The exact dates are uncertain, but the outcome is not. If current trends in salaries and healthcare costs paid by employers continue, your employer will be paying you more in health benefits than in salary. It's simple math and was pointed out to me by an outfit called ERI. This information is from a paper newsletter that I have been unable to find online, unfortunately. They are pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who can multiply:
"Executive pay increasing at 20% doubles a sum every 3+ years; health care doubles every 7+ years at 10%; and average workers' wages double every 24 years at 3%.
...
We can debate "when" but someday soon the cost of employees' health care will exceed average salary/wage costs. It's a mathematical certainty.
It's a tough choice, because the whole thing was kinda fun. This part comes in as a close second:
BLITZER: There is nothing in there about rapes and brothels?
L. CHENEY: Wolf, could we talk about a children's book for a minute?
BLITZER: We can talk about the children's book, but I just want to ...
L. CHENEY: I think our segment is like 15 minutes long and we've now done 10 minutes of ...
BLITZER: I just wanted to clarify what's in the news today, give you a ...
I love how the rest of the media really picked up and ran with that - about how unhinged she was, just like Bill Clinton when he made the same point with Chris Wallace. Ok, I'm dreaming, but that's why this is only the second best part.
I'm getting that feeling again. The one I had just after the 2002 election. You probably felt it too, remember? The difference between now and then, of course is how alone I felt. I really thought I was all alone in my depression over just how much my fellow citizens and Democratic politicians had let me down and in my anger at how brazenly the Administration manipulated the political process using a war resolution for political gain. I took myself to the movies and cried through `Bowling for Columbine' so that I might feel less alone.
This year's midterms are often compared to the 1994 elections that changed control of Congress. I thought it might be interesting to take a look back and see what was being said then. CW at this point in the cycle seemed to be a widespread belief that Dems would lose big time. Here are a few examples of that mindset.
This is from a program called "CNN & Company"
MARY TILLOTSON, Host: Thanks very much for being with us. President Clinton has just finished a Labor Day speech to shipyard workers at Bath, Maine. Mr. Clinton, of course, isn't the only politician out talking to voters today, since Labor Day is the traditional kickoff of the fall campaign season.
This year's midterm election has Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of big wins in the House and Senate, and here to talk about the political landscape, heading into the fall, are Republican consultant Maureen Reagan; Jane Norris, who is a regular talk show host at WHAS in Louisville, Kentucky; and Susan Page, White House correspondent for Newsday. Very glad all three of you interrupted what might have been a holiday for you to come in.
Republican sources told TIME that the White House plans to name his replacement on Monday: Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence has been a visible and aggressive defender of the administration's controversial eavesdropping program. His nomination is sure to reignite the battle over the program on Capitol Hill, where one House Democrat promises "a partisan food fight" during the confirmation process.
Setting aside the obligatory quote that makes Democrats look petty, I wonder why they didn't mention his previous job.
When we win back the House maybe women will be as important as food - or more precisely the companies that process and distribute food `products'.
I caught the opening statement for debate on amendments to the food labeling bill made by Phil Gingrey (R-GA) on Wednesday. For some reason, my mind wandered. I imagined a country that put women's health care on the same level of importance as food manufacturers' interests. It's amazing how only a few word changes create a whole new world. One where all of the concern over confusion created by different state rules was transferred to women's health:
The most intriguing part of VP Cheney's interview yesterday had nothing to do with how he shot an old man in the face and heart. It was this little nugget that Brit Hume accidentally got out of him:
"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."
I've never called before, I didn't realize you get cut off as soon as you ask your question (I would have been more detailed had I known). They had a Republican and a Democratic college activists on. I asked the Republican - who had earlier described himself as a Christian conservative and felt it necessary to point out there was a Muslim group of College Republicans at the CPAC conference he's in town for - how he felt about Ann Coulter's raghead remarks at her speech last night.
I suspect I'm not the only one here who spent part of their New Years traveling back in time via CSPAN3. Back to the 1987 confirmation hearings of Robert Bork. It was especially nostalgic for me because I played a small part in the campaign to block him. I was a lowly intern at a women's organization that was part of the coalition working to block him. I remember sitting on the floor putting together packets of postcards, stickers, and other (quaint by today's standards) tools for grassroots activism. Truth be told I don't think too many of us thought we'd be successful. It was pretty unusual to defeat a nomination to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday I turned on the hearings just as Bork was being asked about his role in the Saturday night massacre. The scene could not be more relevant to today's events. We won that Bork battle. While we may not have won the war, winning the battle felt pretty good and changed Supreme Court nominations forever. It was gratifying to watch those hearings again knowing the outcome. Let's feel that again.
TOOBIN: Well, this is probably the most important abortion case since Roe v. Wade. It was -- it came out of Pennsylvania, which is included in the 3rd Circuit. And Samuel Alito dissented in the 3rd Circuit.
Let me just simplify it. He tried -- he believed that the parental -- the notification by husband, which was part of the Pennsylvania law, was permissible. He thought it was OK that Pennsylvania insisted that a woman get her husband's permission before she got an abortion. That part of the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court. So, the court disagreed with him about that.
Forewarned is forearmed. Beware the coming smears from the right on how the left is once again attacking Christmas. WaPo ran a small story today (scroll down to the second blurb) with the facts necessary to debunk the coming distortions. It's pretty amazing the way our forest service chooses to spend its resources in a cynical attempt to set up environmentalists.
I searched before posting this but didn't find anything. Apologies if I missed it.
This is important information for all who took part in protests on the mall last week. Air filters in DC last week detected an unusual biological agent. It doesn't appear to be too dangerous, but you all should be aware of it.
I am a benefits administrator. I just recieved a newsletter from our health plan. It contains all sorts of info on how I can improve health care 'affordability' for my employees (like with the HRA and HSA products). The last page describes their exciting new plan to help employees save on prescription drugs. I've been doing this for several years, and I have never seen such a desperate attempt to lower costs.
The paper was late today. So I had to look at yesterday's for items I hadn't read. Naturally, Novak's column was among the unread, since I enjoy reading it about as much as I enjoy sticking needles in my eyes.
So in this particular piece of fiction, he's defending Tomlinson of the CPB (you know, the guy who paid someone to watch Bill Moyers' show and prove it was liberal). You'd think he might be a little more cautious about the particular smears he employs, given recent events. But nooooooooo....
Thanks to someone here, I was made aware of this site which alerted me to the status of an awful abortion bill. Now is the time to contact your Rep about the 'Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act'.
Below are some facts from NARAL about this stupid piece of legislation:
I was strangely hopeful this morning reading the Washington Post. Three unrelated stories jumped out at me. They all have to do with the dark side of how the GOP is operating these days. It's clear to anyone who's paying attention that perception is the only concern of this party's operatives. It's infuriating to me that there is so little meaningful policy discussion going on, and the goal of the party is to simply retain power at any cost. Why am I hopeful? Well, I suppose it's about time we started seeing this stuff reported.
