Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for April 15th, 2008

Co-Payments Soar for Drugs With High Prices

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Co-Payments Soar for Drugs With High Prices

  

Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

Robin Steinwand had been paying $20 a month for her multiple sclerosis drug, which she keeps in the refrigerator. When she went to pick up her prescription in January, it cost $325.

Published: April 14, 2008

Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.

No one knows how many patients are affected, but hundreds of drugs are priced this new way. They are used to treat diseases that may be fairly common, includingmultiple sclerosisrheumatoid arthritishemophilia,hepatitis C and some cancers. There are no cheaper equivalents for these drugs, so patients are forced to pay the price or do without.

Insurers say the new system keeps everyone’s premiums down at a time when some of the most innovative and promising new treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis can cost $100,000 and more a year.

But the result is that patients may have to spend more for a drug than they pay for their mortgages, more, in some cases, than their monthly incomes.

The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest withMedicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5.

Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers, said Dan Mendelson of Avalere Health, a research organization in Washington. It is the fastest-growing segment in private insurance, Mr. Mendelson said. Five years ago it was virtually nonexistent in private plans, he said. Now 10 percent of them have Tier 4 drug categories.

Private insurers began offering Tier 4 plans in response to employers who were looking for ways to keep costs down, said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents most of the nation’s health insurers. When people who need Tier 4 drugs pay more for them, other subscribers in the plan pay less for their coverage.

But the new system sticks seriously ill people with huge bills, said James Robinson, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is very unfortunate social policy,” Dr. Robinson said. “The more the sick person pays, the less the healthy person pays.”

Traditionally, the idea of insurance was to spread the costs of paying for the sick.

“This is an erosion of the traditional concept of insurance,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Those beneficiaries who bear the burden of illness are also bearing the burden of cost.”

And often, patients say, they had no idea that they would be faced with such a situation.

It happened to Robin Steinwand, 53, who has multiple sclerosis.

In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.

She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying a 30 days’ supply at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.

Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.

There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.

“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.

She needed the drug, she said, because it can slow the course of her disease. And she knew she would just have to pay for it, but it would not be easy.

“It’s a tough economic time for everyone,” she said. “My son will start college in a year and a half. We are asking ourselves, can we afford a vacation? Can we continue to save for retirement and college?”

Although Kaiser advised patients of the new plan in its brochure that it sent out in the open enrollment period late last year, Ms. Steinwand did not notice it. And private insurers, Mr. Mendelson said, can legally change their coverage to one in which some drugs are Tier 4 with no advance notice.

Medicare drug plans have to notify patients but, Mr. Mendelson said, “that doesn’t mean the person will hear about it.” He added, “You don’t read all your mail.”

Some patients said they had no idea whether their plan changed or whether it always had a Tier 4. The new system came as a surprise when they found out that they needed an expensive drug.

That’s what happened to Robert W. Banning of Arlington, Va., when his doctor prescribed Sprycel for his chronic myelogenous leukemia. The drug can block the growth of cancer cells, extending lives. It is a tablet to be taken twice a day — no need for chemotherapyinfusions.

Mr. Banning, 81, a retired owner of car dealerships, thought he had good insurance through AARP. But Sprycel, which he will have to take for the rest of his life, costs more than $13,500 for a 90-day supply, and Mr. Banning soon discovered that the AARP plan required him to pay more than $4,000.

Mr. Banning and his son, Robert Banning Jr., have accepted the situation. “We’re not trying to make anybody the heavy,” the father said.

So far, they have not purchased the drug. But if they do, they know that the expense would go on and on, his son said. “Somehow or other, myself and my family will do whatever it takes. You don’t put your parent on a scale.”

But Ms. Steinwand was not so sanguine. She immediately asked Kaiser why it had changed its plan.

The answer came in a letter from the federal Office of Personnel Management, which negotiates with health insurers in the plan her husband has as a federal employee. Kaiser classifies drugs like Copaxone as specialty drugs. They, the letter said, “are high-cost drugs used to treat relatively few people suffering from complex conditions like anemia, cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and human growth hormone deficiency.”

And Kaiser, the agency added, had made a convincing argument that charging a percentage of the cost of these drugs “helped lower the rates for federal employees.”

Ms. Steinwand can change plans at the end of the year, choosing one that allows her to pay $20 for the Copaxone, but she worries about whether that will help. “I am a little nervous,” she said. “Will the next company follow suit next year?”

But it turns out that she won’t have to worry, at least for the rest of this year.

A Kaiser spokeswoman, Sandra R. Gregg, said on Friday that Kaiser had decided to suspend the change for the program involving federal employees in the mid-Atlantic region while it reviewed the new policy. The suspension will last for the rest of the year, she said. Ms. Steinwand and others who paid the new price for their drugs will be repaid the difference between the new price and the old co-payment.

Ms. Gregg explained that Kaiser had been discussing the new pricing plan with the Office of Personnel Management over the previous few days because patients had been raising questions about it. That led to the decision to suspend the changed pricing system.

“Letters will go out next week,” Ms. Gregg said.

But some with the new plans say they have no way out.

Julie Bass, who lives near Orlando, Fla., has metastatic breast cancer, lives on Social Security disability payments, and because she is disabled, is covered by insurance through a Medicare H.M.O. Ms. Bass, 52, said she had no alternatives to her H.M.O. She said she could not afford a regular Medicare plan, which has co-payments of 20 percent for such things as emergency care, outpatient surgery and scans. That left her with a choice of two Medicare H.M.O’s that operate in her region. But of the two H.M.O’s, her doctors accept only Wellcare.

Now, she said, one drug her doctor may prescribe to control her cancer is Tykerb. But her insurer, Wellcare, classifies it as Tier 4, and she knows she cannot afford it.

Wellcare declined to say what Tykerb might cost, but its list price according to a standard source, Red Book, is $3,480 for 150 tablets, which may last a patient 21 days. Wellcare requires patients to pay a third of the cost of its Tier 4 drugs.

“For everybody in my position with metastatic breast cancer, there are times when you are stable and can go off treatment,” Ms. Bass said. “But if we are progressing, we have to be on treatment, or we will die.”

“People’s eyes need to be opened,” she said. “They need to understand that these drugs are very costly, and there are a lot of people out there who are struggling with these costs.”

 

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 15, 2008 
An article on Monday about a large increase in insurance co-payments for high-priced drugs misstated the way the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone is administered. It is injected, not taken in pill form.

 

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Published on AfterDowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org)

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-04-10 00:54.

  • Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-04-10 00:54. Evidence

Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE, ABC News

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of toxxp advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Contacted by ABC News today, spokesmen for Tenet, Rumsfeld and Powell declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals Meetings. Powell said through an assistant there were “hundreds of [Principals] meetings” on a wide variety of topics and that he was “not at liberty to discuss private meetings.”

The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment today.

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

“I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us the information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United States and across the world,” Bush said in a speech in September 2006.

In interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: “It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States.”

But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.

The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.

It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.

At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent — and with information on al Qaeda scarce — the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.

Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah’s capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive’s side at all times. “I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed,” Kiriakou said.

But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.

“I told him I had heard he was being a jerk,” Kiriakou recalled. “I said, ‘These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.’ It was after that he became defiant.”

The CIA wanted to use more aggressive — and physical — methods to get information.

The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA’s plans for Zubaydah.

The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.

After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

Mohammad was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation.

COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?

KSM: Statement for whom?

COURT: To any of these interrogators.

KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me…

Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the “enhanced” questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called “Golden Shield” for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era “Phoenix Program” of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a “rogue agency” out of control.

But even after the “Golden Shield” was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

“It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.’”

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

“These discussions weren’t adding value,” a source said. “Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it’s legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it.”

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department’s own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.

At one meeting in the summer of 2003 — attended by Vice President Cheney, among others — Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo — the Golden Shield — that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Turning No Corners

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Turning No Corners

     

Gen. David Petraeus (Alex Wong – Getty Images)

 

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, April 11, 2008; Page A21

Washington Post

The problem with the debate over our future course in Iraq is that the two sides are not even talking about the same things.

For supporters of the war, the primary issue is Iraq itself and what will happen if we leave. For the war’s opponents, the focus is on how the conflict in Iraq is sapping our energies, weakening our military and diverting our attention from our interests elsewhere in the world.

The bottom line of the testimony this week from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is that, even after the surge, what gains have been made in Iraq are, as Petraeus put it, “fragile and reversible.” For the administration’s friends, this can only mean that we need to stay the course. President Bush endorsed that approach yesterday, meaning that 140,000 or so troops are likely to still be in Iraq when he leaves office.

But the administration’s critics (and even some sympathizers) see the current policy as the equivalent of constructing an expensive road, under hazardous conditions, without being able to explain where the road will lead. The road becomes an end in itself. The point is to keep building it in the hope that it will eventually arrive at some lovely destination.

Such a project can go on only so long before someone points out the obvious, which is what Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) did during the hearings: “I think people want a sense of what the end is going to look like.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in an interview that after five years of war, the argument that “we’ve got to take time, we need a little more time” simply falls apart.

The administration and its supporters talk incessantly about winning but offer no strategy for victory, no definition of what victory would look like, no concrete steps to get us there and no real sense of where “there” is.

John McCain gamely declared that “success is within reach.” But what success does he have in mind? He still holds to the old dream of “a peaceful, stable, prosperous democratic state.” But how that can happen, or when, is anybody’s guess.

A conflict between Sunnis and Shiites has been replaced by a conflict among Shiites — and there is no guarantee that the old Sunni-Shiite fights will not flare up again. Is that success? Iran has used our invasion to expand its influence in Iraq. Is that success?

Here is Petraeus’s memorable and candid account of where we stand: “We haven’t turned any corners, we haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator.” Tell me again: What would success look like?

Supporters of the war say its opponents are locked in the past, stuck on whether the war was a good idea in the first place. Whether the war was right or wrong, they say, it’s time to move on and focus on the future.

This has it backward. It’s the war’s backers and architects, including the president, who are trapped in the past. They are so invested in the original decision to invade Iraq that they won’t even consider whether the United States would be better off winding down this commitment, relieving our military of the war’s enormous burdens and redirecting our foreign policy.

Instead they want to push on, hoping that something will turn up. They resemble their own parody of liberal do-gooders insisting on continuing flawed and foolish programs no matter how obvious it becomes that their efforts are doing more harm than good.

If this year’s election is to be about the future, the debate cannot be about whether or not the surge “worked.” McCain will have to provide a more specific and realistic definition of success. He will need to be much clearer than he has been as to how it would be achieved and when. Above all, he needs to tell us why an indefinite occupation of Iraq is worth the price.

And it will fall to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to argue persuasively that ending our obsession with Iraq is in fact the first step toward restoring American power.

There was a certain pathos in Bush’s speech yesterday as he made the usual promises, the usual optimistic noises and the usual resolute sounds about a war he never expected to go this badly. Iraq has become everything for Bush. That is no reason why it should be everything for the rest of us.

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Bush approval rating hits all time low

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

April 11, 2008

Bush approval rating hits all time low

Posted: 04:49 PM ET

President Bush’s job approval rating hits all time low Frida

(CNN)— With the economic outlook looking dim and the continued war in Iraq, President Bush’s job approval rating hit an all time low Friday, according to a just released poll.

The latest Gallup poll shows the president’s approval dropped to 28 percent, the lowest of his eight years in office.

The survey, which questioned 1,021 adults between April 6 and 9, with a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percent, found the decrease came largely because of Democratic and Independent dissatisfaction with his administration. Only 6 percent of Democrats questioned and 24 percent of Independents had a favorable opinion of President Bush, with about two-thirds support coming from Republicans.

The new estimate marks one of the lowest approval ratings any president has seen since World War II, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who all had a mid 20 percent approval rating in their final years in office. The all time lowest presidential approval rating was 22 percent in 1952 during Harry Truman’s final year in office, who like President George W. Bush dealt with problems related to the economy and an unfavorable war.

Bush’s approval ratings have hovered around the low 30 percent range since July of 2007. It reached a high of 90 percent in 2001, just days after the September 11 attacks.

From: CNN’s Emily Sherman

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Headzup: Approving Torture

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

                 

  

Condoleezza Rice is asked about the report that her, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft all signed off on the use of torture.

Read about it here– 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/interrogation_tactics

Download daily Catch and Release Comedy™ political cartoons to your mobile phone or iPod at www.headzup.tv

Watch the video

Posted in Bush Administration, Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

What Petraeus Didn’t Tell You

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

What Petraeus Didn’t Tell You
pssst! This video!

 

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the Iraq war. They talked about security, troop cuts among other things but one item was missing from their agenda. What did the General and the US Ambassador to Iraq forget to talk about?

The answer to this question and more on link TV’s Mosaic Intelligence Report.

For more information, go to www.linktv.org

 

 

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Real Time” Slams Rice as Veep Candidate

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

               
 

Both the Washington Post’s Dana Priest and former terrorism czar Richard Clarke slam Condi Rice repeatedly — both saying that she was one of the worst National Security Advisor’s ever and that she is well on her way to becoming the worst Secretary of State ever. Oh, and then there is her involvement in approving torture and failures surrounding 9/11. Oh, please please please pick her John McCain!

 

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Union Targets ‘Excessive’ Executive Pay

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Union Targets ‘Excessive’ Executive Pay

By Josiah Ryan
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 15, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – Do corporate executives deserve their big pay packages? Is the CEO of your company “raking in the big bucks while running the company into the ground?” And how does your salary compare with that earned by the head of your company?

Those are a few of the questions the AFL-CIO is addressing in its 2008 Executive PayWatch campaign.

Union officials are calling for “reform.” They want Congress to pass a “say on pay” law requiring publicly traded companies to submit executive pay plans to a nonbinding shareholder vote each year. “Such an advisory vote would prompt corporate boards to engage shareholders in meaningful conversations about appropriate levels of executive pay before approving executive pay,” the AFL-CIO says.

But a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Alan Reynolds, told Cybercast News Service that consumers should understand that the incentive-based pay system is what actually drives companies to success.

‘Excessive’

In 2007, the CEO of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company received, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation, the AFL-CIO said, citing preliminary research numbers from The Corporate Library research firm.

“Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders — including the retirement savings of America’s working families,” the AFL-CIO claims on its Web site. “Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.” (The AFL-CIO specifically points to the mortgage foreclosure crisis.)

The AFL-CIO complains that compensation for top executives has grown at an unprecedented rate in the past two decades, resulting in a dramatic increase in the pay ratio between executives and rank-and-file employees.

At a press conference Monday afternoon, Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of AFL-CIO, put numbers to what he sees as a problem: “In a span of about 25 years, we have seen the CEO’s pay ratio explode from just 42 to 1 to 364 to 1,” he said.

The Cato Institute’s Reynolds told Cybercast News Service that executive salaries have definitely risen. But, he added, “You should never believe a number like that before you find out just how it is constructed.”

For example, what is an “average CEO,” Reynolds asked. “Oftentimes groups like AFL-CIO choose the highest possible paid group and compare it to the lowest paid (workers). They both understate and overstate.” Reynolds said the AFL-CIO’s numbers are “probably bogus and dishonest. It would be interesting to see the numbers measured fairly and consistently.”

The AFL-CIO notes that boards of directors set CEO pay. “Frequently, however, directors award compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and reward even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders, as well as the company and its employees,” the AFL-CIO said.

Daniel Pedrotty, the director of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment, said boards of directors are failing to police corporate CEOs and serve as employees’ representatives in the boardroom. “They are failing to do their duty and play the key role and creating the sub-prime mortgage mess that is turning the American dream into a nightmare,” Pedrotty said on Monday.

The AFL-CIO says at most U.S. companies, the CEO serves as chairman of the board — and may also dominate the election of directors. “When the same person serves as both chairman and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance,” the union complained.

The AFL-CIO argues that CEO pay will be reformed only when corporate boards become more “accountable.”

Pedrotty said not only are U.S. corporate executives paid too much, but they are paid disproportionately more than executives anywhere else in the world. “The notion that somehow we are paying for performance, and that this is related to long-term value creation, is absurd,” he said. The argument that high compensation is needed to retain and recruit top executives doesn’t hold up when compared to executive compensation in other countries, he added.

But Reynolds’ called that an “apples and oranges” comparison: In France, where taxes are higher, executives don’t want to be paid in cash — they want to be paid in non-taxable benefits,” Reynolds said. “There are also very few companies abroad that are the size of our big companies. If you see a CEO that works at a company that is one tenth the size of Microsoft and it makes one tenth the salary, so what?”

Reynolds said boards of directors want to reward their CEOs for good work and entice them to get their companies to perform at a higher level. “They don’t have an incentive to do anything but honor the deals they already made when hiring the executive,” he said. “I can only think of one company I don’t invest in because I think the CEO is paid too much.”

Reynolds said that as an investor, he likes the CEOs of the companies in which he invests to have “strong incentive to perform.”

“What isn’t noted in many of these studies is that the majority of the payment packages are in stocks. If the company doesn’t do well, neither does the executive. You can’t count that kind of payment in the same way you would salary,” Reynolds said. “If he does a bad job he doesn’t get paid. It is simply wrong to say that’s at the expense of workers.”

The AFL-CIO is urging union members to press for passage of the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act (S. 1181), which Sen. Barack Obama — the Democratic presidential contender — introduced in May 2007. The House already has passed a similar “say on pay” bill, H.R. 1257.

The AFL-CIO is the largest federation of unions in the United States. It launched its Executive PayWatch campaign in 2007.

 

 

Posted in *Economy | Leave a Comment »

McCain: Out of Touch

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

McCain: Out of Touch

Produced by:
DoubleTalkExpress

McCain and Bush are one in the same on the economy. They’ve told us the economy is strong, we’re just in a rough patch and we’re not headed into a recession.

But here are the facts: The economy has lost 232,000 jobs this year! From January to March 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that payroll employment has declined by 232,000. According to the Associated Press, “the year’s job losses near the staggering quarter-million mark.” [Bureau of Labor Statistics, Change in Payroll Employment, accessed 4/10/08; Associated Press, 4/4/08, emphasis added]

It’s time to change the channel on the same old politics.

Posted in *Economy | Leave a Comment »

Condi Rice Can

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Condi Rice Can  

            

  

 

 

 

 

A parody of “The Candy Man.”

Parody lyrics, musical arrangement, and performance by Macmusictherapy (Margie & Diane Sandoval). Copyright2007.

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

Video: I Destroy Hannity’s Best Argument for Endless Iraq War

Posted by James O'Rourke on April 15, 2008

Video: I Destroy Hannity’s Best Argument for Endless Iraq War: “I Destroy Hannity’s Best Argument for Endless Iraq War

Phil Donahue was a guest on Hannity and Colmes last Wed. (4/8/08) to promote the documentary Body of War, about a paralyzed soldier’s journey as he comes to grips with his disability and the truth about the Iraq war. Donahue, who co-directed and executive produced the film, did a great job of exposing the violent, short-sighted idiocy of Hannity/neocon ‘ideology’, which you can see or can read about here, but I’d like to address something else.

Hannity decided to strain his active brain cells and present his best, most airtight, ‘fundamental’ argument for why America needs to stay in Iraq forever — that Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc. (scared yet?) are the modern-day equivalents of fascism, imperial Japan, communism, Nazis, etc., which were all ‘evil’ and took huge amounts of American blood, money, and sacrifice for our nation to defeat.

This was Hannity’s best argument for why the US should stay in Iraq forever, continuing to spend over $12 billion a month; cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; maim and destroy the minds, lives, and families of American soldiers; and lose the respect, love, and authority of the world.

I can debunk it in one sentence.

If staying in Iraq so the US can ‘win’ is so important, call for a draft immediately and demand massive amounts of national sacrifice from every American citizen.

That’s where Hannity’s ‘best’ argument completely crumbles.

If you really feel that this list of largely unaffiliated paramilitaries, countries, criminal gangs, etc. somehow match the same level of danger as Nazi Germany, then you should demand a draft, much like the one declared to fight Nazi Germany. American soldiers are being stop-lossed, having their tours extended, and pulling multiple tours so much that they are literally being driven insane, so it’s clear that the US doesn’t have enough soldiers in the fight. I know where you could find some — THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. Demand a draft. Now. Where else will you get the soldiers to fight an endless war?

Other than American soldiers and their friends and families, American citizens have not been asked to sacrifice anything for the Iraq war. Yes, I know many of us did our patriotic duty to shop after 9/11, but there have really been no further requests after that. This is not to say that every Americans and most of the world hasn’t been forced to pay a horrible price for the Iraq war in one way or another, but those were not true sacrifices since sacrificing involves choosing to give something up, not having it stolen away from you or priced out of your budget. It’s obvious the US can’t afford the Iraq war under our current system, so we need to figure out a system that will. The magic of the ‘free’ market isn’t doing it.

Raise taxes on the rich, who can afford to pay more without it harming their standard of living. Use the money to re-open shuttered factories, hire back the laid-off workers, and get them to make and repair America’s military vehicles and hardware, which are being damaged and destroyed at an alarming rate under the harsh conditions of the Iraq war. This surely couldn’t be more expensive than the exorbitant amounts we’re paying to private contractors and private businesses to do the work of war for us. Plus, it would stimulate the US economy by replacing jobs that have disappeared under the Bush administration.

Call for cars to get more miles per gallon so we can stop giving more and more of our paychecks to the countries you claim are our enemies. Impose a tax on gas that would go towards the development of sustainable energy, a tax on those who buy big gas guzzlers, and provide a larger tax rebate for people who buy high-mileage cars. If you can’t ask Americans to do that, you must not be taking the threat that seriously. Ask people to sacrifice things they are willing to sacrifice, like enormous SUVs and wasteful energy habits, instead of things they can’t live without, like food, healthcare, and gas so they can get to work and pick up their kids. What wealthy tycoon, oil company, or other giant corporation would be so unpatriotic as to refuse to sacrifice more of their record profits to a system that they profit from so much more than the average citizen?

And demand a draft to force every able-bodied American to join the fight. If the danger to the nation is so great, it will take the entire nation to fight it, not just volunteer soldiers who make up a tiny percentage of the national population.

But war supporters like Hannity will never ask for a draft or more sacrifice for a war that needs more soldiers and more sacrifice. That’s how you can tell he’s either a liar or an idiot.

He’s not willing to ask for the two things that he claims are key to ‘victory’ in Iraq: soldiers and sacrifice. So what if it’s political suicide? Shouldn’t you be standing up for what’s right? That’s how you know Hannity’s either a coward, a liar, or an idiot.

Also, if the Iraq war is so important, maybe Hannity would like to explain why his network, FOX, covers the Iraq war less than MSNBC or CNN. Hardly seems like the way you’d cover the greatest threat America has faced in a generation.

Hannity’s ‘fundamental’ argument is a puff of hot air that can’t withstand the most gentle of breezes. If that’s the best justification he and other war supporters can come up with, it’s further reason why the Iraq war must end now.

And Hannity is ‘absolutely’ sure America is safer because of the Iraq war. To which one should ask: Safe from what? Iraq’s WMDs? An Iraq/Al Qaeda alliance?

If Hannity was any more ignorant or more of a liar, there’d have to be two of him — no single person could be that clueless and dishonest. 

Posted in Iraq War | Leave a Comment »