For the jobless, the Great recession continues
According to The New York Times of October 30, "The nation's gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the quarter that ended in September, matching its average growth rate of the last 80 years." I'm no economist, but that tells me we are no longer in a recession, even if some of that is attributable to the government's huge spending in that period. The nation doesn't feel secure, however, and the reason is obvious. Our unemployment rate is currently at 9.8 percent. If you count the unemployed people who are no longer looking for jobs, the actual rate is much higher. During my mayoralty, particularly the earlier years, I would often say to my critics who wanted government to do more, that if a person had a job, that individual could handle most other problems without government help. I still believe that to be true. That is why it is disappointing that the federal government has not, as it did in the 30s under FDR, come up with job programs like the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). I am not suggesting make-work programs. I am proposing much-needed programs to deal with the nation's crumbling infrastructure such as its bridges, roads and power grid. Again, I am not an expert, but I constantly read of the deteriorating quality of our drinking water, a problem that needs attention and funding. Also, why don't we have bullet trains like Japan and France, capable of speeds of 200 miles an hour? I could go on and on, but by now it is clear that much work needs to be done to strengthen our nation for the decades ahead. We've been told by economists that there is always a lag, sometimes lasting years, between economic recovery indicators like increases in the gross domestic product and the reduction in unemployment. But that doesn't have to be the case. We need to stand up and shout 'No'
We still don't have full liquidity. Even worse, many of the firms securing TARP funds did not fulfill their mission as lenders. Instead, they used TARP funds for investment purposes and became even richer than they were before the debacle they were responsible for. Graham Bowley of The New York Times summed it all up in his article of October 17, 2009. He wrote:
Financial institutions are making huge profits as a result of having been saved by the taxpayers and TARP monies, and not having used those monies for lending purposes. They also know that our government still believes in the two axioms: "too big to fail" and "too big to jail." No money for a hospital?
I see no difference between the lack of concern displayed by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to the plight of the residents of New Orleans. George Bush flew over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and was photographed looking down at it. Barack Obama visited the city for four hours on his way to a fundraiser in San Francisco. A person in the audience at a New Orleans town hall meeting asked the president for help in securing funds for the remaining hospital so that it could handle all situations. His reply, that he could not write a check to pay for expanded services to the city, might be technically correct. However, there are many things the president could do to enable the hospital and its staff to provide a full panoply of services. For example, if President Obama could enlist the assistance of Acting Deputy Surgeon General, Rear Admiral Robert Williams, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Thomas Frieden, and the Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, I have no doubt that they, together with local and national officials, could come up with a plan to make the hospital a full-service facility, and obtain funding from FEMA or Congress. Obama's staff took him to New Orleans without first finding out what the city needed and what he could bring. The president's staff should pay for their incompetence in New Orleans with their jobs. Lecturing the crowd in New Orleans on the US Constitution preventing him from "writing a check," sounded like the equivalent of George W. Bush's foolish statement: "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." When will President Obama fulfill our expectations? Too big to jail
On October 12, the insurance companies released a report they had commissioned on the impact of the Baucus Senate bill expanding health coverage, which will be voted on today, October 13. According to The New York Times, the report, prepared by Price-Waterhouse Coopers, states that "premiums would climb sharply with the passage of comprehensive health legislation." The report also stated that "selected provisions of a bill from the Senate Finance Committee could increase premiums 18 percent more than they would otherwise rise in the next decade, to an average of nearly $26,000 for families and $9,700 for individuals in 2019." Under the Baucus bill, the insurance companies retain control over the premiums they charge customers, except that they may not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Take the insurance companies at their word. They will raise those premiums by those amounts. They have given Congress the best reason to include in the legislation a government option to compete with them. Such an option should have to compete fairly with no additional government subsidies or funding not provided to private sector insurance companies. The government option's ability to compete and provide lower prices would be dependent on its elimination of the profit now included by the insurance companies, which would undoubtedly increase with the addition of millions of additional customers after new universal health coverage legislation takes effect. The ongoing battle against amnesty
In an editorial published on September 22, The New York Times renewed its opposition to the construction of a fence to deter illegal crossings from Mexico to the United States. The Times speculates that the current decline in border arrests "could be because of the bad economy as much as the fence." It's probably right. What I object to is the Times' insistence that a better solution to the problem of illegal immigration is "for Congress to reform the nation's immigration laws. No fence can keep a determined immigrant out or absolve Congress of that responsibility." What the Times means by "reforming our immigration laws" is providing amnesty and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now living in the US. The Times refuses to use the term "illegal aliens" when referring to people crossing our borders without permission. Instead, it calls them "immigrants," or "migrants." If people entered The New York Times building without permission and squatted there, would the Times call them migrants? Or would it call them trespassers and have them evicted? I believe that the next legislative battle will be over amnesty and "a path to citizenship." Regrettably, President Obama and Senator John McCain stand shoulder to shoulder in support of such amnesty. I oppose the granting of amnesty except in cases demanding a compassionate response, e.g., children who are American citizens and whose parents are illegals. My solution to illegal immigration is prison for American employers who knowingly hire illegals. I do not support jailing the aliens, but would support paying their transportation costs back to their homelands. If their own countries want to give them preference in applying for US citizenship and allow them to jump ahead of those who have patiently waited in line, I would try in some way to accommodate that action. I doubt that will occur. No quid pro quo for scrapping European missile defense shield?
President Barack Obama lost a golden opportunity last week and exhibited surprising naiveté in foreign affairs when he unilaterally agreed to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. The president decided to undo the actions of former president George W. Bush, who had continued president Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" concept by placing a radar station in the Czech Republic and an anti-ballistic missile site in Poland, all on the borders of Russia. The response of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev to Bush's strategic move was to threaten retaliation by having Russian ballistic missiles aimed at NATO countries. The US claimed that the two installations were defensive only, and were intended to shoot down nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe, Israel and America by Iran, North Korea, or terrorists. The Russians, of course, scoffed at Bush's explanation. Remember how the US under president John Kennedy reacted when the Soviet Union, then headed by Nikita Khrushchev, placed ballistic missiles in Cuba? We threatened war if they were not removed. We also imposed a blockade preventing Soviet ships from entering Cuban waters without first being searched for nuclear missiles. A third world war involving the US and the Soviet Union was avoided when the Soviet Union agreed to withdraw all of its nuclear ballistic missiles from Cuba and the US agreed to withdraw its ballistic missiles from NATO member Turkey. President Obama should have secured a similar quid pro quo from Russia before he terminated the planned missile defense program in Eastern Europe. What do we need from Russia? We want Russia to use its influence with Iran to end Iran's research and development of nuclear weapons. If Iran declines to stop its nuclear weapons program, we want Russia's support for greater sanctions in a resolution to be voted on at the United Nations Security Council. Russia has publicly stated it will oppose such a resolution. The leverage that Obama might have had with Russia was lost when he unilaterally gave Russia what it wanted. To Obama: Don't get trapped in Afghanistan - let's get out now
President Obama did an excellent job, in both delivery and substance, when he addressed a joint session of Congress last week. As I listened to him, I was reminded of my own days in Congress. Before I left Congress in 1977 to serve as Mayor of New York City, I attended similar addresses of Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I sat in the House of Representatives Chamber thinking how lucky I was to live in such a great country and to have been given the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens in Congress. I recall when President Johnson appeared in that Chamber in January 1969 after President Nixon had been elected but before he took office. As Johnson entered the Chamber and walked down the aisle past me, I reached over and patted him on the shoulder. Although he was unaware of my touch, I said to myself, "I forgive you." I was referring to the Vietnam War, the results of which caused him not to run for reelection. President Johnson had hugely increased the number of American soldiers sent to South Vietnam. I believe he ultimately poured in more than 50,000 combat troops. His enormous good works and reputation, as a result of his civil rights legislative record and "Great Society" initiatives, were lost as he became responsible in the public's collective conscience for the war and was blamed for the casualties, deaths and billions of dollars spent to prop up a corrupt Vietnamese government in an ongoing civil war. The United States was ultimately required to pull out in a publicly humiliating way. As the North Vietnam troops were entering Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Min City, we ferried American military and civilians, as well as Vietnamese civilians, by helicopter from the roof of our embassy in Saigon to our Navy ships offshore. Many people, myself included, do not believe we can win the war in Afghanistan. The British and the Russians gave up on Afghanistan, as probably did Alexander the Great of ancient Macedonia. Even if we were to win, what would we have won? Unconscionable greed and Obama's betrayal
A $2.3 billion fine was recently levied against the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for a health care fraud. The settlement with Pfizer, the largest ever imposed, was announced at a press conference by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services. The New York Times reported that Pfizer "had illegally marketed its now-withdrawn painkiller, Bextra," and that the company was turned in by "six whistle-blowers [who] will collect $102 million from the federal share of the settlement, and more from states' shares." The Times also reported that "the government charged that executives and sales representatives throughout Pfizer's ranks planned and executed schemes to illegally market not only Bextra but also Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, which treats nerve pain. While the government said the fine was a record sum, the $2.3b. fine amounts to less than three weeks of Pfizer's sales." By way of background, the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) approved the sale of Bextra in 2001 to treat arthritis and menstrual cramps. The Times in its article pointed out that "the drug was not approved for the treatment of acute pain, nor was it shown to be any more powerful than ibuprofen. But Pfizer instructed its sale representatives to tell doctors that the drug could be used to treat acute and surgical pain and at doses well above those approved, even though the drug's dangers - which included kidney, skin and heart risks - increased with the dose, the government charged. The drug was withdrawn in 2005 because of its risks to the heart and skin." While doctors can legally prescribe any F.D.A.-approved drug for any purpose, notwithstanding the drug's F.D.A. approval was for a specific treatment, drug companies are not allowed to urge its use for any purpose other than prescribed by the F.D.A. While the Times does not mention it, I believe I heard a television commentator state that Pfizer specifically asked the F.D.A. for permission to advocate the use of Bextra for other purposes. The F.D.A. rejected that request, which makes the alleged actions even more horrible. The Times quotes one of the whistle-blowers as saying, "The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn't sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player." Criminal aliens should be deported immediately
I have a proposal which I hope the Obama administration will consider and implement. Immediately, or as soon as possible, the United States should deport all illegal aliens now in our federal, state and municipal prisons to their countries of origin. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the number of illegal aliens incarcerated in the United States. The report stated:
The GAO reported that the number of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prison on December 27, 2003 was 46,063, and the number in state prisons and local jails was 262,105. According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Today, criminal aliens account for about 30 percent of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25 percent in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons [annually]." The insurance and drug industries must be defeated
Carthago delenda est are words I recall from my days as a student at South Side High School in Newark, New Jersey, now called Malcolm X Shabazz High. I attended South Side High from 1937 to 1941, and in those days its core curriculum required the study of Latin. We learned that every day in the Roman Senate, Cato the Elder rose from his seat to say to his colleagues, Carthago delenda est - Carthage must be destroyed. In fact, it ultimately was destroyed by the Romans and its very earth salted so that nothing would ever live there. I believe that to this day, Carthage is a ruin. We Americans are facing in the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries a threat at least as powerful and destructive to our medical safety and security as Rome faced with regard to its territorial security in those ancient days. We need a Cato the Elder in each House of Congress to stand up every day and sound the alarm and to challenge his and her colleagues with the battle cry, "Citizens, gird your loins and prepare for battle; the insurance and drug industries must be defeated." |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (3)
