The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Deal is Reached on Health Costs of 9/11 Workers,” describes the agreement and settlement of the claims of clean up, police and firemen rescue squads from a general fund of up to $657 million.
Mayor Bloomberg praised the settlement, perhaps because the city was the defendant in many of the cases, and the judge said he would monitor the individual awards to ensure fairness.
The settlement must be ratified by at least 95 percent of the plaintiffs to go into effect, resulting in total awards of $575 million. If 100 percent agree, the number rises to $657 million.
The whole situation is actually an outrage. Here we had a tremendous loss of life from the collapse of the twin towers, and we compounded that tragedy with a further ticking health bomb from those who were good enough or specially trained to help with the situation.
Still, the settlement does close the book on the issue and is modeled after a similar fund used to compensate the victims on the planes themselves. Negotiations went on for two years, and it’s important to provide a sense of closure for the rescue squads’ families.
There will also be a special insurance fund for those who have not yet fallen sick, and that seems to be a particularly crucial piece of the puzzle, especially with diseases such as cancer with a longer incubation period.
The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations,” describes a ban on a particularly pernicious practice, the inclusion of special grants for local representatives, inserted into a larger bill to please their constituencies.
The ban only covers for-profit companies but could still save over $1 billion per year. However, the Senate still allows earmarks for corporations, meaning they must be reconciled with the House version before being sent to President Obama’s desk for signature.
Excuse me for cynicism but does anyone believe this will significantly reduce the power of lobbyists in Congress? Instead, they will work to influence representatives on the actual legislation, a far more lucrative attempt in any case.
And the real problem with influence peddlers remains the nation’s campaign finance laws. As long as you have corporations donating significant amounts to political campaigns, there will be the expectation of some return on their investment.
And now the Supreme Court has made matters even worse in their recent ruling, granting “corporations” the same rights of free speech, creating political ads, etc. as those of ordinary citizens. President Obama was right when he decried this ruling in his State of the Union speech.
So money and politics will continue to go together despite the well-meaning attempt of an earmark ban.
The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Public Pensions are Adding Risk to Raise Returns,” describes an alarming investment pattern in order to meet obligations and benefits for government workers.
While business companies are moving their investments away from stocks and into safer more long-term bonds, states and other government agencies are engaging in even riskier investments. These include junk bonds, commodity futures and even mortgage-backed securities.
Investment of pension funds has always been a hot button issue because so many workers’ livelihoods are at stake. Whether the state-based gamble will pay off remains to be seen, but it’s like having your pension riding on the roulette wheel.
Most Americans work hard to create a nest egg for when the children go away and they eventually retire. The inability of people to live a secure and safe retirement may lead to major instability in our country.
One of the alarming developments in the recent recession has been the increase in the number of long-term unemployed. These people don’t even have any pension to begin with, and in the current economic climate, they are unlikely to receive any work at all.
So while public pensions are taking more risk for government workers, in my opinion, there are far more pressing issues in our nation right now.
The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iraqis Defy Blasts in Strong Turnout for Pivotal Vote,” describes the events during yesterday’s national elections in Iraq. Despite up to 100 blasts in the Baghdad region alone, the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves yesterday to cast votes.
The election results were dominated by supporters of Prime Minister Maliki and Ayad Allawi, a former leader of Iraq. But the process was open, and nearly all sectors of Iraqi society participated, including Sunnis and followers of Moktada Al-Sadr. This, in itself, was amazing.
The successful conclusion of the election, although coalitions remain to be formed, gave President Obama the space he needs to continue the pullout of U.S. forces. And though this election was marred by a lot of violence, order was kept by national Iraqi forces, not U.S. troops.
Even loudspeakers at mosques encouraged Iraqis to vote, a complete turnaround from just a few short years ago when the country seemed to be on the brink of civil war.
Perhaps, Al Sadr described the situation the best when he said, “Participation in the election is a sort of political resistance.” This statement emphasizes the ability to change leaders by the ballot box instead of the gun and shows how far the Iraqis have come.
The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Flat Jobless Rate a Sign the Worst of Slump is Past,” lists the unemployment rate for February, unchanged at 9.7 percent, and interprets the results as positive news for the economy. As verification of that interpretation, the stock market rallied on Friday upon release of the news.
There does seem to be one unchangeable result of the “Great Recession,” and that is the hardening of lines of our citizens into “two Americas.” The term, first used in John Edwards political campaign, emphasizes the split of our people into two groups, the relatively affluent, and those struggling to make ends meet.
People in the second America don’t travel by car — they use the bus and mass transit. People in the first America have kids who are going to prominent colleges, and, as a result, will be set for life. The kids in the other America attend public schools and tend to drop out or go to vocational community colleges.
The growth of the second America can be seen in the increase of long-term unemployment — people who have been out of work for a year or more. What chance do they ever have of finding new jobs? People in the first America are already experiencing the upturn of the economy.
This split of the United States is dangerous, more so than Republicans and Democrats, and we must find some way to reverse it.
The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “Safety is Issue as Budget Cuts Free Prisoners,” describes the role of many state governments releasing prisoners early in order to save money in very tight state budgets. The states mentioned include Oregon, Illinois, Colorado and California, to name a few.
Here we see the very real effect of the recession on political decisions with ramifications throughout society. The story mentions many early release offenders who committed additional crimes, and you really can’t measure the new victims in terms of dollars and cents. In addition, the overall level of anxiety rises as the population’s sense of public safety starts to erode.
It is hard to talk about moderation in early-release programs, and each case should really be dealt with on an individual basis. Of course, the same tight budget leading to an early release program also means the staff to deal with an increased number of parolees is also lacking.
The number of early release prisoners in some states is truly staggering ; they number in the thousands. I think prisoners should be freed early for good behavior and with some evidence of a real change of heart. The problem in undertaking these programs in order to save money, however, involves pressure to release more rather than less. In effect, the evaluation process is being short-circuited to the detriment of all.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Paterson’s Ethic Breach is Turned Over to Prosecutors.” It describes an additional violation by the Governor, this time regarding free Yankees World Series tickets. Though seemingly a minor misdemeanor, it was compounded by evident perjury regarding the matter.
The Governor’s problems boggle the mind. They seem to come from every angle. When he first assumed the Governorship, after Spitzer’s patronizing a prostitute, he admitted to some additional infidelities but was widely praised for his openness. That openness seems to have vanished as the Governor has closeted himself in private offices since the scandal broke.
The Paterson pattern goes beyond his own actions and extends to his aides. The chief of the State Police has resigned, and two other aides have been accused of improprities.
What is to be done? It seems the calls for resignation will increase and soon become inevitable. One wonders if criminal prosecution looms as well.
Will more new scandals come to light? Maybe, only the Governor knows for sure. But every investigative reporter in the state is focusing on him now like a laser beam. I do feel a little sorry for the Governor, though. He never asked for this post and has tried valiantly to execute the duties of the office.
The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Inquiry is Told of Paterson’s Bid to Quiet Accuser.” It provides evidence of a more expansion pattern by Governor Paterson, his associates and staff in the burgeoning domestic abuse scandal paralyzing his administration.
The scandal occurred when Sherr-una Booker accused one of Mr. Paterson’s top aides of throwing her against a bureau last Halloween, then stripping and choking her. She received temporary orders of protection regarding the matter, then failed to show up in court to make the order of protection permanent.
Apparently, that failure to show up may have been influenced by inappropriate contacts by the head of the State Police, two aides to the Governor, and a phone call by the Governor himself. One of the aides, Deneane Brown, was allegedly told by the Governor to “make this go away.” Meanwhile, in a new development, the head of the State Police resigned after being implicated in the scandal.
It seems like the Governor’s resignation is inevitable. I can’t imagine him being cleared in the current investigation by the Attorney General; in fact, new allegations surface by the day. The Governor has canceled public meetings, and everyone who does meet with him on a political basis is careful to say that “his resignation never came up.” When they all say that, you know the exact opposite occurred.
How often have we seem otherwise competent politicians go down in flames because of serious misdeeds? It is indeed a tragedy that politicians who could do a lot of good for the working people end up on the sideline. Governor Paterson’s actions, if true, are a tragedy for all New Yorkers as well as the powerless victims of his actions.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Paterson is Said to Have Directed Calls to Accuser.” It describes a widening of the charges against the Governor in the domestic violence case against a key aide, David W. Johnson.
The scandal had previously involved the use of the State Police and a direct call from the Governor prior to the woman failing to appear in Court. It now also involves contacts by two other aides, one of whom was unable to reach her.
This all suggests a more concerted campaign by the Governor to get the woman to drop the charges. And the involvement of such a powerful man, meddling in a domestic violence case, does suggest the Governor should seriously consider resigning.
I don’t understand how top officials such as the Governor could engage in such actions. Surely, they understand how much they are under a microscope while in high office. But Governor Paterson, and Governor Spitzer before him, engaged in questionable activities, if not downright illegal acts, while in the most powerful office in the state.
You would think that at that point in their political career, they would learn that discretion is the better part of valor. At least for the length of their terms serving the people, they should engage in some elemental restraint.
The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Hampering E.P.A.” It describes the effect of two decisions by the Supreme Court in preventing enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
Apparently, the controversy revolves around the word “navigable” as used in the legislation, “the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court limited the meaning of word navigable to preclude wetlands and other streams that might affect our drinking water, even though the legislative intent of Congress was clearly inclusive.
Now, in addition, legislation to remove the word “navigable” from the act has stirred a kerfluffle on the far right, with Glenn Beck saying it would give the federal government power over puddles and rainwater. (Sigh), do these men have no shame?
Meanwhile, the article describes the inability of the E.P.A. to prove jurisdiction and the resulting diminishment of prosections, even as polluters grow more bold as they realize their ability to circumvent the law.
Now, in addition to Glenn Beck, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Home Builders are trying to prevent amendment of the law. And, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions about the power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns, who knows whether a new law would muster the majority needed to confirm its constitutionality?
