% in 2008 from 8.2% in 2007 despite the decline in expected returns for all asset classes. The discrepancy results in an expected gap of 90 basis points. Although the average actuarial rate for public plans declined to 8.0% in 2008 from 8.2%, the bigger drop in expected investment returns has produced a gap of 40 basis points.
"These gaps can only be made up in one of two ways: through higher investment returns or new contributions," says Greenwich Associates consultant Chris McNickle. "At the present moment, neither option seems particularly likely. So we are facing a growing problem."
The results of the annual Greenwich Associates study suggest that institutions believe a low return environment will persist for some time to come. Meanwhile, companies, states, municipalities and other plan sponsors are facing severe resource constraints. Rather than being in a position to increase contributions, many plan sponsors are reducing or delaying contributions as part of actions that will save them money in the short term, but these actions could serve to increase pension funding shortfalls over the long term. Some will be at risk of violating regulatory requirements, and in the current environment may seek relief from the government.
"We might look back at this crisis as being the final stake in the heart of corporate defined benefit pension plans in the United States," says William Wechsler. "Recent volatility in pension asset valuations is bringing home the risks these plans can pose to the bottom line, and unfortunately closing plans to new employees is a relatively easy way for companies to reduce pension costs."
Read more...
