Bailout Recipients Hosted Call to Defeat Key Labor Bill
Tuesday 27 January 2009
by: Sam Stein, The Huffington Post
http://www.truthout.org/012809LA
Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.
Participants on the October 17 call - including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG - were urged to persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.
Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.
"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it."
Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."
"If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out their goddamn jobs," Marcus declared.
Earlier he argued: "As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]... I would sue the son of a bitch... I'm so angry at some of these CEOs, I can't even believe the stupidity that is involved here."
Audio of the conference call, which was obtained by the Huffington Post, is excerpted throughout this piece to provide a clearer insight into the pitched battle surrounding the Employee Free Choice legislation. At one point, relatively early in the call, Marcus joked that he "took a tranquilizer this morning to calm myself down."
"This bill may be one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life," he said, explaining that he could have been on "a 350-foot boat out in the Mediterranean," but felt it was more important to engage on this fight. "It is incredible to me that anybody could have the chutzpah to try and pass this bill in this election year, especially when we have an economy that is a disaster, a total absolute disaster."
The legislation - which would allow workers to form a union either by holding a traditional election or having a majority of employees sign written forms - is virtually certain to face a Republican filibuster. Obama and Senate Democrats have stated their commitment to the bill, though the timing of the vote remains a topic of heated debate.
Weeks before the November election, Marcus, Berman, and others saw this ominous political landscape taking shape. Hoping to aid opponents of EFCA in the Senate, they pleaded with participants on the call, mostly stock analysts or individuals with investment portfolios, to urge clients to prop up the campaigns of endangered Republican candidates, including Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
"If there are not enough Republicans operating as a firewall, after this election it is going to be very difficult to hold the line," predicted Berman. "The only way after these elections if we don't have a filibuster proof Senate... is to make this issue so hot in some states so that even a Democrat who is up for election in 2010 has to think twice about whether or not they are going to let this thing go by."
At one point, another individual on the call suggested that participants send major contributions to Berman's organization as a way of affecting the election without violating the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "Some organizations have written checks for $250,000, $500,000, some $2 million for this," said the man, likely Steven Hantler, the director of free enterprise and entrepreneurship at Bernie Marcus' Marcus Foundation.
Citing the massive war chests that unions have brought to the EFCA fight, Marcus asked participants to make campaign donations rather than lobbying payments. "Fire all these guys in Washington," he said of the K-Street operators, "they are worthless anyway."
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Berman said that there "was nothing on that call that spoke to funneling money to anybody." Indeed, at a separate point, Marcus discussed the need to contribute to issue advocacy and education activities. The call, Berman continued, was designed to explain some of the economic implications of passing EFCA and was "one of a series with people around the country who are connected to businesses."
"There has been, though it has changed in the last few months, a fairly significant deficit in terms of understanding what this law is about," Berman said. "I know a number of business groups have held calls with people about the impact of this legislation... The unions who are a proponent of this have not made it a high profile issue. I think they have learned from their polling that it doesn't poll well, which is why they don't' want to make it a public issue."
As for the business community, Berman added, "I do think that most businesspeople fully appreciate the damage that out-of-control labor leaders have caused for other businesses. There is no appetite for finding out if you are going to have to be the next business to deal with other labor issues."
A Bank of America spokesman declined a request for public comment, and the bank's representative on the call played a minor role. The conference call was referenced in a November 5 Bank of America research document, in which the company noted that EFCA "increases the likelihood that retailers would be unionized, which could drive higher labor cost at retail." On "the flip side," however, the document said the bill would increase the "spending power of lower income consumers as this would be a de facto wage and benefit increase."
As evidenced by its dual interpretation of the legislation, Bank of America's role in the EFCA fight is a bit murky. The company, as stated by an official there, hosted the call for the purposes of equity research, meaning that their goal was to represent the opinions of clients and not the bank itself. But their involvement in an effort to drum up support for defeating the labor-backed legislation, so soon after getting bail out funds from the federal government, left a bad taste in the mouth of some union officials.
"Bank of America is now not only getting bailout money. They are lending their name to participate in a campaign to stop workers from having a majority sign up [provision]," said Stephen Lerner, Director of the Private Equity Project at SEIU. "The biggest corporations who have created the problem are, at the very time, asking us to bail them out and then using that money to stop workers from improving their lives."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tax Cuts An Inefficient Stimulus
Tax Cuts An Inefficient Stimulus
Isaiah J. Poole's picture
CAF STAFF
By Isaiah J. Poole
October 27th, 2008 - 11:04am ET
http://institute.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104427/tax-cuts-ineffcient-stimulus
A federal spending program that only yielded 37 cents of benefit for every dollar spent, or even less, would generate sustained demands from the conservative chattering class that it be shut down. So why does the right keep selling extending President Bush's tax cuts as an economic stimulus tool?
The argument that tax cuts are preferable to federal spending to stimulate the economy is effectively refuted by a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, which lays side by side the various effects of stimulus proposals from both the left and the right. What's clear, as you can see from the chart below, is that as a rule taxpayers get a fair better bang for their dollars through direct federal stimulus spending than they do from the tax proposals proffered by conservatives.
The main components of a stimulus package being formulated by a group of progressive leaders—which would be about $300 billion a year and would include infrastructure spending, extended unemployment benefits, and assistance to state and local governments—all give a positive return to the taxpayer.
Tax proposals promoted by conservatives as the core of their stimulus strategy—making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further cuts in corporate tax rates and accelerated depreciation—all yield a negative return to the taxpayer.
An economic snapshot report by EPI explains that direct spending is also more effective than the tax rebate strategy that was employed earlier in 2008. EPI's Ethan Pollack notes:
As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit.1 By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. Not only are many of these stimulus options more effective, but they also have the added benefit of assisting those hardest hit by the downturn and tackling long-standing infrastructure needs that would lower transportation costs, decrease traffic, and increase business productivity.
Zandi’s analysis also shows what doesn’t work as stimulus: a variety of tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals, which cost over twice as much as they return to the economy.
EPI economist Jared Bernstein discussed these findings October 24 at a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee. There, he noted that the past eight years of economic policy—based on the principle that the benefits of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy would trickle down to working-class people—have been a failure for millions of ordinary Americans:
Much of the current recession/stimulus debate has stressed that recent recessions—the ones in 1990-91 and 2001—were both mild and short-lived, and perhaps the next recession will follow the same pattern. It is critical to recognize that these claims are based solely on real output growth, and not on job market conditions. The allegedly mild 2001 recession, wherein real gross domestic product barely contracted, was followed by the longest “jobless recovery” on record. Though real GDP grew, payrolls shed another net 1.1 million jobs. The unemployment rate rose for another 19 months and for almost two years for African-Americans. The pattern was similar, though not quite as deep, after the early 1990s recession.
Isaiah J. Poole's picture
CAF STAFF
By Isaiah J. Poole
October 27th, 2008 - 11:04am ET
http://institute.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104427/tax-cuts-ineffcient-stimulus
A federal spending program that only yielded 37 cents of benefit for every dollar spent, or even less, would generate sustained demands from the conservative chattering class that it be shut down. So why does the right keep selling extending President Bush's tax cuts as an economic stimulus tool?
The argument that tax cuts are preferable to federal spending to stimulate the economy is effectively refuted by a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, which lays side by side the various effects of stimulus proposals from both the left and the right. What's clear, as you can see from the chart below, is that as a rule taxpayers get a fair better bang for their dollars through direct federal stimulus spending than they do from the tax proposals proffered by conservatives.
The main components of a stimulus package being formulated by a group of progressive leaders—which would be about $300 billion a year and would include infrastructure spending, extended unemployment benefits, and assistance to state and local governments—all give a positive return to the taxpayer.
Tax proposals promoted by conservatives as the core of their stimulus strategy—making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further cuts in corporate tax rates and accelerated depreciation—all yield a negative return to the taxpayer.
An economic snapshot report by EPI explains that direct spending is also more effective than the tax rebate strategy that was employed earlier in 2008. EPI's Ethan Pollack notes:
As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit.1 By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. Not only are many of these stimulus options more effective, but they also have the added benefit of assisting those hardest hit by the downturn and tackling long-standing infrastructure needs that would lower transportation costs, decrease traffic, and increase business productivity.
Zandi’s analysis also shows what doesn’t work as stimulus: a variety of tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals, which cost over twice as much as they return to the economy.
EPI economist Jared Bernstein discussed these findings October 24 at a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee. There, he noted that the past eight years of economic policy—based on the principle that the benefits of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy would trickle down to working-class people—have been a failure for millions of ordinary Americans:
Much of the current recession/stimulus debate has stressed that recent recessions—the ones in 1990-91 and 2001—were both mild and short-lived, and perhaps the next recession will follow the same pattern. It is critical to recognize that these claims are based solely on real output growth, and not on job market conditions. The allegedly mild 2001 recession, wherein real gross domestic product barely contracted, was followed by the longest “jobless recovery” on record. Though real GDP grew, payrolls shed another net 1.1 million jobs. The unemployment rate rose for another 19 months and for almost two years for African-Americans. The pattern was similar, though not quite as deep, after the early 1990s recession.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Continues To Lie About The CBO Analysis Of Recovery Bill
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/cantors-stimulus-lies/
------
Update: Despite Cantor's efforts, it seems he and his caucus might not be exactly on the same page. On NPR this morning, Cantor "thanked" Obama for "working with us" to include "some terrific tax provisions in the bill." At the same time, however, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) insisted on Fox News, "Republicans have had no input whatsoever in the development of this so-called stimulus bill." On CNN, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said of House Republicans' complaints, "I don't think they ought to whine about the process."
------
Cantor Continues To Lie About The CBO Analysis Of Recovery Bill
cantor-godly.jpgLast week, ThinkProgress called out House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) for lying about the economic recovery bill, specifically for claiming that the bill would give more money to “grass” on the National Mall then to small businesses. In new interviews, he continues to peddle the same falsehood, even though House Democrats have now agreed to strip the “grass” funding completely.
More importantly, Cantor is lying about the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) assessment of the recovery bill by continuing to cite a preliminary, incomplete, and misleading CBO chart — despite the fact that the full report was released Monday, giving him plenty of time to arm himself with the truth:
– Well, I mean, you know, the lasting problem with this bill, not only will it not deliver real stimulus — even the Congressional Budget Office says it’s not stimulative — is that, you know, people and businesses and entrepreneurs are going to look out into the future and see trillions of dollars of additional debt. [CNBC, 1/28/09]
– I think first of all you have to focus spending on actual stimulus. You’ve got CBO saying that only 25 percent goes out in the first year. You’ve got to have some type of ability to provide that jobs will be created or maintained because of the government spending. [Interview with Marc Ambinder, 1/27/09]
Cantor’s complaints ring hollow. As to his first claim, the CBO analysis found that the recovery bill would have “a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.” As far as his second statement, the CBO report stated that about 65 percent of the funding would be spent by September 2010. (The report said it “would not be appropriate” to calculate spending in 2009 because “because the bill would be enacted almost halfway into the fiscal year.”)
Cantor’s lies are more evidence that the right wing is desperate for reasons to oppose the bill, despite President Obama’s unprecedented efforts to woo conservatives. Although Cantor and his allies have praised Obama for reaching out, behind closed doors they are demanding that all Republicans vote against the recovery bill:
[N]one of the Republicans in attendance spoke up in disagreement when urged to oppose the legislation by their leaders. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the party’s leader, and Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second in command, said they wanted “100 percent” opposition to the measure, which they argue includes billions in wasteful spending, these officials said.
Now former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who has proved capable at telling House Republicans what to do — is seeking to corral the opposition, offering an emphatic “no” when asked if conservatives should support the bill.
------
Update: Despite Cantor's efforts, it seems he and his caucus might not be exactly on the same page. On NPR this morning, Cantor "thanked" Obama for "working with us" to include "some terrific tax provisions in the bill." At the same time, however, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) insisted on Fox News, "Republicans have had no input whatsoever in the development of this so-called stimulus bill." On CNN, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said of House Republicans' complaints, "I don't think they ought to whine about the process."
------
Cantor Continues To Lie About The CBO Analysis Of Recovery Bill
cantor-godly.jpgLast week, ThinkProgress called out House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) for lying about the economic recovery bill, specifically for claiming that the bill would give more money to “grass” on the National Mall then to small businesses. In new interviews, he continues to peddle the same falsehood, even though House Democrats have now agreed to strip the “grass” funding completely.
More importantly, Cantor is lying about the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) assessment of the recovery bill by continuing to cite a preliminary, incomplete, and misleading CBO chart — despite the fact that the full report was released Monday, giving him plenty of time to arm himself with the truth:
– Well, I mean, you know, the lasting problem with this bill, not only will it not deliver real stimulus — even the Congressional Budget Office says it’s not stimulative — is that, you know, people and businesses and entrepreneurs are going to look out into the future and see trillions of dollars of additional debt. [CNBC, 1/28/09]
– I think first of all you have to focus spending on actual stimulus. You’ve got CBO saying that only 25 percent goes out in the first year. You’ve got to have some type of ability to provide that jobs will be created or maintained because of the government spending. [Interview with Marc Ambinder, 1/27/09]
Cantor’s complaints ring hollow. As to his first claim, the CBO analysis found that the recovery bill would have “a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.” As far as his second statement, the CBO report stated that about 65 percent of the funding would be spent by September 2010. (The report said it “would not be appropriate” to calculate spending in 2009 because “because the bill would be enacted almost halfway into the fiscal year.”)
Cantor’s lies are more evidence that the right wing is desperate for reasons to oppose the bill, despite President Obama’s unprecedented efforts to woo conservatives. Although Cantor and his allies have praised Obama for reaching out, behind closed doors they are demanding that all Republicans vote against the recovery bill:
[N]one of the Republicans in attendance spoke up in disagreement when urged to oppose the legislation by their leaders. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the party’s leader, and Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second in command, said they wanted “100 percent” opposition to the measure, which they argue includes billions in wasteful spending, these officials said.
Now former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who has proved capable at telling House Republicans what to do — is seeking to corral the opposition, offering an emphatic “no” when asked if conservatives should support the bill.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why House Republicans Aren't Worth Listening To
Why House Republicans Aren't Worth Listening To
Posted by Christopher Hayes, The Nation at 3:28 PM on January 27, 2009.
This has, all things considered, been a pretty great week for the republic: executive orders increasing government transparency, banning torture, and beginning the process of closing Guantanamo. Obama's also given a nuanced, thoughtful and largely pitch-perfect interview to Al Arabiya as his first public interview, reaching out to the Muslim world in a way, frankly, only he probably could. So, overall, thumbs up, Mr. President!
But: today's been frustrating. Earlier in the week we got word that a provision to allow bankruptcy judges to alter mortgage terms will not be included in the stimulus, partly at the White House's behest. Now, it's unclear whether there was ever much momentum inside the House and Senate leadership to put this in the bill, but the fact that it's not going in is nearly criminal. Almost every single economist and expert I've talked to thinks this is an absolutely necessary step in foreclosure mitigation. No less a flaming Marxist than Richard Berner. It's also very easy to implement, since bankruptcy judges already have the power to alter mortgage terms for non-primary residences. On the policy merits, it's a no brainer. And on top of that, Senate Democrats, apparently in direct negotiations with Citigroup have gotten Citigroup to agree not to oppose the provision (so kind of them!), I don't even see where the political opposition is coming from. Get this done, now.
Then there's the word that at Obama's urging, House Democrats are going to cut birth control funding from the stimulus. Yglesias notes, wisely that this seems to be concession in exchange for nothing. It's not like more Republicans are now going to vote for the bill that weren't before.
But more crucially, I think it's really important to put the House Republican caucus in context. After two successive bloodbaths, the house GOP Caucus is pared down pretty far. Those left standing more or less represent fairly hard core, deep red conservative districts. Rep. Jeb Hensnarling is not going to vote for the stimulus because he just doesn't believe in large government spending to stimulate the economy. That's fine: I imagine many of his constituents feel the same way. So kudos to him for representing his district. But there's no reason, then to take what Hensnarling or Cantor or Boehner say about the stimulus particularly seriously. Ideologically they are disposed to oppose it, and politically they can only win if Obama fails. Believe me, if the situation were reversed, if the Democrats were down to a caucus dominated by Barbara Lee's and Dennis Kucinich's, no one in the GOP nor the MSM would much care about their complaints that a Republican-sponsored bill cut food stamps, or LIHEAP, or otherwise screwed poor people.
And it's not like conservative views won't be represented in the final legislation. It's in the nature of the Senate to give outsize representation to the minority. There are plenty of Republican senators who actually represent states where they will face accountability to the voters.
So, note to the White House: whenever John Boehner shows up on your TV, change the channel.
Posted by Christopher Hayes, The Nation at 3:28 PM on January 27, 2009.
This has, all things considered, been a pretty great week for the republic: executive orders increasing government transparency, banning torture, and beginning the process of closing Guantanamo. Obama's also given a nuanced, thoughtful and largely pitch-perfect interview to Al Arabiya as his first public interview, reaching out to the Muslim world in a way, frankly, only he probably could. So, overall, thumbs up, Mr. President!
But: today's been frustrating. Earlier in the week we got word that a provision to allow bankruptcy judges to alter mortgage terms will not be included in the stimulus, partly at the White House's behest. Now, it's unclear whether there was ever much momentum inside the House and Senate leadership to put this in the bill, but the fact that it's not going in is nearly criminal. Almost every single economist and expert I've talked to thinks this is an absolutely necessary step in foreclosure mitigation. No less a flaming Marxist than Richard Berner. It's also very easy to implement, since bankruptcy judges already have the power to alter mortgage terms for non-primary residences. On the policy merits, it's a no brainer. And on top of that, Senate Democrats, apparently in direct negotiations with Citigroup have gotten Citigroup to agree not to oppose the provision (so kind of them!), I don't even see where the political opposition is coming from. Get this done, now.
Then there's the word that at Obama's urging, House Democrats are going to cut birth control funding from the stimulus. Yglesias notes, wisely that this seems to be concession in exchange for nothing. It's not like more Republicans are now going to vote for the bill that weren't before.
But more crucially, I think it's really important to put the House Republican caucus in context. After two successive bloodbaths, the house GOP Caucus is pared down pretty far. Those left standing more or less represent fairly hard core, deep red conservative districts. Rep. Jeb Hensnarling is not going to vote for the stimulus because he just doesn't believe in large government spending to stimulate the economy. That's fine: I imagine many of his constituents feel the same way. So kudos to him for representing his district. But there's no reason, then to take what Hensnarling or Cantor or Boehner say about the stimulus particularly seriously. Ideologically they are disposed to oppose it, and politically they can only win if Obama fails. Believe me, if the situation were reversed, if the Democrats were down to a caucus dominated by Barbara Lee's and Dennis Kucinich's, no one in the GOP nor the MSM would much care about their complaints that a Republican-sponsored bill cut food stamps, or LIHEAP, or otherwise screwed poor people.
And it's not like conservative views won't be represented in the final legislation. It's in the nature of the Senate to give outsize representation to the minority. There are plenty of Republican senators who actually represent states where they will face accountability to the voters.
So, note to the White House: whenever John Boehner shows up on your TV, change the channel.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Dean Baker | The Anti-Stimulus Crowd Blows a Gasket
t r u t h o u t | 01.26
Dean Baker | The Anti-Stimulus Crowd Blows a Gasket
http://www.truthout.org/012609A
Dean Baker, Truthout:
"The anti-stimulus crowd is getting desperate. The possibility that a young charismatic new president will push through an ambitious package that begins to set the economy right is truly terrifying to this crew. After all, if the economy begins to turn around and has largely recovered in three or four years, the Republican leadership can look forward to spending most of their careers in the political wilderness."
Dean Baker | The Anti-Stimulus Crowd Blows a Gasket
http://www.truthout.org/012609A
Dean Baker, Truthout:
"The anti-stimulus crowd is getting desperate. The possibility that a young charismatic new president will push through an ambitious package that begins to set the economy right is truly terrifying to this crew. After all, if the economy begins to turn around and has largely recovered in three or four years, the Republican leadership can look forward to spending most of their careers in the political wilderness."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
GOP Tax Philosophy
Tax breaks for people who do not earn enough to pay INCOME taxes is just government welfare. Then what the hell GOP thinks are Social Security taxes, MEDICARE taxes, PROPERTY taxes & SALES taxes? Maybe Jon Kyl (R-AZ), have the answer?
This Week In Science
This Week In Science
by DarkSyde
Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:00:05 AM PST
Physics, mathematics, chemistry, and of course near and dear to our hearts on earth, biology. These and other analytical disciplines are not just fields of study. They are the universal operating system, the software running everything in the cosmos, including us. The software is immutable, for the spiritual among you, think of it as pre-written. But built into that cosmic code is a flexibility allowing creatures clever enough to master even a tiny portion of it to benefit immensely. There are encouraging signs our new President gets that:
We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
And we’ve barely scratched the surface. What fortunes might be made, what misfortunes could be eased, with a top down focus on science? Better motor function for the paralyzed, new tissue for the burned, maybe one day new organs, even new eyes; low abundance proteins with astonishing, healing properties; nanosolar cells that can be painted on walls with a brush, ready to be routed and plugged into your fuse box.
With money so tight, and the economy so weak, with so many problems riding on the shoulders of the new President and Congress, it’s tempting to overlook any program which is not immediately essential. But I would urge the newly elected to think long and hard when it comes to science funding. Because science is a lot more than understanding the universe we inhabit or grasping the intricacies of particles that make it up: Science is the engine of innovation and capitalism.
* Seed Science Blogs has set up a discussion and feedback platform for scientists to talk to and about about Obama's Inaugural phrase, "The rightful place of science."
* Another treasured conservative tool for denying global melting bites the dust: The most comprehensive study to date now indicates Antarctica is indeed warming. I'll have more on this tomorrow on Sunday Kos.
* I'm proud to say my own, newly elected Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas -- also recently appointed to the House Committee on Science -- is already getting into the science funding spirit.
* The first experimental treatment for spinal cord injuries in humans using modified embryonic stem cells has been given the greenlight to proceed by the FDA.
* There's flu and then there's complications from flu. This one is a pneumonia complicated by pus formation. Think of a 2 liter soda bottle, empty, and then put a balloon in it and blow it up so that the balloon takes the shape of inside the bottle. The bottle is your chest wall and the balloon is your lung, filled with air. Put water in the balloon and you have pneumonia. But put an inch or two of water in the bottle, and then put the balloon in, and you get water outside the balloon/lung but inside the bottle/chest. It's a complication of pneumonia called a parapneumonic effusion and it's not good. It often has to be drained via a hole in the bottle/chest wall. But if instead of fluid you get pus, it's called empyema. That's even worse, and is difficult to treat, especially in young children (i.e. it's hospital stuff with maybe an invasive procedure for drainage. Do not try this at home.)
Bacterial pneumonia with empyema is a serious complication of influenza and commonly resulted in death during the 1918 influenza pandemic. We hypothesize that deaths caused by parapneumonic empyema are increasing in Utah once again despite advances in critical care and the availability of antimicrobial drugs and new vaccines. In this study, we analyzed the historical relationship between deaths caused by empyema and influenza pandemics by using 100 years of data from Utah. Deaths caused by empyema have indeed increased from 2000–2004 when compared with the historic low death rates of 1950–1975. Vaccine strategies and antimicrobial drug stockpiling to control empyema will be important as we prepare for the next influenza pandemic.
I include this because people often say, "but 1918 was primitive, and we have fancy medicine." Nuh-uh. Even modern medicine is seeing increasing bacterial resistance and virulence (think MRSA, another potential flu complication). If hospitals are full, medications are in short supply, and you have to deal with this at home, you are in big trouble. And if you want to add in the health reform/finance/insurance issues that interfere with excellent and timely care... well, in the meantime, get your flu shot.
DemFromCT
by DarkSyde
Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:00:05 AM PST
Physics, mathematics, chemistry, and of course near and dear to our hearts on earth, biology. These and other analytical disciplines are not just fields of study. They are the universal operating system, the software running everything in the cosmos, including us. The software is immutable, for the spiritual among you, think of it as pre-written. But built into that cosmic code is a flexibility allowing creatures clever enough to master even a tiny portion of it to benefit immensely. There are encouraging signs our new President gets that:
We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
And we’ve barely scratched the surface. What fortunes might be made, what misfortunes could be eased, with a top down focus on science? Better motor function for the paralyzed, new tissue for the burned, maybe one day new organs, even new eyes; low abundance proteins with astonishing, healing properties; nanosolar cells that can be painted on walls with a brush, ready to be routed and plugged into your fuse box.
With money so tight, and the economy so weak, with so many problems riding on the shoulders of the new President and Congress, it’s tempting to overlook any program which is not immediately essential. But I would urge the newly elected to think long and hard when it comes to science funding. Because science is a lot more than understanding the universe we inhabit or grasping the intricacies of particles that make it up: Science is the engine of innovation and capitalism.
* Seed Science Blogs has set up a discussion and feedback platform for scientists to talk to and about about Obama's Inaugural phrase, "The rightful place of science."
* Another treasured conservative tool for denying global melting bites the dust: The most comprehensive study to date now indicates Antarctica is indeed warming. I'll have more on this tomorrow on Sunday Kos.
* I'm proud to say my own, newly elected Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas -- also recently appointed to the House Committee on Science -- is already getting into the science funding spirit.
* The first experimental treatment for spinal cord injuries in humans using modified embryonic stem cells has been given the greenlight to proceed by the FDA.
* There's flu and then there's complications from flu. This one is a pneumonia complicated by pus formation. Think of a 2 liter soda bottle, empty, and then put a balloon in it and blow it up so that the balloon takes the shape of inside the bottle. The bottle is your chest wall and the balloon is your lung, filled with air. Put water in the balloon and you have pneumonia. But put an inch or two of water in the bottle, and then put the balloon in, and you get water outside the balloon/lung but inside the bottle/chest. It's a complication of pneumonia called a parapneumonic effusion and it's not good. It often has to be drained via a hole in the bottle/chest wall. But if instead of fluid you get pus, it's called empyema. That's even worse, and is difficult to treat, especially in young children (i.e. it's hospital stuff with maybe an invasive procedure for drainage. Do not try this at home.)
Bacterial pneumonia with empyema is a serious complication of influenza and commonly resulted in death during the 1918 influenza pandemic. We hypothesize that deaths caused by parapneumonic empyema are increasing in Utah once again despite advances in critical care and the availability of antimicrobial drugs and new vaccines. In this study, we analyzed the historical relationship between deaths caused by empyema and influenza pandemics by using 100 years of data from Utah. Deaths caused by empyema have indeed increased from 2000–2004 when compared with the historic low death rates of 1950–1975. Vaccine strategies and antimicrobial drug stockpiling to control empyema will be important as we prepare for the next influenza pandemic.
I include this because people often say, "but 1918 was primitive, and we have fancy medicine." Nuh-uh. Even modern medicine is seeing increasing bacterial resistance and virulence (think MRSA, another potential flu complication). If hospitals are full, medications are in short supply, and you have to deal with this at home, you are in big trouble. And if you want to add in the health reform/finance/insurance issues that interfere with excellent and timely care... well, in the meantime, get your flu shot.
DemFromCT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)