Pages

Monday, April 30, 2012

Study: Obesity adds $190 billion in health costs

updated 4/30/2012 8:30:48 AM ET


U.S. hospitals are ripping out wall-mounted toilets and replacing them with floor models to better support obese patients. The Federal Transit Administration wants buses to be tested for the impact of heavier riders on steering and braking. Cars are burning nearly a billion gallons of gasoline more a year than if passengers weighed what they did in 1960. 

The nation’s rising rate of obesity has been well-chronicled. But businesses, governments and individuals are only now coming to grips with the costs of those extra pounds, many of which are even greater than believed only a few years ago: The additional medical spending due to obesity is double previous estimates and exceeds even those of smoking, a new study shows.

Many of those costs have dollar signs in front of them, such as the higher health insurance premiums everyone pays to cover those extra medical costs. Other changes, often cost-neutral, are coming to the built environment in the form of wider seats in public places from sports stadiums to bus stops.

The startling economic costs of obesity, often borne by the non-obese, could become the epidemic's second-hand smoke. Only when scientists discovered that nonsmokers were developing lung cancer and other diseases from breathing smoke-filled air did policymakers get serious about fighting the habit, in particular by establishing nonsmoking zones. The costs that smoking added to Medicaid also spurred action. Now, as economists put a price tag on sky-high body mass indexes (BMIs), policymakers as well as the private sector are mobilizing to find solutions to the obesity epidemic.

"As committee chairmen, Cabinet secretaries, the head of Medicare and health officials see these really high costs, they are more interested in knowing, 'what policy knob can I turn to stop this hemorrhage?'" said Michael O’Grady of the National Opinion Research Center, co-author of a new report for the Campaign to End Obesity, which brings together representatives from business, academia and the public health community to work with policymakers on the issue.
The U.S. health care reform law of 2010 allows employers to charge obese workers 30 percent to 50 percent more for health insurance if they decline to participate in a qualified wellness program. The law also includes carrots and celery sticks, so to speak, to persuade Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to see a primary care physician about losing weight, and funds community demonstration programs for weight loss.

Such measures do not sit well with all obese Americans. Advocacy groups formed to "end size discrimination" argue that it is possible to be healthy "at every size," taking issue with the findings that obesity necessarily comes with added medical costs.

The reason for denominating the costs of obesity in dollars is not to stigmatize plus-size Americans even further. Rather, the goal is to allow public health officials as well as employers to break out their calculators and see whether programs to prevent or reverse obesity are worth it.

The percentage of Americans who are obese (with a BMI of 30 or higher) has tripled since 1960, to 34 percent, while the incidence of extreme or "morbid" obesity (BMI above 40) has risen sixfold, to 6 percent. The percentage of overweight Americans (BMI of 25 to 29.9) has held steady: It was 34 percent in 2008 and 32 percent in 1961. What seems to have happened is that for every healthy-weight person who "graduated" into overweight, an overweight person graduated into obesity.

Because obesity raises the risk of a host of medical conditions, from heart disease to chronic pain, the obese are absent from work more often than people of healthy weight. The most obese men take 5.9 more sick days a year; the most obese women, 9.4 days more. Obesity-related absenteeism costs employersas much as $6.4 billion a year, health economists led by Eric Finkelstein of Duke University calculated.

Even when poor health doesn’t keep obese workers home, it can cut into productivity, as they grapple with pain or shortness of breath or other obstacles to working all-out. Such obesity-related “presenteeism,” said Finkelstein, is also expensive. The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female. Total annual cost of presenteeism due to obesity: $30 billion.

Decreased productivity can reduce wages, as employers penalize less productive workers. Obesity hits workers' pocketbooks indirectly, too: Numerous studies have shown that the obese are less likely to be hired and promoted than their svelte peers are. Women in particular bear the brunt of that, earning about 11 percent less than women of healthy weight, health economist John Cawley of Cornell University found. At the average weekly U.S. wage of $669 in 2010, that's a $76 weekly obesity tax.

The medical costs of obesity have long been the focus of health economists. A just-published analysis finds that it raises those costs more than thought.

Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.
That is double recent estimates, reflecting more precise methodology. The new analysis corrected for people’s tendency to low-ball their weight, for instance, and compared obesity with non-obesity (healthy weight and overweight) rather than just to healthy weight. Because the merely overweight do not incur many additional medical costs, grouping the overweight with the obese underestimates the costs of obesity.

Contrary to the media's idealization of slimness, medical spending for men is about the same for BMIs of 26 to 35. For women, the uptick starts at a BMI of 25. In men more than women, high BMIs can reflect extra muscle as well as fat, so it is possible to be healthy even with an overweight BMI. “A man with a BMI of 28 might be very fit,” said Cawley. “Where healthcare costs really take off is in the morbidly obese.”

Those extra medical costs are partly born by the non-obese, in the form of higher taxes to support Medicaid and higher health insurance premiums. Obese women raise such “third party” expenditures $3,220 a year each; obese men, $967 a year, Cawley and Meyerhoefer found.
One recent surprise is the discovery that the costs of obesity exceed those of smoking. In a paper published in March, scientists at the Mayo Clinic toted up the exact medical costs of 30,529 Mayo employees, adult dependents, and retirees over several years.

“Smoking added about 20 percent a year to medical costs,” said Mayo’s James Naessens. “Obesity was similar, but morbid obesity increased those costs by 50 percent a year. There really is an economic justification for employers to offer programs to help the very obese lose weight.”

For years researchers suspected that the higher medical costs of obesity might be offset by the possibility that the obese would die young, and thus never rack up spending for nursing homes, Alzheimer’s care, and other pricey items.

That’s what happens to smokers. While they do incur higher medical costs than nonsmokers in any given year, their lifetime drain on public and private dollars is less because they die sooner. “Smokers die early enough that they save Social Security, private pensions, and Medicare” trillions of dollars, said Duke’s Finkelstein. “But mortality isn’t that much higher among the obese.”

Beta blockers for heart disease, diabetes drugs, and other treatments are keeping the obese alive longer, with the result that they incur astronomically high medical expenses in old age just like their slimmer peers.

Some costs of obesity reflect basic physics. It requires twice as much energy to move 250 pounds than 125 pounds. As a result, a vehicle burns more gasoline carrying heavier passengers than lighter ones.

“Growing obesity rates increase fuel consumption,” said engineer Sheldon Jacobson of the University of Illinois. How much? An additional 938 million gallons of gasoline each year due to overweight and obesity in the United States, or 0.8 percent, he calculated. That's $4 billion extra.

Not all the changes spurred by the prevalence of obesity come with a price tag. Train cars New Jersey Transit ordered from Bombardier have seats 2.2 inches wider than current cars, at 19.75 inches, said spokesman John Durso, giving everyone a more comfortable commute. (There will also be more seats per car because the new ones are double-deckers.)

The built environment generally is changing to accommodate larger Americans. New York’s commuter trains are considering new cars with seats able to hold 400 pounds. Blue Bird is widening the front doors on its school buses so wider kids can fit. And at both the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, home of the New York Mets, seats are wider than their predecessors by 1 to 2 inches.

The new performance testing proposed by transit officials for buses, assuming an average passenger weight of 175 instead of 150 pounds, arise from concerns that heavier passengers might pose a safety threat. If too much weight is behind the rear axle, a bus can lose steering. And every additional pound increases a moving vehicle’s momentum, requiring more force to stop and thereby putting greater demands on brakes. Manufacturers have told the FTA the proposal will require them to upgrade several components.

Hospitals, too, are adapting to larger patients. The University of Alabama at Birmingham's hospital, the nation's fourth largest, has widened doors, replaced wall-mounted toilets with floor models able to hold 250 pounds or more, and bought plus-size wheelchairs (twice the price of regulars) as well as mini-cranes to hoist obese patients out of bed.

The additional spending due to obesity doesn’t fall into a black hole, of course. It contributes to overall economic activity and thus to gross domestic product. But not all spending is created equal.

“Yes, a heart attack will generate economic activity, since the surgeon and hospital get paid, but not in a good way,” said Murray Ross, vice president of Kaiser Permanente’s Institute for Health Policy. “If we avoided that heart attack we could have put the money to better use, such as in education or investments in clean energy.” 

The books on obesity remain open. The latest entry: An obese man is 64 percent less likely to be arrested for a crime than a healthy man. Researchers have yet to run the numbers on what that might save.

First Thoughts: The politics of bin Laden, one year later

5

DUE TO TECHNICAL ERROR, FIRST THOUGHTS WAS LATE PUBLISHING.
The bin Laden killing, one year later – how quickly things change … Republicans cry foul that Obama campaign is using the death as a reelection weapon … Foreign policy vs. the economy (it’s still the economy) … Is Obama the Warrior in Chief? … Another veep tryout – this time it’s Romney with New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte. … Gingrich to drop out Wednesday.

Believe it or not, tomorrow marks a year since Osama bin Laden was killed. We wrote then: “While it’s doubtful that Osama bin Laden’s death will have as long of a political impact [as 9/11] -- especially in this fast-changing, short-term memory media landscape -- it will surely shape the contours of next year’s presidential race. … Last night changes everything (for now), but we also know how quickly it can dissipate.” And dissipate it did. The president’s bump – for something that was as big a singular accomplishment that any president could have -- was short-lived, because of the economy and the debt-ceiling fight. It’s a reminder of just how important the economy is that the bump was never as big as it would have been under normal circumstances. (By the way, NBC’s Rock Center went inside the decision making of the killing of bin Laden. Brian Williams previewed his interview with the president on Meet the Press. The full show, with interviews of others that were in the room) airs Wednesday at 9:00 pm ET.


Caption: NBC's Domenico Montanaro discusses the politics of the one year anniversary of the Osama Bin Laden raid, and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte gets a look as a possible vice president for  Mitt Romney.

*** Playing politics: Republicans are crying foul at the Obama campaign’s touting of the killing (and using it in a campaign video charging that Mitt Romney might not have made the same call. There are two lines of attack: (1) Republicans are trying to minimize the accomplishment, saying anyone would have done it; and (2) They say he’s politicizing everything, including foreign policy. Ed Gillespie, an adviser to the Romney campaign and former Bush adviser said on Meet the Press: “This is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event … and he’s managed to turn it into a divisive, partisan, political attack. … I think most Americans will see it as a sign of a desperate campaign.” It’s fascinating to watch Democrats try to demagogue foreign policy, the way Republicans do and have done over the years (see Cheney, Dick in 2004). Republicans usually find themselves almost overreacting when Democrats go over the top in their foreign policy attacks. Count on some REALLY heated cable and Twitter rhetoric this week on this topic as the run-up to the bin Laden anniversary kicks in.


Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks to troops at Third Infantry Division Headquarters at Fort Stewart in Hinesville, Georgia, on April 27, 2012, prior to Obama signing an Executive Order to protect them from deceptive targeting by educational institutions.

*** Warrior in Chief? The Romney campaign has pushed the issue of foreign policy, trying to paint Obama as weak and appeasing (especially when it comes to Iran). The GOP would have liked to paint the picture of Obama as a feckless, weak president, lacking strength. But despite the rhetoric, Obama’s foreign policy has been incredibly muscular. In fact, Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation in the New York Times Sunday Review provocatively casts President Obama as the “Warrior in chief,” ticking off several of Obama’s foreign-policy raids, killings, and use of drones. The death of bin Laden undercut any hopes Republicans had of being able to paint Obama as Jimmy Carter. And he makes the point of this disconnect: “Despite countervailing evidence, most conservatives view the president as some kind of peacenik. From both the right and left, there has been a continuing, dramatic cognitive disconnect between Mr. Obama’s record and the public perception of his leadership….” Make no mistake, had it failed, that’s exactly how he would have been portrayed. Bergen writes that if Romney runs a risk when criticizing Obama on foreign policy. If he tries to portray him as “a typical, weak-on-national-security Democrat,” then “he will very likely trap himself into calling for a war with Iran, which many Americans oppose.”

*** McCain as top foreign-policy attack dog: Taking the lead on the attack, though, is Sen. John McCain, Obama’s 2008 opponent (who also believes Obama hasn’t had courage to act in Syria). McCain, now a Romney surrogate, said Obama’s “diminishing the memory of September 11th,” and accused him of “doing a shameless end-zone dance.” It’s a fine line. McCain clearly doesn’t mind playing this role. He says things Romney couldn’t get away with and it’s something that’s quite beneficial to Romney. If Romney said what McCain did, Romney might get ridiculed. It’s an interesting role that McCain is willing to play. It could be a preview of the role McCain might play going forward in the campaign -- traditional role of VP, but on foreign policy. McCain doesn’t mind going personal with Obama, as he’s demonstrated since 2008. You can try to explain away McCain’s motives all you want, but it could be oddly effective for Romney.


USA Today's Susan Page, The Washington Post's Dan Balz, and The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page discuss the Romney campaign's accusation that President Obama is politicizing the death of Osama Bin Laden.

*** STILL THE ECONOMY: But for all the talk of foreign policy and how much credit Obama deserves or whether or how he should be touting it, the most important issue this election – as it was a year ago -- remains the economy. It should be like a flashing red sign – IT’S THE ECONOMY, IT’S THE ECONOMY. Jobs will get a fresh look Friday when the latest report comes out. The unemployment rate has been essentially flat for three months. Even though the rate has come down from a high of 10.0%, if the rate continues to appear not to drop very much or the trajectory seems flat, that is going to be a problem for the incumbent president. Watch the trajectory; it will tell you the whole ballgame.

*** Another veep tryout: Today’s another veep tryout with Romney and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte at 10:50 am ET. Though she’s been a senator for just two years, Ayotte served as New Hampshire’s attorney general (she was appointed by Republican Craig Benson in 2003 and RE-appointed by a Democratic governor). The Republican Party’s problems with women have been well documented over the last few months. If Romney is going to pick a woman, the most serious candidate is likely Ayotte. That is, aside from Condoleezza Rice if she wants it, and there’s no indication she does. But the shadow of Palin still looms large over the GOP pick, and the Romney team may be more risk averse because of it. But as GOP 12’s Heinze wrote last week: “Sarah Palin didn't prove that picking a woman doesn't help with women. Palin was simply the wrong woman.” (By the way, over the weekend, NBC’s Alex Moe reported that Newt Gingrich would officially drop out Wednesday.)

*** Obama fundraises with Clinton: There were a couple striking things at the fundraiser with President Clinton this weekend at the home of Terry McAuliffe: (1) How little Romney was mentioned. After a weekend and week of going after Romney personally, last night was more in line with where the Obama campaign was when this campaign first started -- go after the entire GOP. It was more the theme of -- they want to take you back, it’s their failed economic policies on steroids, not the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt; it’s not their Republican Party. (2) This was not an ordinary Obama fundraiser speech. Here, he was trying to follow one of the Democratic Party’s best economic communicators. Obama knew he was on friendly turf, but not the friendliest turf, as he was trying to appeal to Clinton people. One Democratic source who is more of a member of Team Clinton than Team Obama described last night as kind of like a “first date” between Clinton and Obama; For the first time, this person could actually see the two of them starting to bond; It took a while for Clinton to get over 2008 but so far, things have gone well in this courtship. Two more Obama-Clinton fundraisers to go; New York and PROBABLY Hollywood.

*** A way to bring up Seamus: Don’t overlook the fact that the White House used the opportunity of the White House Correspondents Dinner -- when they knew they’d get lighter coverage for what they did – put a story that they’ve struggled to put into the mainstream, quietly trying to do for months, the Seamus story. It was frankly a way to get Seamus out there. Yes, Obama made fun of himself and eating dog, but they’ll take that to get the Seamus story mainlined; They’ve been trying for months.

** Waiting on Lugar’s fate: There are just eight days until the Indiana Senate primary that could see the ouster of the most senior Republican in the Senate. AP today wonders whether Richard Lugar waited too long to brand his opponent. On Friday, the 2008 GOP presidential ticket split its endorsement – John McCain endorsed Lugar; Sarah Palin endorsed his challenger and Tea Party favorite, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Mitt Romney said he was staying out of it. A poll aligned with Mourdock showed him up 44-39% Thursday. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette headline: “Hundreds cheer Mourdock at city rally.” The rally was organized by Tea Party Express, which has played a big role in this race.

Countdown to Indiana Senate/Wisconsin recall primaries: 8

Countdown to Wisconsin recall election: 36

Countdown to Election Day: 190 days


Senior EPA official resigns over 'crucify' strategy with oil industry




Saying he had become a distraction, a senior Environmental Protection Agency official who used the word "crucify" to describe how the EPA enforced laws in the oil industry resigned on Monday.

"My continued service will distract you and the agency," Al Armendariz said in his resignation letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson.

"I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator," Armendariz said in his letter.

Armendariz, who was head of the EPA's South Central office, came under fire from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who was informed of the two-year-old video last week and launched an inquiry.

Inhofe on Monday welcomed the resignation but said the EPA's "crucifixion philosophy" continues.

"His choice of words revealed the truth about the war that EPA has been waging on American energy producers under President Obama," Inhofe said in a statement.

The EPA, in response to a request from msnbc.com, said that Jackson had accepted the resignation. "I respect the difficult decision he made and his wish to avoid distracting from the important work of the agency," Jackson said in a statement.

In the video, Armendariz answers a question about enforcement policies. In the Middle Ages, he told the audience, the Romans conquered a village by taking "the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them."

He added that the EPA, similarly, makes "examples out of people who are not complying with the law ... you make examples out of them, use it as a deterrent method.

"Companies that are smart see that and they don't want to play that, and they decide at that point that it's time to clean up," he added.

Armendariz had been speaking to residents of Dish, Texas, a town where some are concerned about potential environmental impacts from a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, told The Associated Press that Armendariz has received death threats since the video surfaced.

Secret Service Announces New Rules

Fri 27 Apr 12 | 07:45 PM ET
Moments ago, the Secret Service announced new rules for its agents, reports CNBC's Brian Shactman.

Giuliani: ‘No Lingering Doubts’ About Mitt Romney

Published: Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012 | 6:00 PM ET
By: Bruno J. Navarro

After an extended silence on the Republican presidential candidates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsed presumptive nominee Mitt Romney as the guy to turn around America.

“This is exactly in his wheelhouse. I mean, this is what the man does,” he said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.” 

Giuliani praised Romney’s experience at private equity firm Bain Capital. 

“The whole background of Mitt Romney is taking over businesses and trying to figure out how to straighten out the balance sheet, how to straighten out the business, how to bring more value … That’s what private equity firms do. That’s how they make their fortune,” he said. 


“I know they’re trying to use how successful he’s been at Bain against him on the Democratic side. But from my point of view, I would rather have a president who’s been successful in business than a president who has no experience like the one we presently have.” 

Giuliani, who had declined to voice support for any particular Republican candidate during the primaries, saying he had “a lot of obligations” to the presidential hopefuls for their support of him in the past

“I had a lot of good friends in this race. I would like to have supported Rick Perry,” he said, adding that he had “a real friendship and a real affinity for Newt (Gingrich).”
But his support of Romney for president is real, Giuliani said. 

“I have no lingering doubts that Mitt Romney has exactly what it takes to handle what this country needs right now,” he said. 



Asked by host Larry Kudlow whether he thought current New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would “go rogue” and make a bid for the White House, Giuliani ventured a guess. 

“Mike has always told me he would only run if I had a realistic chance of being elected president,” he said, adding that it was only a guess and that Bloomberg had “no chance” at present. 

Rudy Giuliani One-on-One

Wed 25 Apr 12 | 07:15 PM ET
"Mitt Romney has exactly what it takes to handle what this country needs right now," says Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani Partners. He also tells CNBC's Larry Kudlow he would rather have a president who has been "successful in business."

Eric Cantor Pushes Bob McDonnell for VP Spot

Published: Thursday, 26 Apr 2012 | 7:40 PM ET

Eric Cantor
Getty Images
Eric Cantor

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor weighed in on his pick for a Republican vice presidential nominee — a fellow Virginian, Gov. Bob McDonnell.

“He is somebody who has steered our state through tough times. I think if you look at our unemployment rate, our growth rate, we fare a lot better than most,” he said Thursday on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.” “He’s a great guy. I think he’d be a great vice president.” 

Cantor said he hasn’t yet pushed his choice with presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney but said he would. 

“Mitt and his team know that it is their vision, that it is Mitt Romney’s leadership that’s going to win the day,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll make the right decision to say, look, we’ve got a team in place that is going to be pro-American, pro-growth, pro-success.” 



Cantor also took swipes at President Obama for his recent public appearances — which included a visit to the set of “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” — as stumping to keep his job. 

“I would think that anybody looking at these campaign stops would know that this is about politics. It’s not about policy. It’s not about the commander-in-chief going out to meet Americans. It’s about a presidential candidate out campaigning,” he said. “I think the American people want to see us get something done. They don’t want to see us engaging in politics every day.”

Cantor agreed with host Larry Kudlow’s characterization of them as “lavish vacations” and blasted them as being insensitive to the plight of Americans. 

“It’s sort of like having a tin ear. We’ve got to be cognizant of the fact that there are tough times out there,” he said. “Lavish vacations is not what I think middle America wants to see in terms of an elected official.” 

Cantor also voiced support for Romney’s candidacy. 

“He’s a demonstrated leader in terms of jobs creation. He’s the only candidate that has put forward a bold, pro-growth program to get this economy back on track,” he said. “He stands for free markets, for pro-growth economics and forgetting the engine of small business and innovation going again in America. That’s who we are as a society.” 


Does Romney Have Right Message?

Thu 26 Apr 12 | 07:00 PM ET
 
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), says Mitt Romney stands for free markets and pro-growth economics. "This is an election which is a referendum on the President's policies," he tells CNBC's Larry Kudlow.


The View Panel Tussles Over The Question: ‘Is Obama Too Cool?’


 

The View co-hosts got a little heated this morning over a new political ad accusing President Obama of, of all things, being “too cool.” They played the ad, which leans heavily on the exploding problem of student loan debt, in all of its auto-tuned glory for the studio audience.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck thought that the while “point of [the ad] is there, the delivery is off,” and she and Whoopi Goldberg agreed that the music could have been better.

RELATED: The View Panel Gives Girls Cast A Major Softball Interview

That was about the only thing that they agreed on, though, with Whoopi vehemently disagreeing that crippling student loan debt was Obama’s fault, and reading a list of the President’s accomplishments in office. The audience was on her side too, breaking into applause when she characterized the student loan crisis as something that “clearly doesn’t have anything to do with him.”

Sherri Shepherd suggested that perhaps other politicians, like, say, Mitt Romney, who are constantly accused of being boring, might be jealous of Obama’s charm. Elisabeth took this opportunity to launch into a very complicated metaphor about somebody coming over to fix a broken dishwasher, but Barbara Walters cut her off unceremoniously to go to commercial. Ouch!

You can see the clip here via ABC:

Only in America: Money buys influence, legally



“Make no mistake. Corporations are paying to influence legislation every single day,” Jennifer Granholm says. And it’s tantamount to bribery. Ironic bribery. Under the foreign corrupt practices act it’s illegal for U.S. businesses to give money to influence politics outside the country, but because of Citizens United they can buy that influence here at home.

Tea Party Congressmen Accept Cash From Bailed-Out Bankers


Tea Party favorites such as Stephen Fincher of Tennessee were swept into Congress on a wave of anger over government-funded bailouts of banks.

Now those incumbents are collecting thousands of dollars for re-election campaigns from the same Wall Street firms whose excesses they criticized. They have taken no significant steps to curb them or prevent future taxpayer-financed rescues.

Republican freshmen have made clear their disdain for expanding government, and openly opposed a financial regulatory overhaul enacted by Democrats in 2010 before the newcomers arrived in Washington. Their ranks include 10 Tea Party-backed freshmen on the House Financial Services Committee, part of a force that won election in a populist backlash to government spending that included emergency lending to major banks and bailout of firms including U.S. automakers.

Still, the lawmakers haven’t passed, considered or even introduced legislation to address concerns about “too-big-to- fail” banks voiced by members of both parties and such Federal Reserve bank presidents as Richard Fisher of Dallas and Jeffrey Lacker of Richmond, Virginia. 

“I haven’t seen any of them putting forth legislation on breaking up the big banks or on other things that would genuinely prevent a bailout next time,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, a Washington- based umbrella group of organizations that supported the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and other financial regulations.

Freshman Power

Since arriving in Congress in January 2011, Tea Party- backed lawmakers have demonstrated their determination and muscle by forcing several rounds of government spending cuts through standoffs over raising the national debt ceiling with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders, putting the government on the brink of a shutdown.

Yet the anti-bailout fervor that drove the messaging of Republican candidates during the campaign cycle of 2009 and 2010 has dissipated, and those same lawmakers are now collecting money from the firms bailed out by President George W. Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. 

Five banks -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) - - held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to central bankers at the Federal Reserve. Combined those institutions took $150 billion in bailout money in 2008 and repaid it by the end of the next year.

PAC Donations

The political action committees of those institutions have distributed $169,499 through March 31 to the campaign coffers of the 10 freshman Tea Party-backed lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure records. 

Fincher, who is among them, promised as a candidate to “Help Main Street” and ensure there would be “no more Wall Street bailouts” in an advertisement that ran 98 times in the Nashville market in the run-up to his victory in a district previously held by a Democrat since 1988, according to New York- based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.

“There was a lot of visceral reaction” to federal intervention to save Wall Street, said Mark Skoda, founder of the Memphis Tea Party and a Fincher constituent and supporter. “Stephen was very much using the language that Wall Street was problematic here and we were not going to do any more bailouts.”

Fincher, through spokeswoman Jennifer Cook, declined an interview request. Several others receiving donations from the banking firms also have declined to comment.

Some Votes Cast

Fincher did vote this month to repeal the mechanism included in Dodd-Frank to resolve the largest financial institutions -- a process House Republicans oppose and say put into law the federal government’s ability to bail out firms.

Dodd-Frank allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to use taxpayer dollars to maintain stability in the financial system as it dismantles a “too big to fail” firm. While the FDIC would then be required by law to impose assessments on the largest banks to recoup that money, Republicans argue that the authority allows the agency to make payouts with taxpayer dollars to creditors of a firm -- something that would feed risk-taking at Wall Street firms.

“Republicans on the committee, including the freshmen, stood strong against partisan attacks and voted to repeal this bailout authority,” Jeff Emerson, a spokesman for the Financial Services Committee, said in a statement. The vote sends “the message to ‘too big to fail’ firms and their creditors that they -- and not the taxpayers -- will bear the consequences of shoddy lending and undisciplined risk-taking.”

‘No Alternatives’

Democrats, all of whom voted against the measure in committee, said that the repeal would put the financial system in the same place it was four years ago -- and that Republicans have yet to produce an alternative proposal in the current Congress.

“What they want to do is go back to exactly where we were in 2008,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the committee, said in an interview. Frank isn’t seeking re-election. “They’ve presented no alternatives.” 

Lawmakers collecting contributions from industries they oversee is a common practice in Congress, and both parties take advantage of it, according to Anthony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

‘Money Culture’

“One of the reasons why financial services has become a particularly important committee in recent Congresses is that the parties know they can put individuals on that committee and they will be successful raising money,” Corrado said. “It shows how the money culture on Capitol Hill can affect even those who come to Washington hoping to fight against it.”
Fincher, a gospel musician from Frog Jump, Tennessee, has received $11,500 from the political action committees run by Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Citigroup’s political action committee had not contributed to the lawmaker through the end of March.
Two other members of the committee not listed as members of the Tea Party Caucus, yet who won election to the House with Tea Party support, are Representatives Steve Stivers of Ohio and David Schweikert of Arizona. Both ran ads attacking bailouts.

‘Taxpayer-Funded Bonuses’

One Stivers ad criticized former Representative Mary Jo Kilroy, a Democrat, for supporting “taxpayer-funded bonuses given to failed Wall Street executives.”
A Schweikert ad ties the bailouts to the national debt, saying former Democratic Representative Harry Mitchell spent billions “to bail out Wall Street banks, leaving America deeply in debt.”
Stivers, a former banking lobbyist who was endorsed by the Tea Party-affiliated group FreedomWorks, has received $28,000 from the political action committees of the five largest banks;
Schweikert has collected $11,500.
Courtney Whetstone, a spokeswoman for Stivers, declined to comment, as did Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for Schweikert.
To be sure, it’s not as if the freshmen haven’t been active on the panel.
The House newcomers took the lead on measures aimed at reducing the reach of government in financial markets, either through easing or repealing pieces of the Dodd-Frank Act or reducing the power of new government agencies.

Cutting Regulations

Fincher is the lead sponsor of a law signed this month by President Barack Obama that cuts back Securities and Exchange Commission regulations for newly public companies, a measure Schweikert played a lead role in drafting.

Stivers sponsored a bill to ease Dodd-Frank’s swaps rules, which passed the House with bipartisan support, and New York Representatives Michael Grimm and Nan Hayworth have sponsored their own measures to reduce the reach of the derivatives regulations, each garnering bipartisan support, as well.

Hayworth and Grimm, who had the support of Tea Party groups in 2010, collected $27,500 and $15,000, respectively, from the five financial firms through the end of March, according to disclosure records.

Grimm, who faces an investigation over improper campaign contributions from followers of a New York City rabbi, moved to distance himself from the Tea Party shortly after he came to Washington in 2011.

Edward Yap, a spokesman for Hayworth, didn’t return requests seeking comment. Grimm spokesman Carol Danko also didn’t respond to interview requests.

Protection Bureau

Representative Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, who has received $19,500 from the firms, sponsored a House-passed bill to overhaul the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the cornerstones of Obama’s regulatory overhaul. Republicans opposed its creation and have pushed the change the bureau, which they say has too much power. 

John Gentzel, Duffy’s spokesman, declined to comment.

Still, proposals to prevent or help manage a systemic financial crisis like that which occurred in 2008 are non- existent. Republicans on the committee voted this month to repeal the resolution process put into place in Dodd-Frank -- a process House Republicans always opposed -- yet haven’t produced an alternative proposal in the current Congress.

Failed Measures

Lawmakers have tried to address the size of U.S. banks in recent years with little success. 
 Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, proposed an amendment to Dodd-Frank that would have capped the size of financial institutions. That amendment failed in the Senate, even with the support of Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Banking Committee. 

Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, last week introduced legislation that would require the Treasury secretary and Congress to work in concert to break up financial firms that would threaten the health of the system in the event of their failure. The measure, which also was introduced during the last Congress with no success, has only one co-sponsor in the 435-member House. 

While the freshmen on the committee represent an array of constituencies, they have a common need if they want to hold their places in Congress: money.

‘Team 2012’

With that in mind, the group established a fundraising committee, called “Team 2012,” in March 2011. While the committee has since disbanded, it provided a single destination for political action committees representing banks, law firms and lobbyists to donate money to be split among the lawmakers.

The committee included two lawmakers re-elected after spending time away from Congress, and another freshman, Representative Robert Hurt, who did not have major Tea Party backing in his 2010 race in Virginia. Bank of America was among the groups that took advantage of the arrangement, sending the lawmakers $4,000 in April 2011.

Of the 12 Financial Services committee members sharing cash from the committee, which raised $62,900 in its 10 months of existence, nine were Tea Party-backed freshmen. Fincher, who didn’t join the House panel until May 2011, wasn’t involved with the fundraising committee, according to filings.
“Candidates who run the first time on an aggressive platform trying to protect voters against special interests then have to change their tune to pay the piper and listen to those who fund their campaigns,” said David Donnelly, executive director of the Washington-based Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan group that advocates for tighter campaign finance rules.

How Can I Help Get Money Out of Politics?

This is where WE THE PEOPLE can act as a nation. Get involved. Read the declaration, sign up to vote on delegates, become one if you dare. 
If you have ideas for the declaration
written by the delegates, in Philadelphia, culminating on July 4th, Independence Day,
let the the delegate in your district know what those ideas are.
I am a delegate in the 16th district of Pennsylvania.  I want a government clear of money used to by our congressmen. I want a government of the people, for the people, by  the people, Corporations are NOT People!..............Read what some of the delegates have put on their pages. It is time for a Revolution, with words, with peaceful occupation, not with hatred, violence,


Sign the 99% Declaration

 

How Can I Help Get Money Out of Politics? Participate in the Continential Congress 2.0!


Continental Congress 2.0


What is Continental Congress 2.0?


I. During the weekend of June 1, 2012 an online election will take place and the American People will elect Two Delegates from each of the 435 Congressional Districts.  The online election will be run by the People, not the government and therefore each voter must register to vote (http://www.the99declaration.org/vote) even if already registered to vote in government-run elections.


II. The Delegates who are elected will represent the People at a CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 in Philadelphia the week of July 4, 2012. Everyone who registers as a voter at http://www.the99declaration.org/vote will have an "e-ballot" emailed to them when the polls open on June 1, 2012. 

III. During the week of July 4, 2012, the 878 elected delegates will meet in Philadelphia at CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 to ratify a Petition for Redress of Grievances, a legal document authorized by the Petition Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Once signed and ratified, the Petition will be read at a rally at Independence Hall the afternoon of July 4, 2012. A press conference, speakers including Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, and live music are planned.

IV. The Petition for Redress of Grievances will then served upon all 535 members of the 112th Congress, the nine members of the Supreme Court and the President of the United States. These politicians will be asked to publicly take AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLEDGE to redress the grievances contained in the petition and demand an end to money corrupting our politics. 

V. Following the 2012 general election, the Delegates will give the 113th Congress, President and the Supreme Court a reasonable time to redress the grievances listed in the ratified petition. If the grievances are not redressed to the satisfaction of the Delegates, they will reconvene in their respective districts and begin to organize a grassroots campaign to elect independent candidates to Congress in the mid-term election of 2014. The Petition will also create a legal basis for a law suit against the government to compel it to redress the grievances. - click here for details.

HELP DRAFT THIS HISTORIC DOCUMENT BY RUNNING FOR DELEGATE AND REGISTERING TO VOTE IN THE JUNE 1ST ELECTION!


1. An End to Corporate Personhood


2. The Overturning of the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.


3. The Elimination of Crony Capitalism and Washington's Revolving Door of Corruption 


4. Comprehensive Banking and Securities Reform to end Wall Street's Control of our Politicians 


5. 100% Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Other Election Reforms


6. That all Politicians Take the Rootstrikers' Anti-Corruption Pledge Before the November 2012 General Election



Citizen Call to Action:

Sunday, April 29, 2012

John Boehner: I Criticize Obama So Much Because I Want To ‘Help’ Him




On CNN’s State of the Union today, Candy Crowley pointed out to House Speaker John Boehner that in recent weeks he has been ramping up the attacks on President Obama. He has recently taken to accusing Obama of acting beneath the office of the presidency in how he has chosen to pick fights with Congress. However, despite Boehner’s sharp tone in decrying Obama’s tactics, he insists he is doing it to try and “help” the president.

Boehner insisted that he still has a “very good relationship” with the president despite everything he’s said, including his campaign-style rhetoric claiming that the United States “can’t live for four more years” under Obama. Boehner made it clear that while he may have amped up the rhetoric, he has not attacked the president on any personal grounds.
Boehner went down a whole list of examples to argue that he really believes Obama is acting beneath the office of the presidency in his election-year posturing.
“The president’s getting some very bad advice from his campaign team because he’s diminishing the presidency by picking fake fights, going after straw men every day… the president’s bigger than this. The presidency is important. America has big challenges, big fiscal challenges, and we’ve got big challenges for our economy, and the president ought to be working with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to address the big issues that affect the American people.”
When Crowley pressed him on if this is just election-year rhetoric, Boehner said, “Someone needs to help him out, so I thought I would.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

If A Bill Threatens The Internet And No One Is Around To Notice, Whose Fault Is That?

 
 


A few months ago, I was somewhat up in arms about the Stop Online Piracy Act, mostly focused on the lack of media coverage of the legislation. I could just as easily go after the media for its similarly nonexistent coverage of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA (which passed the House Friday), but the larger question that needs to be asked here is: what is it going to take for Congress to stop trying to push legislation that does lasting damage to the internet?

RELATED: SOPA Part II Or Not? Congress Taking Up Controversial New Cybersecurity Bill

CISPA is so vaguely defined in what constitutes a cyberthreat that its implications for privacy on the internet may be a bigger deal than SOPA. The text of the bill, which can be viewed here, defines “cyber threat information” under these parameters:
  • a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity
  • a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network
  • efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity
  • efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity
Yes, that’s all well and good, but what exactly constitutes a threat to government cybersecurity? The parameters are so poorly-defined it’s almost like Congress is asking internet providers to exploit all the loopholes they can. The implications of this would allow sites like Facebook to hand over personal data, and they would be within their rights to do so.
But people more versed than I in the tech world can handle the nitty-gritty of the legislation. What I’m concerned about here is the fact that we seem to have a legislative branch that, to use a fancy British term, doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss about protecting the rights of the individual on the internet. This is a bipartisan concern. Many Democrats and Republicans do not like it when Congress tries to push this kind of internet legislation, and will stand up against people in their own party when they support it.
For example, Congressman Darrell Issa should explain why, after being one of the loudest voices against SOPA, he voted in favor of CISPA when it came before the House a few days ago, and was one of the bill’s co-sponsors. President Obama may have threatened to veto CISPA, but honestly, this is really all about lobbying. Obama was trying to walk the delicate line between appeasing the copyright lobby and the tech lobby over SOPA, and luckily for him, it died in Congress before he had to make a decision on it. But when something like CISPA pops up, the tech industry is suddenly on the side of the government and there is no proper conduit for the people’s outrage.
Yes, for those of you who haven’t heard about this, another reason it’s more concerning than SOPA is that the tech industry actually likes this one, so if any of you were hoping for a Reddit or Wikipedia blackout, you’re shit out of luck this time. But here’s the thing about our Congress: they’re supposed to represent our interests. And people who normally disagree on the fundamentals of government involvement in people’s lives have come together to say “Listen to the people and reject this nonsense.” But with companies like Facebook on the government’s side here, there’s not really a big incentive for them to make a big show of opposing it like so many of them did with SOPA.

RELATED: Mark Zuckerberg On SOPA: ‘We Can’t Let Poorly Thought Out Laws Get In The Way Of Internet’s Development’

So yes, the media needs to do its job when it comes to important legislation like this, but Congress needs to stop pretending it has the people’s interest at heart when it’s fighting for legislation like this. No one denies that cybersecurity isn’t a real issue, Anonymous is happy to remind us of that every once in a while. But if we’re going to have a government that takes the concerns of the individual seriously before voting on legislation like this, we need to start bringing people into office who 1) can’t be so easily bought off, and 2) actually understand how the internet works.