Where's the Outrage?

I like this rule.

From HuffPo:

New Rule: Let’s not fire the teachers when students don’t learn – let’s fire the parents. Last week President Obama defended the firing of every single teacher in a struggling high school in a poor Rhode Island neighborhood. And the kids were outraged. They said, “Why blame our teachers?” and “Who’s President Obama?” I think it was Whitney Houston who said, “I believe that children are our future – teach them well and let them lead the way.” And that’s the last sound piece of educational advice this country has gotten – from a crack head in the ’80′s.

Yes, America has found its new boogeyman to blame for our crumbling educational system. It’s just too easy to blame the teachers, what with their cushy teachers’ lounges, their fat-cat salaries, and their absolute authority in deciding who gets a hall pass. We all remember high school – canning the entire faculty is a nationwide revenge fantasy. Take that, Mrs. Crabtree! And guess what? We’re chewing gum and no, we didn’t bring enough for everybody.

But isn’t it convenient that once again it turns out that the problem isn’t us, and the fix is something that doesn’t require us to change our behavior or spend any money. It’s so simple: Fire the bad teachers, hire good ones from some undisclosed location, and hey, while we’re at it let’s cut taxes more. It’s the kind of comprehensive educational solution that could only come from a completely ignorant people. (more…)

Tags: Education by ecthompson md
No Comments »

My father was listening to Taj Mahal in the late ’70s and early ’80s. Taj Mahal is still around and playing great music.

Artist: Taj Mahal
Tune: Queen Bee

Tags: Music by ecthompson md
No Comments »

The Board of Education in Texas has long been a place were conservatives beat their conservative agenda into the heads of our youth. Now, this is taking ideology too far. This is simply wrong.

From TP:

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:

– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”

As the nation’s second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous leverage over publishers, who often “craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers.” Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported, “when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas.”

Tags: Education by ecthompson md
3 Comments »

Listen to Errington Thompson on Blog Talk Radio

Today at 5 pm EST, I’ll have Heidi Shierholz from the Economic Policy Institute. I will also have Andy Coates from Physicians for a National Healthcare Program. This is going to be a GREAT show. Now, this is truly Progressive Radio.

Tags: Podcasts by ecthompson md
No Comments »

As everybody knows by now, Representative Eric Massa resigned on Monday. The reasons given for his resignation have changed over the week. Initially, he was resigning because of health reasons. Then the Dems were pushing him out over his healthcare vote (he voted against it). As the week unfolded, more and more allegations of sexual inappropriateness and groping with male staffers have come to light. Republicans saw this as an opening and immediately tried to blame Nancy Pelosi, stating that she knew more than she let on and tried to cover it up. Oh, don’t forget that Massa was on Glenn Beck’s show for an hour, the whole hour. Both he and Beck crash and burn. Personally, I think it is clear that Eric Massa is a homosexual or has homosexual tendencies and I’m fine with that. The problem here is that Representative Massa appears to have used his position to force or coerce male staffers into compromising positions, which is wrong. The House Ethics Committee needs to reconvene in spite of the fact that Representative Massa has resigned. This is the second House member who has clearly misused his position. (Mark Foley is the other House member that should come to mind).

In a completely different story, Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn appears to have had an interesting incident 25 years ago which has come back to haunt him. It appears that he got together with a woman whom he described as “nearly half [his] age” got together in a hot tub. Of course, they were naked. The House Majority Leader was 28 years old at the time. Now, after a hard day’s work, sitting around in the hot tub can be perfectly relaxing. If you happen to have a hot tub in your backyard and it is appropriately secluded, being naked is your prerogative. On the other hand, being in a hot tub with a girl who was 15 years old should cause a 28-year-old man to get out of the hot tub and say “see you later.”

Garn released a statement which contain the following: “Shortly thereafter, my wife and I met with her, and at her demand, I paid her $150,000. While this payment felt like extortion, I also felt like I should take her word that the money would help her heal. She agreed to keep this 25-year-old incident confidential. Now that this issue is coming up again, it is apparent to me that this payment was also a mistake.” Wait a minute. Earlier in the statement, Garn stated, “although we did not have any sexual contact, it was clearly inappropriate, it was my fault.” I don’t understand. You and a woman are in a hot tub and neither of you have any clothes on. And you say there was no sexual contact? Seriously? What were you paying $150,000 for if there was no sexual contact? This sounds absolutely ludicrous.

Now, here’s the really crazy part of the story. Utah’s leading paper, the Desert News, had this story. They decided not to print the story because Kevin Garn was in the middle of a primary. They did not want to affect the outcome. Isn’t that nice of them? It turned out that Garn lost the primary and dropped out of politics. So the newspaper sat on the story for years. Why? This whole thing is a bunch of craziness.

Tags: Media, Party Politics by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

Do you remember Morris Day, the lead singer of one of the ultimate party groups, The Time? From the darkness, Morris Day would shout, “What Time Is It?” The music would start blaring and the party was on. It is time for health-care reform. It is time for us to have a universal program which covers everybody. We are currently spending 16% of our gross domestic product on health care. Personally, I think spending $2.3 trillion on health care is plenty of money. We should not have to spend any more to get everything that we want. We want access to quality primary care providers. We want these primary care providers to give us better outcomes — a better quality of life and a longer life. We want to be able to go to the drugstore to pick up our prescriptions without having to leave our first born as collateral. If we have an emergency – if we are in a car crash or fall off a roof; if we have a heart attack — we want to be able to be taken to a quality medical center where we can be treated with compassion, dignity and with the latest medical techniques. Why can’t we make this happen?

Last week, we had the rare opportunity to see Republicans and Democrats sit down and discuss a single issue. For over seven hours, we got to see our political leaders argue over healthcare. Yes, there was some political posturing on both sides but one thing should be clear to all Americans. The Democrats have a plan and a passion for health-care reform. Republicans had no plan, but they definitely have passion for stopping health-care reform. From Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, not one Republican put together a thoughtful argument that would control the escalating healthcare costs, cover the 45 million people who live in the United States without health insurance, nor a plan that can be taken from Maine to Florida to California.

Democrats, for all of our passion, where is our spine? Democrats are causing me to reach for my Pepto-Bismol especially, those who cannot stand up for healthcare reform.People who follow politics, as I do, have seen for over a year that it is going to be nearly impossible to get 60 votes in the Senate to stop debate on healthcare reform. Therefore, the Senate would need to go to reconciliation to pass health care reform. I talked about this on my radio show back in February of 2009. This summer, Senator Jay Rockefeller made an impassioned speech for the public option. He said it was morally right. It was only a couple weeks ago he said that he did not believe that we should use reconciliation to get health-care reform passed. What? Didn’t he say it was morally right? Senator Rockefeller was 100% correct when he said this was a moral issue. We need to get health-care reform passed.

Meet 11-year-old Marcelas Owens. Watch the video:

I would urge you not to fall for the same old clichés about our government. Government can do this right. We have to get this right. This is as important as landing on Normandy beaches on D-Day. If we want to have money for defense, homeland security, bridges and roads, education and green energy we have to control costs of health care now. Economists have estimated that health care will eat up 25% of our gross national product in 20 years if we don’t do something.

Finally, I’ve been listening to these talking heads on the Internet telling me that Democrats, liberals and progressives are not energized. Someone even suggested that we are depressed. Depressed? From what? I’m not sure who thought electing Barack Obama would be a panacea. I know that I’ve talked about the need for progressives to push harder with a Democratic Congress. We’ve seen Democrats in the past waiver and succumb to the whims of Republicans. We knew this would happen. Deep in our hearts, we knew this was going to be a huge undertaking. Just look at what we’re trying to accomplish – reversing 30 years of Republican rule and ideology (Clinton was the only bright spot). We are trying to reverse 30 years of giveaways to major corporations. We’re trying to put the American citizen ahead of big business. Even Democrats have bought into the ideology that the markets could fix everything. This is an idea that’s been pushed by the Republicans for decades. We have a lot of work to do. President Barack Obama has told us that this is not going to be easy. So, it is time for us to be fired up. Once we get health-care reform passed, we still have more work to do – create a green economy, create millions of green jobs, fix the Patriot Act and concentrate on lasting financial reform that will work for all Americans. We need to write and call our legislators. We need for them to support health-care reform. It is time to get busy.

Tags: Business, Healthcare, Party Politics by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

He is trying to stop all abortions with his bill; at least abortions that aren’t paid for in cash.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From C&L:

The Rachel Maddow Show did some digging and it appears that Bart Stupak may not actually have all the votes he’s claiming he has to stop the health care bill from being passed in the House. As Rachel also notes, since Stupak’s requests for changes to the bill are either impossible to get passed under reconciliation or just based on lies about what’s even in the bill, it’s pretty obvious that he’s just doing his best to get himself on the television for some face time so he can demagogue the abortion issue and it has nothing to do with the health care debate.

Bart Stupak might come to regret that if Rachel doesn’t let up on the reporting she has done on the C-Street House and The Family. And as Susie noted, he’s now got himself a primary challenger.

You can Send The Democrats A Message They Can Understand and make a donation at Blue America to help Bart Stupak’s challenger Connie Saltonstall among others.

Tags: Healthcare, House of Representatives, Rachel Maddow Show by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

I think it is kind of amusing that there is a large group of people who question the science of global warming (climate change secondary to man’s burning hydrocarbons). So I thought the best way to illustrate the craziness of the deniers would be to ask, how do you know oxygen exists? Almost all of us had some sort of biology and chemistry in high school. We did some sort of experiment and hopefully did not blow up the lab. I think that most of us remember the experiment that we did using a technique called electrolysis. We took water and passed an electric current through. Hydrogen went into one tube and oxygen into the other. But, how do we know that was oxygen? We’ve been told, over and over, that oxygen makes up 21% of our atmosphere. But you can’t see oxygen. You cannot taste it. (More about oxygen here.) How we know? Well, it is based on the molecular theory. Molecular theory? It’s a theory, not a proven fact.

This is the same line of questioning that the deniers are using. Yet, the same scientific methods that convinced us that oxygen exists have been used to prove climate change secondary to man’s burning of fossil fuels.

Climate change. Conservatives have taken this term and run with it. They played on the fact that most Americans know a little bit of science, but not much. Most of us remember that there were many ice ages. The earth warmed iand the ice receded. The earth cooled down and the ice proceeded over the large continents. So, every time a scientist mentions climate change, conservatives point to this natural cycle. They then ask, “how do we know that the warming trend that we’re seeing now is not part of this natural cycle?” Before I get to this answer, let me add one other thing. One of the final arguments that deniers use is that the world is so big and you and I are pretty small compared to the size of the world. How can we, as God-fearing little human beings, have an impact on this great big world of ours? This is probably the deniers’ weakest and simplest arguments. There are multiple ways to refute this argument. Let me just say that currently scientists have tested the air in California and have detected pollutants that were generated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in China. Therefore, what happens in one part of the world can have an impact on people thousands of miles away.

How can climatologists point to some of the events that are happening now as evidence of climate change secondary to man’s burning fossil fuels? Well, thankfully, I don’t have to come up with an experiment off the top of my head. Smart people, scientists, have done this for us. There are a few places in the world that don’t change all that much. As a matter fact, they haven’t changed for thousands of years. One place would be Antarctica the other would be Greenland. In these two places, it gets extremely cold. The ice in some places is several miles thick. NASA explains it like this:

Throughout each year, layers of snow fall over the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers. The season turns cold and dark again, and more snow falls, forming the next layers of snow. Each layer gives scientists a treasure trove of information about the climate each year. Like marine sediment cores, an ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.

Tags: Big Oil, Environment by ecthompson md
4 Comments »

I’m changing my comment system, again. Echo just hasn’t worked out. I’m moving to Disqus. There may be some bumps in the road, but hopefully everything will be stable by early this afternoon. Thanks for your patience.

Tags: Blogging issues by ecthompson md
No Comments »

The Obama administration is making a new effort to protect barrier islands and other coastal areas in the Gulf of Mexico area. Mississippi and Louisiana seem to be a specific focus of this program.

(Above–A picture of Ship Island off the Mississippi coast. In the background you see Fort Massachusetts. The federal government controlled the island in the Civil war and used the island as a prison for Confederate soldiers. Black combat units were also trained on Ship Island. Here are facts about Ship Island.)

From the Associated Press article on the Obama Gulf Coast effort—

“Since the 1930s, the Mississippi River delta has been slowly falling apart and eroding due to levee construction, oil drilling hurricane damage and other factors. Louisiana has lost about 2,100 square miles of coast and loses about 25 square miles a year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey…With sea levels on the rise due to global warming, experts warn that much of south Louisiana and Mississippi are at risk of being lost for good.”

Here is the full story.

This sure is interesting. You’d think that the good folks down in Mississippi  and Louisiana might oppose federal dollars to help remedy the effects of the great scam of global warming.

Here is a recent New York Times story about how people who think evolution is not real, are now adding global warming to their list of hoaxes.

I’m out of patience with this stuff. People are free to believe what they wish. Freedom of religion is a principle our nation is founded upon. But schools and public debates are places for facts. They are not places for ideologically-driven lies.

Maybe a referendum should be held in Mississippi and Louisiana to be sure that folks in these places believe in global warming. We don’t want to be wasting taxpayer dollars.

Here is a Times of London story about the possible impact of global warming on people and animal life across the globe.

Here is more from the Associated Press story—

“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the report “clearly demonstrates a positive shift in direction, but must be coupled with aggressive action on the ground — turning dirt. There is no time for delay.”

You are reading this correctly—Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wants some swift federal action to help address a problem in his state.

Here is how Governor Jindal felt about federal money last year–

“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.”

I see.

Here is the White House press release about this federal help that the people of Mississippi and Louisiana will no doubt be glad to take.

From the release–

“Ultimately, successful implementation of the shared vision depends on access to the best available science in a form that is useful for management decisions.  The Working Group will assess current capacities and identify gaps in science so the Federal-State vision will be implemented based on the best information.”

I put the term “best available science” in bold so that nobody would miss what is being said. The Feds are coming down South to cram global warming down the throats of the people. Time for a tea party!

Is Republican Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi going to tolerate this federal intrusion?

From Think Progress, here is a portion of Mr. Barbour’s record on the environment from when he was a corporate lobbyist–

“Back at his lobbying firm in early 2001, Barbour was hired “to help apply pressure in all the right places.” He convinced President Bush to break his campaign promise to reduce global warming pollution from power plants. Barbour’s memo “Bush-Cheney Energy Policy & CO2” belittled global warming as a “radical fringe issue,” and called the regulation of carbon dioxide pollution “eco-extremism.” He urged the President Bush to avoid making decisions informed by science, which would “trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years.”

Here is the full report on Mr. Barbour’s record on the environment.

The federal government has dominion over the states. In this case, the federal government is going to provide help for Mississippi and Louisiana no matter if they like it or not.

(Below–Fort Livingston on Grand Terre Island off the coast of Louisiana. This fort, named after a political figure from New York, was built by the federal government and fell back into federal hands after the fall of New Orleans in the Civil war. Here are some facts about Grand Terre Island.)

Tags: Domestic Issues, Environment by Neil Aquino
2 Comments »

The great pianist and songwriter Billy Preston once sang, “nothing from nothing leaves nothing.” Although over 15 to 16 months I have seen the promise of health care reform start with single-payer and then morph into some sort of public option which, were it robust, should be able to contain health-care costs. This is kind of what the House passed. The Senate, on the other hand, is one confusing mess. Senator Max Baucus was given the keys to the city. I’m not sure what exactly he came up with. As chairman of the finance committee, he was in charge of coming up with a health care bill that was attractive to at least a couple of Republicans. Olympia Snowe and others were courted with sweeteners which seem to have eaten away at the core of health care reform. Senator Kent Conrad decided that he would introduce his own health-care legislation which was some sort of co-op. Although he sold this idea on the Sunday talk shows and pushed it hard for 6-8 weeks, thankfully (hopefully), it is died a quick death.

The public option is been tossed around like a medicine ball. In junior high school, we were asked to throw a medicine ball in order to build up muscle strength and coordination. Every other throw, the ball was dropped, kicked and then picked up and thrown again. This is exactly what has happened with the public option. What was once a robust counterweight to private health insurance has turned into something that states can opt in or opt out of, depending upon the whims of their legislature. Oh, and it seems that opposing healthcare is a great way to get on TV and increase your image/status… as in the case of Bart Stupak.

I have stated both on my radio show and on this blog that health-care reform must include something that is cost-effective, portable and increases access to healthcare. Currently, we are looking at a health-care bill that seems to do none of this. Many progressives have decided that they cannot support this bill. They want something else done. I understand the sentiment. I find this whole process extremely frustrating. Democrats seem to be completely unable to stick to their principles and stand up for the middle class. It seems like the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats know what is right but can’t do it. Republicans have no idea what is right and won’t do it. BTW, President Barack Obama is a leader-come-lately. Look, I love this man, but I’m telling the truth. Where was he in the middle of the heat of the summer when healthcare was taking the big hits? He needed to be out of front stating that we HAD to have a robust public option. Alas, he wasn’t there.

Here’s my problem. Washington seems to be controlled by big business. Lobbyists from K St. seem to surround the Capital like locusts. If we scrapped the health-care bill and start all over, how are we going to come up with a different outcome? We’re going to have the same politicians, the same White House and the same lobbyists. As a matter of fact, the lobbyists will be better armed to combat arguments they’ve already heard. They will probably be armed with more money. I’m afraid that starting over will leave us with a bill that’s even worse than what we’re looking at now — if that is possible.

We’re spending $2.4 trillion on health care every year (we spent that much in 2008). Isn’t that enough money? Why do we need to pay any more? Everyone agrees that insurance does not add any value to healthcare. Why is Washington coddling the insurance companies? The whole reason for their existence is not to improve health care, to help doctors deliver better care or to help increase access to doctors by patients. Instead, their whole deal is to simply make money. They make money by not paying claims.

$2.4 trillion is enough money to take care of all 300 million Americans. Combine Medicare and Medicaid and SCHiP and all of the state-run programs into one program. Medicare for All! The government will set up a system to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies and medical device/product manufacturers. Premiums are paid out of our taxes in a graduated fashion. The more you make, the more you pay. Let’s extend patent protection for pharmaceutical companies by 2-5 years. Since the government is negotiating drug prices, pharmaceutical companies can recoup some of their losses through this mechanism. Doctors will be awarded for opening early and staying open late and on the weekends. This way, Americans can go to their physicians without having to take off from work. This increases access. Anyway, Medicare for All, at least for now, is a pipe dream. Right now, I’m good to try to work with my congressional representatives to try to get the best bill possible.

Billy Preston was right. Nothing from Nothing leaves nothing. The Senate is trying to sell us nothing and tell us it is something. They need to do better.

Tags: Congress, Healthcare by ecthompson md
6 Comments »

I’m on call tonight and the beeper is seizing, so I will not have time to post anything else today.  I will say that I’ll definitely have more on healthcare. I’m not sure that I agree with the Political Animal when he gives a thumbs down to Dennis Kucinich. I think that healthcare needs to be about something. I have mentioned multiple times that I wanted a bill that will be cost effective, be portable and increase access to healthcare. I’m not sure that the current version really does any of that. I think that Keith is right:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From Political Animal:

• The potency of Iraq’s insurgency seems to be waning: “Defying a sustained barrage of mortars and rockets in Baghdad and other cities, Iraqis went to the polls in strength on Sunday to choose a new Parliament meant to outlast the American military presence here.”
• On a related note: “Iraqi forces are on track to assume control of the country’s security and the United States is on course to draw down its troops to 50,000 by President Obama’s August deadline, U.S. officials said today.”
• Incredible bloodshed in Nigeria: “Officials and human rights groups in Nigeria said Monday that about 500 people had died in weekend ethnic violence near the central city of Jos, considerably more than what had initially been reported.”
• Vice President Biden travels to Jerusalem today, hoping to kick start Israeli and Palestinian talks. Negotiations have been on a hiatus for 14 months.
• U.S. troops begin their withdrawal from Haiti.
• A new TSA nominee: “President Obama has chosen a retired army intelligence officer, Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, to head the Transportation Security Agency, a job that officials call the most important unfilled position in the administration.”
• Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), still prepared to vote with right-wing Republicans to kill health care reform.
• Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) is urging the state’s public colleges and universities not to extend discrimination protections to LGBT employees.
• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer never should have aired that ridiculous “Dept of Jihad?” segment, but I was glad to see him apologize.
• Jon Chait 1, Mike Allen 0.
• Fact checking the Sunday shows.
• Can online schools simply purchase legitimacy?
• The unintentional humor of The Weekly Standard.
• If I thought the National Review‘s Mark Stein had any idea what he was talking about, I might not like health care reform either.
• Sullivan: “Halperinism really is part of what’s deeply wrong about Washington.”
• Anti-gay California Republican admits that he’s gay.
• Maybe someday racists will realize that their ugly emails can and should have consequences.

Tags: Healthcare, Iraq, Mess O'Potamia (Iraq/Iran/Israel/Palestine) by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I don’t think that this is much of a surprise.

From TP:

In November of 2009, Sarah Palin — who is always suggesting that health care reform will lead to socialism— insisted that Canada needs to reform its health care system to “let the private sector take over.” But this past Saturday in Calgary, Canada — at “her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska last summer” — Palin seemed to deviate from her fear of socialized Canadian medicine when she revealed that her family may have benefited from the Canadian system:

PALIN: We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?

This isn’t the first time Palin highlighted the difficulty of obtaining affordable health care in America. During the presidential campaign, Palin discussed how she and her husband Todd had “gone though periods of our life herewith paying out-of-pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.” At the vice presidential debate, Palin recalled times in her marriage “in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care?” (more…)

Tags: Healthcare, Party Politics by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

There a lot of things in life that are counterintuitive. For example, when we lose control of a car on ice, we are told that we need to turn our wheels into the slide in order to gain traction. We’ve been told by Wall Street, time and time again that layoffs are necessary in order for a company to stay competitive. Corporate layoffs happen so often that Forbes has a Layoff Tracker. In February, ABC announced that it needed to lay off personnel in order to keep up with cable news and the Internet (yes, I know… it didn’t make any sense to me either). Pfizer, BFGoodrich, Continental Airlines, Human and Ford Motor Company are among the major companies who announced layoffs in February. Since November of 2008, America’s 500 largest companies have laid off close to 700,000 people.

Southwest Airlines, based in Dallas where I grew up, was always thought of as a cute and interesting airline. They started about 40 years ago and just flew flights inside Texas. They would fly between Dallas and Houston, Dallas to San Antonio, San Antonio to Austin, etc. Nobody really paid them much attention. Currently, Southwest Airlines is the largest carrier in the United States. They have more scheduled domestic flights than any other carrier. They are bigger than American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines. Southwest Airlines is the only major carrier that has never had involuntary layoffs. They’ve never downsized. According to MorningStar (may need a subscription), “we still think Southwest has one of the strongest balance sheets in the industry.” Never downsized. Even after 9/11, they didn’t lay off one worker, but the company still has one of the strongest balance sheets in the industry. How can this be?

Unfortunately, there’s no way to do a traditional blind study looking at corporations and downsizing. But there appears to be a growing body of literature suggesting that downsizing is not helpful. One study looked at over 100 companies that laid off workers between 1979 and 1997. The study found that the larger the layoffs, the larger the negative stock returns to that company. Another study looking at productivity found that productivity decreased after layoffs and not increased as we’ve been told time and time again. Another study looking at 122 companies found that downsizing reduced subsequent profitability.

Now let’s think about this. You have a job at some giant mega-corporation, a Fortune 500 company. Five years ago, they had their first layoffs. You were spared. You were told by the corporation and they had to get rid of “dead weight.” Three years ago, the company decided to have a second round of layoffs. Where’s the dead weight now? If you got rid of all of your dead weight two years earlier, now you’re getting rid of essential personnel. How is that beneficial? After these layoffs, you and the remaining coworkers have this feeling of dread. Some people had just been laid off had worked just as hard as you do. A year later, there’s another announcement and more layoffs. Now, how motivated are you and your coworkers to give 110%? When you have a presentation that is due, for example, how likely are you to stay after hours and put in that extra effort? As a matter fact, you and your coworkers might be bitter towards management. You’ve seen their salaries increase over the last five years while yours has remained stagnant.

Cities and towns which at one time were dependent upon these large corporations to provide jobs, now cannot even depend on the corporations to stay in town. You’ve lost the stability of your city or town. Your tax base is unstable. How can you make a reliable city budget when you’re unsure if the corporation will stay in town or lay off half its workforce in a couple years?

If downsizing has negative effects on corporations, employees and cities, then why do CEOs continue to insist that downsizing is helpful… not just helpful, but essential to the survival of the corporation? Wall Street has fallen in love with the phrase, “lean and mean.” This is in spite of the fact that lean may make them unable to do the same quality work as they were able to do five years ago. We have all seen the effects of downsizing, yet we have closed our eyes and pretended that this practice is necessary. Two years ago, Dell computers was having a problem with some of their laptops spontaneously igniting. That didn’t happen five or six years ago. I switched from Gateway to Dell over 10 years ago because of Dell’s excellent customer service. Now, I can describe Dell’s customer service in multiple different ways, but “excellent” is not one of them. (I did buy a Dell Computer, one of their fast XPS computers, and it was shipped with the wrong processor.) Every one of us has a tale about a corporation that we used to trust to do X, Y or Z. the corporation was reliable. They delivered an excellent product. Now, not so much.

If we’re looking for ways to revitalize America, if we are looking for a way back, maybe corporations need to invest in a stable workforce here in the United States. To quote one former head of human resources, “If people are your most important assets, why would you get rid of them?”

Much of this post is based on an article by Jeffrey Pfeffer, Lay off the Layoffs, published in Newsweek.

Tags: Business by ecthompson md
7 Comments »

Bart Stupak, Democratic representative from Michigan, has been single-handedly holding up health care legislation. The question is why? This has nothing to do with integrity. It has nothing to do with standing up for his beliefs. Instead, I think this has everything to do with ego. As a representative, he has been mostly ignored by the national media. (I have no idea how well he has received in his home state of Michigan.) He has not sponsored legislation of any significance. He is on the Energy and Commerce Committee. During his eight terms in Congress, I know of no significant legislation that he is sponsored. Now, he can grab the spotlight and maybe, just maybe, it will propel him into the Governor’s mansion.

Rachel Maddow may have an idea:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Political Animal has more:

Arguably the single biggest threat to health care reform is Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and his dozen Democratic allies, who are threatening to kill the legislation over indirect, circuitous funding of abortion.

Efforts to work with Stupak are ongoing, but it’s worth emphasizing a relevant detail: Stupak is just wrong about the underlying policy dispute. Whether he knows he’s wrong, and he’s just hoping to kill health care reform, is unclear. But the accuracy of Stupak’s claims aren’t in dispute: the facts aren’t on his side.

ABC News did a nice job fact-checking Stupak’s argument this week, and Slate’s Tim Noah (a Monthly alum) published the definitive takedown a couple of days ago, explaining that some areas of the debate are open to interpretation and debate, but this isn’t one of them: “Stupak happens to be wrong.”

Ideally, this would be enough. Democratic leaders would explain the truth to Stupak and his allies, making the case on the merits — the Senate compromise language, endorsed by center-right Dems who oppose abortion rights, already does what Stupak & Co. want, which is to prevent public funding of abortion.

Tags: Healthcare, Party Politics, Rachel Maddow Show by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Now, this is progressive radio. Enjoy.

The Errington Thompson Show 2-6-2-10 [ 54:24 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Podcasts by ecthompson md
2 Comments »

I thought I was current with my shows. I’m not sure why I thought that. I’m never current.

Hope for Haiti raises $57 million for Haiti. Military contractor DynCorp has lost millions in Iraq. James O’Keefe was arrested for trying to wiretap Mary Landrieu. This is really crazy. We have never gotten the real story on O’Keefe and ACORN. These stories and more.

Now, this is progressive radio! Enjoy!

The Errington Thompson Show - 1-30-2010 [ 55:00 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Podcasts by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I’ll be on BlogTalkRadio at 5 pm today. Give me a listen. I really appreciate it.

Tags: Podcasts by ecthompson md
No Comments »

David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in August of last year (David Rivkin is to conservatives as Jonathan Turley is to progressives.) These two lawyers try to answer the question, can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? They argue that the commerce clause does not affect healthcare and that Congress cannot mandate coverage. “The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the ‘production, distribution or consumption of commodities,’ but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist.”

I’m not a law professor. I will never profess to be one. Stephen Schwinn is an associate professor of law at the John Marshall Law School. He runs the blog constitutional law prof blog. Here’s what he had to say –

After reflecting on the case law, I agree with the Adler/Massey/Balkin formulation for several reasons. First, I think that Professor Adler correctly asserts that in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court made clear that the Commerce Power extends to the power to regulate markets.  Justice Stevens stated, “[W]hen a general regulatory scheme bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.”  The opinion goes on to say, “[W]e have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for beleiving that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the [Controlled Substances Act].  These words seem to leave little to interpretation.  In fact, in dissent, Justice O’Connor interpreted the majority’s opinion in the same manner.  Thus, the regulatory scheme argument seems logical and sound.

Second, Rivkin and Casey may be overselling the non-economic quality of the decision not to purchase health care.  While Rivkin and Casey are clearly well-versed in the relevant cases, it appears that some critical portions of those cases are omitted from their reasoning.  For instance, Lopez and Morrison do stand for the proposition that the Congress should use its Commerce Clause power primarily to regulate economic activity.  However, the authors mention, but seem to discount, the breadth of the definition of “economic” provided in the Gonzales case.  In her dissent, Justice O’Connor stated, “The Court’s definition of economic activity is breathtaking.  It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distrubution, and consumption of commodities . . . [T]he Court’s definition of economic activity for purposes of Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal reach.” Thus, after Gonzales, we still have a Commerce Clause jurisprudence that favors economic activity.   However, as pointed out by Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the definition of economic is now so broad that the number of activities coming within its ambit has been increased, rather than decreased.  Since health insurance is certainly a commodity, it stands to reason under our new, broader difinition, that Congress can regulate the “production, distribution, and consumption” of said commodity, even where a person may not wish to become a consumer.  In other words, if Congress can regulate the purchasing of goods, it should be able to regulate their non-purchase, as Professor Balkin suggests.  To suggest otherwise would not only invite a sort of tortured logic, but would overlook the spirit of cases such as Wickard, a spirit which was soundly reaffirmed by the Gonzales majority.  Thus, I believe an argument can be made that even the non-purchase is an economic act able to be regulated by Congress.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Court’s decision in Morrison is broader that Rivkin and Casey’s analysis admits.  Though the Morrison court was careful to state that gender violence was not an economic activity, Chief Justice Rehnquist went on to state, “. . . we need not adopt a categorical rule against aggregating the affects of any non-economic activity . . .”  Here, the Court left an opening, realizing that a fact pattern could occur which might allow for the aggregation of non-economic activity.  Assuming (contrary to my prior paragraph) that a refusal to purchase health care is a non-economic decision and the regulatory argument does not work, the game might not be over.  An individual person’s decision not to purchase healthcare might not be regulable on its own.  But in the aggregate, that person’s choice would obviously affect the interstate healthcare market.   Due to the strong, strong connection between the refusal to purchase health care and interstate commerce (something sorely lacking in both Lopez and Morrison), if there were a case for arguing for non-economic aggregation, this would seem to be a perfect test-case.

For those who are still not convinced Jack Balkin debated David Rivkin and Lee Casey. The two-part debate can be found here.

The Tenthers believe that states should have to the right to tell the federal government to stick healthcare where the sun don’t shine.  Again from Professor Schwinn -

If Congress has authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate, these state measure run up against the Supremacy Clause: They are almost surely unconstitutional, as conflicting directly with the federal requirement.

But advocates of the measures nevertheless claim that they interfere with “state sovereignty.”  As one advocate in the last line of this morning’s story said, “No Supreme Court has ever been more sympathetic to state sovereignty than the current Court.”

Whether that’s right or not, it almost surely would not affect the Supremacy Clause analysis (unless the Court were willing to undo well settled Supremacy Clause principles).  So what does it mean?

One possible answer: A mandate’s interference with “state sovereignty” means that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause to enact a mandate in the first place.  This interpretation might draw support from U.S. v. Lopez (holding that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the Gun Free School Zone Act) and U.S. v. Morrison (holding that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the civil damages provision of the Violence Against Women Act).  The majority in both of those cases referred to the slippery slope that might result if Congress had authority to enact those laws: “Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens . . . .  Under the[se] theories . . . it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign.”  But neither case turned on this slippery slope, and the interference with traditionally state regulated activities alone is surely not enough to render congressional action unconstitutional.  See Gonzales v. Raich (upholding a federal drug possession law).

I must add the 1st and 5th amendment challenges that conservatives have mentioned from time to time.  Professor Mark Hall has addressed these and other challenges in a 26 page brief. Here’s what Professor Hall has to say about the 1st and 5th amendment challenges -

Challenges under the First and Fifth Amendments relating to individual rights may arise, but are unlikely to succeed. The federal government should include an exemption on religious grounds to a health insurance mandate as an added measure of protection from legal challenges based on religious freedom. In the alternative, the federal government can simply exempt a federal insurance mandate from existing federal legislation protecting religious freedom.

Finally, it really doesn’t matter what law I site. To those who want to kill healthcare at any costs, I’m sure they will never be convinced by any rational argument. They simply want to hear that they are right. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn’t look they are even close to being right.

Tags: Healthcare, Legal by ecthompson md
6 Comments »

I was recently reading a book I bought when I was a kid called Ships–Through The Ages. The book is by Douglas Lobley.

This book was first published in 1972.  I think I bought my copy in the years I lived in Providence, Rhode Island.

Here is what the book says about the papyrus boat such as you see in the picture above—

” Papyrus boats, so much a feature of early Egyptian boat-bulding, had their counterparts as far away as Lake Titicaca in South America, where balsa was and still used for the construction of  boats.”

Papyrus boats are still made today.

Isn’t it excellent that technology that worked thousands of years ago still works today?

Isn’t it excellent that the things that we have always felt to have value will always have value?

Loyalty to our significant other and to our friends and family.

Commitment to our political ideologies and to our beliefs.

A desire for knowledge and for purpose.

These are the things that matter across the years.

Tags: General by Neil Aquino
No Comments »