Thoughts of an Average Woman

It's Turning Into A Class Struggle

I read recenttly, in either a blog, or opinion piece, that the GDP does not reflect the econmic hardship of the majority of people in this country. And, there is no arguing that. Everyone I know does not see the so-called rosy eonomy. Couple that with the staggaring increases in CEO pay (including perks, benefits) and the average workers pay, and we see a huge gap. Worse yet, our Congresscritters have largely ignored the reality on the ground. I would say that this is a big contributing factor to the changes American's voted on last week.

When I read this, I was greatly surprised, and pleased, all at the same time. Sen-elect Jim Webb absolutely nails the problems on the head.

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

This is a must read. The whole piece is so right-on, that I really didn't know what parts to copy/paste here for a teaser. What do you think?

2 Census Oficials Resigned, Who Will Be Nominated?

The top 2 Census officials have resigned.

The two highest-ranking officials in the U.S. Census Bureau quit yesterday, putting management of the agency in flux as preparations for the next census enter a critical phase.

The departures of Census Bureau chief C. Louis Kincannon, a statistician appointed by President Bush to lead the agency in 2002, and Hermann Habermann, a career statistician who runs the census operation, could complicate a revision of the counting process in 2010 -- to produce a detailed picture of the U.S. population every year, rather than once a decade.

Interesting how Kincannon uses "family" as his official reason, but in an interview, we find soemthing else.

Kincannon officially cited family responsibilities for his departure. But in an interview he mentioned "different views perhaps about priorities" at the agency.

"My perception is that I don't have the same level of trust that I did a year or so ago," said Kincannon, who began his career at the agency in 1963. "The relationship has changed, and that relationship I regard as essential." There was no official reason given for Habermann's departure and no letter was released. Habermann could not be reached to comment.

Trust. Or should we be looking at Kincannon and Habermann's possibly not wanting to further a specific agenda? (or how involved they wanted to be in furthering a specific agenda)

One person with knowledge of the situation suggested that the two officials -- especially Habermann, a career employee -- were targeted by Republicans who would want to install an official who could better protect against Democratic congressional efforts to reinvigorate adjustment efforts -- a move some think could favor Democrats.

Even though Kincannon defends himself against such a charge, yet, GOP gerrymandering was much on the minds of people and the two major parties during the last few years. And just last week, as Time puts it, GOP gerrymandering didn't help.

Based on the WaPo article, we need to watch closely who will be nominated by Bush to replace Kincannon.

Technorati Tags: C. Louis Kincannon, Census Bureau, GOP, gerrymandering

Posted by CE Petro in Government | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Opening the Curtain

Today's NYTimes editorial attacks the weak and nonsensical arguments the Bush administration has used to keep documentation away from the American people. Secret prisons and super duper secret inhumane interrogation techniques. As this NYTimes editorial states, Bush himself, in defending his violations and sidestepping of laws, both international and national, has given progressives that truly want a transparent government, the thread to pull.

But when Mr. Bush announced that he was sending the 14 prisoners to Guantánamo for trial, he effectively confirmed the existence of the secret C.I.A. prisons. Later, in the debate over the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Mr. Bush said that Congress had to absolve C.I.A. agents of any legal responsibility for their actions so he could order them to go on interrogating prisoners.

That was a major blow to the C.I.A.’s legal strategy. After all, if the president could talk about the prisons and interrogations to suit his political interests, why couldn’t they be discussed in court?

The Justice Department quietly reversed field after Mr. Bush’s announcement, and it informed the A.C.L.U. in a letter last week that two of the documents the group has been seeking do, in fact, exist — although it is still refusing to release them.

The end of the month is coming up fast. How will the DOJ spin national security this time? And, as the editorial points out, Bush & Co. have abused the courts good nature in matters relating to national security. So, will the courts stand up to the Bush administration and demand reasoning that is not cloaked in secrecy?

Tsunami Watch

CNN is reporting a Tsunami is expected to hit northern Japan.

Other areas being watched for the tsunami warning, Russia, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Stay safe out there.

Red Meat or Hormone-Fed Cattle Contributing to Breast Cancer Rates?

The big news this morning was the study that found a link between women eating red meat and breast cancer rates. Since I really wanted to address this in depth, I had to wait until this evening to post my thoughts. The study finds:

The study of more than 90,000 women found that the more red meat the women consumed in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the greater their risk for developing breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat had nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently.

[...]When the researchers analyzed the data from 1991 to 2003, they found no overall link between red meat consumption and an increased risk of breast cancer. But when they examined the data from only the 512 women who developed the type of breast cancer whose growth is fueled by the hormones estrogen and progesterone, they found an association.

The important information is found in this paragraph:

Why red meat might increase the risk for breast cancer remains unknown, but previous research has suggested several possible reasons: Substances produced by cooking meat may be carcinogenic, naturally occurring substances in meat may mimic the action of hormones, or growth hormones that farmers feed cows could fuel breast cancer in women who consume meat from the animals.

I am astounded at the offhandedness of this, and the lack of knowledge in this area. The whole growth hormone, meaning natural and synthetic hormones, used in feed as well as having been injected directly into cattle has been a longstanding fight, for more than a decade.

Samuel S. Epstein, MD has not only written against this practice, but has researched the results of ingesting meat that has been injected with natural and/or synthetic hormones. He also testified before the WTO in support of the EU ban against importing hormone infested cattle, to which the WTO ruled in favor of the EU's ban. During his testimony to the WTO (1997), found in his book, The Politics of Cancer Revisited, page 588, he states:

Based on a review of the scientific literature, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Freedom of Information Summaries, other U.S. Government reports, and FAO/WHO reports, I conclude that the use of natural and synthetic anabolics in meat production poses serious carcinogenic and other hazards to consumers, with particular reference to breast and other reproductive cancers.

Epstein then goes on to explain the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic anabolics, at point 3, he describes the residues left in the meat, and the regulatory administration and subsequent testing for residues by FSIS. The "data collected" from FSIS in 1993 was non-existent for anabolics. In other words, the USDA wasn't looking for residues of anabolics. At which point, Epstein describes, in detail, how much residue is found of specific anabolics, in the kidney, liver, muscle and fat after 15 days. His findings were far above what the FDA tells us.

The following month, the LATimes published an editorial by Epstein on this subject and his testimony.

The FDA's claims of safety were endorsed by a 1987 report of two U.N. bodies, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, an endorsement that is the main basis of the U.S. and Canadian action against Europe. The joint committee that prepared the report, however, has minimal expertise in public health and high representation of veterinary scientists and senior FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials. Relying heavily on unpublished industry information and outdated scientific citations, the committee claimed that hormone residues in legally implanted cattle are so low that eating treated meat could not possibly induce any hormonal or carcinogenic effects.

However, confidential industry reports to the FDA, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal high hormone residues in meat products even under ideal test conditions. Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estradiol and progesterone, estradiol levels in different meat products were up to 20-fold higher than normal. The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, based on conservative assumptions, because young children have very low natural hormone levels.

And here it is, the year 2006, nearly a decade after Epstein's testimony to the WTO, and we're told "red meat might be linked" to breast cancer???? Color me fucking stupid for researching my disease in the first damn place, which apparently the people looking at diet in this study repoted by the WaPo didn't really do at all. Granted, Epstein and others did their research backwards -- starting with the known carinogens and studied their effects on the human (and animal) bodies from this study, which perhaps can be why they came up with the overly broad "red meat might be linked to bc.

Now, Epstein is not the only one that has tried to alert us against additives in our foods, as well as the whole cancer culture. There are many, many carcinogens we encounter during our days. Addressing the environmental aspects is key to lowering the incidence rates, and that includes the anabolics, natural and synthetic, added to our meats, and yes, folks, our cosmetics. They're found in our carpets, in plastics, what stuffs our furniture, the disinfectants that we use to clean our homes.

The while red meat might be linked to breast cancer is overly broad, and wholely neglects the "additives" (my turn to use an overbroad term), which have been addresssed for years, yet the powers that be (FDA, USDA, the biotech industry) want ignored, so they push it under the rug.

Tonight, I'm just really sad that a study which had the potential to address a really serious issue, that largely goes under the radar, was put forth in an overly broad way. This will get pushed aside, along with so many other links to breast cancer the media chooses to discuss. If the media truly cared about ingesting red meat and the link to BC, perhaps they will turn to BCA/BCF State of the Evidence report and start discussing the carcinogens we ingest, absorb, or breathe on a daily basis.

NYTimes Falls For Big PhRMA Lie

This morning's NY Times editorial tries to eviscerate Michael O. Leavitt, and his "I don't want the power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare" asinine stance, but falls into the big PhRMA's elaborate lie.

Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, says he does not want the power to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, but Democrats should give it to him anyway.

The Democrats have pledged to move on the issue as soon as they take control of Congress. If they succeed, it would allow an important test of the hypothesis that government negotiators can wring lower prices from the manufacturers than those obtained by the private drug plans and pharmaceutical benefit managers that currently negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

The 2003 Medicare drug law — written by a Republican-dominated Congress in thrall to big drug company contributors — explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating drug prices or establishing a list of preferred drugs.

The Democrats are only beginning to explore what they want the government to do. Some advocates want the government to mandate hefty discounts for all Medicare drug purchases — an approach that some experts fear could deprive the industry of revenues needed to develop new drugs. Others would have officials step in only when private plans prove inept or when there is no alternative to a high-priced drug.


Let's get something perfectly straight. The US is one of only a very few countries that does not put a cap on what pharmaceuticals can charge consumers. And, in the US,many of the "new drugs" are not "new and innovative drugs to combat Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or diseases that are more common like diabetes. The majority of drugs that come to market are "me to" drugs -- a "new" version of Claritin became Clarinex, for example. This allowed Shering-Plough to extend their exclusivity on the patent, charging consumers far more than what the drug s actually worth. We also have the pattern of bringing to market drugs that will greatly effect the companies bottom line over drugs that will greatly effect the populous.

Which leads me to the bigger lie. Revenues needed to develop new drugs. Watch the business section for a period of time. Note how many small biotechnology companies are bought up by big pharmaceuticals. That's one way pharmaceuticals "develop" new medicines. But, lie goes deeper than that. Your taxes pay for many medical-teaching schools, and the CDC, among other's, to develop new meds for diseases. The pharmaceuticals then make deals to "buy" the patent, charge consumers gobs and gobs of money, for a med that you originally paid for, and then pays the school a pittance for the rights.

This is not new news. This is information that gets swept under the rug, time and time again. this is information that has been watched and documented. Marcia Angell, MD discusses this in depth, in her book, The Truth About the Drug Companies. It's very interesting, reading the role pharmaceuticals say they play in drug development, which, for the most part, they don't have a role, until the most costly and time consuming areas of drug development are over.

So, while I applaud the editors of the NYTimes for standing up for the people, and let Congress know they should not back down to the weasel Leavitt, these same editors need to open their eyes to the other problems in the pharmaceutical industry.

ed. fixed spelling

Rumsfeld May Benefit From Your Deliruim, Hallucinations and Other Unusul Psychiatric Behavior

If you've had the Tamiflu shot, please be advised you doctor should monitor you closely. This coming from the FDA.

Patients who take Tamiflu should be closely monitored for signs of abnormal behavior, health officials said Monday in announcing an updated label for the flu drug.

If you think the FDA is being overly cautious, take note of this (emphasis mine):

The added precaution comes after reports of more than 100 new cases of delirium, hallucinations and other unusual psychiatric behavior in children treated with the drug. Most were Japanese children.

There were problems prior to this, as the FDA had approved this wording in the old labels:

The previous FDA-approved label mentioned "seizure and confusion" seen in some patients.

What I find to be important about this, is how the FDA and health officials are tip toeing around dissuading people from using this drug.

Health officials have been sensitive about taking any action that might dissuade people from taking Tamiflu, since the drug could play an important role in an outbreak of bird flu. The drug doesn't prevent flu but can reduce the length and severity of its symptoms.

If I remember correctly, Tamiflu only had a 50% rate of doing what it was supposed to do. Not terrific odds. And nearly 1 year ago, the corporate shills in Congress were telling us to "just trust" that this vaccine will combat the avian flu pandemic, that after hundreds of children had died from the vaccine.

But instead of finding out why there is a link between Tamiflu and "delirium, hallucinations and other unusual psychiatric behavior," Roche and the FDA are blaming....the flu. I'm not going to argue that the flu won't cause some people to have these symptoms. But, if Tamiflu is supposed to lessen the symptoms of the flu, then it's obviously not working, which, I believe bring us back to Tamiflu working only 50% of the time, and just who benefits from the use of Tamiflu.

If we look at that, it is recently out of a job, Donald Rumsfeld. Did Donny even divest himself of this stock?

So, is the FDA pussyfooting around so that Donny will make a pretty penny, at your expense? And why isn't the FDA pushing Roche to find out what the connection is between this unusual psychiatric behavior and it's drug, instead of relying on excuses.

Continuing the GOP Culture of Corruption

The RNC looks as if they have decided to continue down the road of the Culture of Corrupton and pick Sen. Mel Martinez,

Martinez' top three scandals: PBS&J, connected to Abramoff & Ney, and an FEC audit.

via TPM.

Hoping for the Return of Rubinomics

WaPo columnist Sebastian Mallaby touts Rubinomics, and hopes for a return. Arguably, Rubinomics could possibly help, on paper, but will it truly help workers in the reality? While the Hamilton Project is "ready to acknowledge American's are hurting" forced saving does not address the rising costs these same people have seen during the last 5 years.

Their first prescription is to encourage workers to save for themselves. A simple reform -- requiring companies to make enrollment in a retirement plan the default option -- would greatly boost savings, since many workers currently don't enroll not because they don't want to but because they don't get around to it: One series of experiments found that making participation the default boosted coverage for newly recruited low-income workers from 13 percent to 80 percent. A recent law facilitated automatic enrollment in 401(k) accounts but did not require it; and the law did nothing for the more than 70 million workers at companies that don't offer pension plans but that could nonetheless enroll workers in IRAs.

Housing, health care, gas prices (that jumped the day after the election, which I believes gives some credence to Woodward's assertion of the Bush-Bandar deal), cost of food, utilities, in short the basics needed to survive, just have not allowed low-wage workers the opportunity to save. Just looking at the cost of basics versus earnings, low-wage and low-middle-wage workers start off at a deficit in a worse case scenario, and at best, they break even living paycheck to paycheck. What exactly should these people cut out of their budget in order to save? Perhaps their housing? Or maybe their gas to get to and from work? (yes, I'm being snarky)

This is not to say that I am against saving. What I am against, is pushing policy, or a portion of policy, that does not look at the reality low-wage workers face daily, what they can and can't afford. The incentives, as laid out by Mallaby, may help some, but I'm sure there is a better way. Economic centrism is not the only prescription to help low-and middle-wage workers.

This does not even begin to address Mallaby's myopic view of dems on economic issues. Just because the news focused on Walmart's negligible pay scale, does not mean this is their only dog-fight. And let's face it, that so many companies have outsourced jobs, or moved their operations to countries with cheap labor, is a very real issue that has not only attacked workers, it has been to our economic detriment. Nevertheless, Mallaby refuses to notice that these are not the only economic issues, these issues were, and are, severely hurting employees.

A cursory review of the Brookings paper, that Mallaby links to, alludes to putting much of the responsibility onto the market. As has been thoroughly outlined, the market has failed the people miserably under the MMA (see previous post).

Helping low-wage workers is definitely needed. Helping low-wage workers through the market, or on the backs of employers (particularly small businesses) exacerbates the problem.

No Compromise, More Bush Obstructionism in the Future

One of the nastiest, most costly sections of the Medicare Modernization Act was no longer allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices on the drugs they covered. The VA is allowed to negotiate with drug companies for better deals. Other nations not only cap the prices drug companies can charge, but also negotiate for lower costs when buying in bulk. The US, under Bush and the greedy ruling elite GOP, not only refuses to look at putting caps on what drug companies can charge, but took away the ability of Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices when buying in bulk. This was, in short, a multimillion dollar giveaway to the pharmaceuticals.

The incoming majority, the dems, who have tried to fight the good fight and stop the bamboozlement of our nations elderly under the ruling elite, want to change that, well most of them. And it's a damn good thing. However, this administration is already planning on obstructing any attempts of dems trying to help the people, particularly with the pharmaceuticals.

Secretary Leavitt said he did not want the power to negotiate drug prices. “I don’t believe I can do a better job than an efficient market,” he said.

“We are seeing large-scale negotiations with drug manufacturers, but they are conducted by private drug plans, not by the government,” Mr. Leavitt said. “A robust marketplace with a lot of competitors has driven down prices. It’s the magic of the market. To assume that the government, in our genius, could improve on this belies the reality of a complex task.”

Wait a sec, Leavitt. You forgot one important point, once MMA was rammed through congress, the pharmaceuticals increased the prices of their most popular drugs, and they keep rising faster than inflation. Not to mention this administration and the ruling elite, lied to the American people about exactly how much this program would cost, which went up before the program was even implemented.

The market has benefited the pharmaceuticals far more than it has benefited the people.

Yet, Bush and pharmaceutical apologists, went on the talking-heads shows Sunday to say the exact opposite of what has truly happened.

If a bill allowing negotiations got through Congress, it could face a presidential veto, depending on its details. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said competing private plans had already brought down costs more than government price controls would have.

See links above, which lead to other links. In short there is plenty of information, credible information, studies and reports, that shows our seniors were the butt of greedy policies. For Leavitt to say that the VA program negotiating with pharmaceuticals is not a "good model" is obtuse, at the very least.

Medicare could get a better deal on prescription drug prices than is likely to be achieved under the MMA. By the administration's own estimates, the MMA will achieve an "ultimate savings level of 25 percent" off of "retail-level, unmanaged prescription drug costs."[5] Other large purchasers have been able to leverage their purchasing power to get much deeper discounts. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more.[6] The Congressional Budget Office has found that average prices for patented drugs in other industrialized countries are 35 percent to 55 percent lower than in the United States.[7] If Medicare were able to get similar discounts, through negotiation, reimportation, or other means, the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit could be eliminated.[8]

Take a look at the difference in savings between Medicare and the VA. A cap of 25% savings for Medicare versus 50% plus savings under the VA. Which has th better formula? For beneficiaries, obviously, it is the VA.

If we are truly concerned about our nations elderly, we will not allow Bush and his cohorts to obstruct any necessary changes to this cost-laden, and people-disregarding, legislation.

Dems Must Make Sure Bush Does not Continued His Obstructionism During Judicial Confirmations

After the lame duck session, the dems will be putting their foot down on some of the more extremist judicial picks. Even during this lame-duck session, the 4 most extremist judicial picks have lost any chance for appointments. Hallelujah!

The impending Democratic takeover of the Senate, lawmakers and administration officials agree, will produce a vast change in an area that has produced some of the sharpest partisan battles in recent years: President Bush’s effort to shape the federal bench with conservative judicial nominees.

There is a strong consensus that the four most conservative of Mr. Bush’s nominations to the federal appeals courts are doomed. Republicans and Democrats say the four have no chance of confirmation in the next several weeks of the lame-duck Congressional session or in the final two years of Mr. Bush’s term.

The nominees are William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon’s chief lawyer who was responsible for the much-criticized military interrogation policies; William G. Myers III, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries and a critic of environmental regulations; Terrence W. Boyle, a district court judge in North Carolina; and Michael B. Wallace of Mississippi, a lawyer who was rated unqualified for the court by the American Bar Association.

So, as the NYTimes headline suggests, there is some uncertainty of judicial picks. Will Bush continue to pick extremist-right ideologues that will impose upon the people their ideals, or will he pick jurists that reflect a more "even" interpretation of the Constitution?

At the end of this article, Neil A. Lewis, brings up an interesting strategy, that was developed by the repubs.

In the last two years of a presidency, Professor Yalof said, “The priority for the party not in control of the White House is not so much in stopping candidates based on their ideologies, but keeping as many vacancies open as possible on the theory that the next president may be someone of your party and will be able to fill those slots.”

If the Democrats follow that model, he said, they will be following the playbook of the Republicans, who blocked most of Mr. Clinton’s appeals court nominees in his last two years in office.

Would this strategy be in the best interest of the people as well as the party? Would dems even consider this strategy?

During the first 6 years of the Bush administration, Bush had unfettered control of judicial nominees appointment. The GOP, through Frist, brought us threats of a nuclear option several times and pushed extremists onto the bench at all levels of the federal judicial system. In fact, very few judicial nominees were ever turned away, and Bush has enjoyed having the most judicial nominees appointed. Throughout all this, no matter how loudly the dems argued, and groups worked to engage their bases to contact senators to vote against confirming nominees, these extremists were appointed anyway. Be reminded that we are not just talking about the Supreme Court of the US, this includes Federal Court of Appeals and Federal District Courts which decide thousands more cases than SCOTUS.

Earlier this year, Sen. Kennedy wrote an op ed piece lamenting the disintegration of the judicial confirmation process, that had be so convoluted by the GOP ruling-elite. Anybody that followed the judicial nominee process knew that the GOP convoluted the process, and took advantage of their ruling status, to the detriment of the people.

I bring this up, because in order for the dems to bring back any sort of credibility to the judicial system they must address the confirmation process at the same time they address the more extremist nominees. No longer can dems sit in either the Judicial Committee or the full senate, and allow the Bush administration to obstruct the process, as they have done in the past. This obstructionism is usually accomplished through withholding of documents, and this tactic has not been limited to judicial nominees. It is this point that Lewis misses all together, and is, I believe, more important than the actual nominees.

While Specter is correct, in that the pResident can nominate anyone he likes, it is, and has always been, his responsibility to nominate justices that will uphold the US Constitution, and not be judicial reactivists.

What needs to be watched is not only the sort of judicial nominees Bush may nominate, but more importantly, his penchant to obstruct the confirmation process.