Goodbye for Now

You might have noticed that lately I have only been sporadically active on Delaware Watch. There is a reason for that. I am now employed teaching at a local college. My new duties consume all of my available spare time. Studying for lectures and grading papers (I teach 2 writing classes and one philosophy class) leaves virtually no time for me to research news reports, much less to blog.

So I am suspending Delaware Watch for now. Once I get my lectures written and can free up some time during the week, I might return to blogging. But I don't know when, if ever, that will be.

I want you to know that I am suspending Delaware Watch for no other reason than that I am too busy to do it justice. I can't do anything half-baked. If I must choose between blogging well and teaching well, I choose teaching. It's my job, after all. Besides, I love to teach.

I will continue to comment on local blogs when I have time. I'll keep Delaware Watch online as long as I can (who knows? I might start it up again in a few months).

Thank you for reading Delaware Watch. I'm grateful for the many new friends and acquaintances I made because of this blog.

The USA Led the World in Weapons Sales in 2008

For a nation that supposedly wants to see peace in the world, we (the USA) certainly love to merchandize the weapons of war:

The United States accounted for more than two-thirds of foreign weapons sales in 2008, a year in which global sales were at a three-year low, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

Citing a congressional study released on Friday, the Times said the United States was involved in 68.4 percent of the global sales of arms.

U.S. weapons sales jumped nearly 50 percent in 2008 despite the global economic recession to $37.8 billion from $25.4 billion the year before.

The USA sold so many weapons in 2008 ($37.8 billion worth) that the second place merchandiser of weapons didn't come close to the amount of the USA sales:

Italy, the second ranked country, amassed only $3.7 billion in arms sales, while Russia ranked third with sales falling to $3.5 billion in 2008, down from $10.8 billion in 2007.

The biggest chunk of our weapon sales went to developing nations, some with a record of significant human rights abuses and the lack of a democratic government:

The United States also led in arms sales to the developing world, signing 70.1 percent of these weapons agreements at a value of $29.6 billion in 2008, the report said.

Such deals with the developing world included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter for Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter for Taiwan.

India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil also reached weapons deals with the United States, the Times said.

The report revealed the United Arab Emirates was the top buyer of arms in the developing world with $9.7 billion in arms purchases in 2008.

Saudi Arabia ranked second with $8.7 billion in weapons agreements, and Morocco was third with $5.4 billion in deals.

American foreign policy: making the world dangerous for our weapons manufacturers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Share of Worldwide Arms Market Grows (nytimes.com)
• South America uproar over US bases deal (guardian.co.uk)

Working and in Need of Food Stamps

In the USA you can be employed and still be very poor:

The number of working Americans turning to free government food stamps has surged as their hours and wages erode, in a stark sign that the recession is inflicting pain on the employed as well as the newly jobless.

While the increase in take-up is often attributed to the sharp rise in unemployment – which on Friday hit 9.7 per cent – the Financial Times has learnt that some 40 per cent of the families now on food stamps have "earned income", up from 25 per cent two years ago.

The reason for this increase?

The agriculture department, which runs the programme, attributes this rise to workers having their hours cut back.

While much attention is being paid to the serious problem of increasing unemployment,

Less attention has been paid to those still in the workforce, whose incomes are also being squeezed. The average working week is now about 33 hours, the lowest on record, while the number forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time work has risen more than 50 per cent in the past year to a record 8.8m. Wages and benefits have decelerated.

It's amazing that some people still believe that this has just been an average recession.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nation at its most productive in 6 years (money.cnn.com)
• First-Time U.S. Jobless Claims Fall Again (nytimes.com)
• Contraction in Service Sector Slowed in August (nytimes.com)

Seeing Through a Glass Darkly: Our Coming Muted Glimpse into the Obama White House

They hemmed and hawed and hedged, but it seems that mostly the Obama administration is coming through on one of its campaign promises:

President Barack Obama said Friday that his administration will start releasing the names of people who visit the White House, reversing a long-standing policy transcending both Democratic and Republican presidents.

The move, which could shed light on who influences White House decision-making, comes after a White House review of its disclosure policy and legal pressure from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Until now, the Obama administration had sided with the Bush administration's stand of refusing to release records, in contrast with Obama's pledge of transparency.

But Obama said Friday after the review was completed: "We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history, not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside."

"Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," the president said.

BUT "No records will be released right away." Okay, that makes sense. Some people might have visited the White House on secret national security measures and the administration wants to make sure that those names don't get disclosed. BUT that's not entirely it. Records prior to Sept 15 will be handled differently:

The records of visitors from the January 20 start of Obama's presidency through September 15 will not be covered by the policy. Instead, the White House's counsel office will respond to individual requests for records during that time, but only if those requests are deemed to be reasonable, narrow and specific.

That's a pity because a lot has happened since January 20 until now. The bailouts, the stimulus package, the health care debate. It would be great to have the visitor logs online for that period to see what persons might have affected the administration's judgment and policies. Now one must endure the painstaking process of a FOIA request.

After September 15 the White House visitor's log will be posted online. BUT

Going forward, the policy covers visits starting Sept. 15, and each bunch of records will cover visits from the previous 90 to 120 days.

That means the first wave of records should be posted to the White House Web site around Dec. 31.

It's a pity that the turnaround time isn't, say, 30 days max because a lot of people can be seen and decisions made during a 90 to 120 day period. It might be too late to see who is influencing the administration and bring public pressure on the White House not to hike down an obvious policy path. But then we are talking about "tens of thousands of electronic records."

Still, this sounds significantly better:

The public is expected to see the full name of visitors, whom they met with, when they entered and when they left.

Obama said the policy will apply to virtually every visitor who comes to the White House for "an appointment, a tour, or to conduct business."

BUT there are some exceptions to the disclosure policy:

Some names will be kept private, though. Those include people who are attending meetings of particular sensitivity, such as possible Supreme Court nominees, and those who identity cannot be disclosed because of what the White House called national security imperatives.

The White House will not release records related to "purely personal guests" of the president's family and the vice president's family.

I get the national security visitors and the "purely personal guests" (I believe in the private lives of all citizens, even Presidents). But possible Supreme Court nominees? Why not them? I think that Republicans and conservatives have a right to whine in advance about a possible Supreme Court pick. Why shouldn't the public know who the President is considering and talking to about possibly serving on the highest court in the USA? I don't get that one.

Still, this policy is better—light years better—than what we saw under the Bush administration.

Major Medical Fraud Case and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

Yea, trust the private sector all right:

Drug maker Pfizer Inc. will pay a record fine to settle a federal investigation into illegal marketing practices, as the Obama administration signaled its intent to curb fraud in government medical programs.

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, will pay a $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty over allegations that the company marketed drugs for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The department said the $2.3 billion settlement included a $1.2 billion criminal fine, the largest criminal fine in U.S. history. The agreement also included a criminal forfeiture of $105 million.

I emphasized the criminal aspect of the passage so that our economic right wing friends didn't miss it. This major pharmaceutical company acted the criminal. What did it do exactly?

The government said Pfizer promoted four prescription drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, as treatments for so-called off-label medical conditions. To promote the drugs, authorities said Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks.

As I read it, Pfizer encouraged—to put it kindly—doctors to prescribe four drugs for medical conditions that the FDA hadn't approved the drugs for. That sounds safe, doesn't it? It certainly sounds profitable and that's what matters in the private sector.

Oh, but we are not done yet:

Separately, Pfizer reached a nationwide settlement Wednesday with 43 states on charges of improper marketing of the antipsychotic Geodon. The drug maker will pay $33 million to the states, including $448,200 to the Delaware Consumer Protection Fund.

My, my, this giant of free enterprise certainly has been up to some shenanigans.

Did I just hear some economic conservative say that this is only an isolated case? Think again:

Marketing fraud cases are increasingly common in the pharmaceutical industry….

Oh, no! Horror of horrors! Does this mean we actually need government agencies like the FDA to regulate the pharmaceutical industry? Can you believe there are actually people who believe we don't? As surreal as it sounds, it's true.

This is yet another story that the economic right-wing was silent about.

In any case, hats off to the Obama administration for socking it to Pfizer. Such a penalty would never have been assessed during the Bush administration.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pfizer Pays $2.3B, but Will It Change Industry? (abcnews.go.com)

The Republicans Want to End Medicare

Paybacks are a bitch, Republicans!

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele penned an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday accusing Democrats of looking to gut Medicare. Five days later -- on the eve of a three-day weekend -- Democrats are hitting back. Republicans are no friends of seniors, a new ad from the Democratic National Committee argues. The party is reminding voters that Republicans opposed Medicare from the beginning and in recent years have even voted to end it for younger generations. The GOP did, in fact, oppose Medicare when President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law and conservative elements of the party have long sought to end it.

Recalculating the USA’s Poverty Rate

If we use a scalpel instead of an ax in dissecting the poverty rate in the USA, we get a different but, sadly, grimmer picture:

The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living.

The National Academy of Science's formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure….

The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau.

What was wrong with the current way of calculating the poverty rate?

The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors….

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent.

Just so our conservative friends don't think that the new way of calculating the poverty rate is a vast liberal conspiracy designed to increase welfare rolls and besmirch the image of the USA as a beacon of prosperity for all, the new way makes for some happier results:

The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent.

Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account….

The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits….

…. more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.

But, alas, the myth that the USA is a beacon of prosperity for all is just a myth. The new rate does make the poverty rate of other demographic groups look bleaker:

Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates….

Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.

The truth is often such a pisser.

Related articles by Zemanta

• America's most stressed-out cities (msnbc.msn.com)
• Number Of Poor In U.S. Likely Increased By 1.5M Last Year: Report (huffingtonpost.com)
• GOP Still Pushing "Screw The Poor" Strategy In Health Care Reform (oliverwillis.com)

The Little Guy is Violated and the Economic Right Wing is Silent

Where is the economic right-wing outrage for this violation of the "little guy?"

Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The study, the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade, also found that 68 percent of the workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week….

The study found that 26 percent of the workers had been paid less than the minimum wage the week before being surveyed and that one in seven had worked off the clock the previous week. In addition, 76 percent of those who had worked overtime the week before were not paid their proper overtime, the researchers found.

I'm trying to think of why our economic right-wing friends have been silent about these outrages. It could be because

• They despise minimum wage laws and so they quietly rejoice when some employers manage to pay their workers less than minimum wage.
  
• To admit these abuses is tantamount to admitting that a modestly regulated economic private sector is inadequate to keep many employers from cheating their workers.
  

Just so we are clear regarding what we are talking about…we are talking about losing 15% of one's paycheck:

In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay.

Why do I think that this would be cause for many economic right-wingers to rejoice?

The researchers said one of the most surprising findings was how successful low-wage employers were in pressuring workers not to file for workers' compensation. Only 8 percent of those who suffered serious injuries on the job filed for compensation to pay for medical care and missed days at work stemming from those injuries….

In instances when workers' compensation should have been used, the study found, one third of workers injured on the job paid the bills for treatment out of their own pocket and 22 percent used their health insurance. Workers' compensation insurance paid medical expenses for only 6 percent of the injured workers surveyed, the researchers found.

Are the economic right-wingers silent about this study and perhaps secretly rejoicing because they also despise worker compensation laws? Could they be thinking to themselves, "If a worker gets injured on the job, then that should only be cause to say 'tough luck'?"

Ah, but these right wingers, they are sometimes inclined to invent excuses. Can't you hear them say, "Oh, this is something only a minuscule number of employers do." Think again:

"The conventional wisdom has been that to the extent there were violations, it was confined to a few rogue employers or to especially disadvantaged workers, like undocumented immigrants," said Nik Theodore, an author of the study and a professor of urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois, Chicago. "What our study shows is that this is a widespread phenomenon across the low-wage labor market in the United States."

According to the study, 39 percent of those surveyed were illegal immigrants, 31 percent legal immigrants and 30 percent native-born Americans.

Of course, another excuse by the economic right-wingers could be "It's a recession for crying out loud. Of course these kinds of problems are going to arise during a bad recession." I must repeat. Think again:

The new study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers," was conducted in the first half of 2008, before the brunt of the recession hit.

The next excuse? Just wait. It is no doubt coming. My guess: there is something wrong with the survey.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says (nytimes.com)
• Laid-off workers eye the abyss (msnbc.msn.com)
• Low-Wage Workers Constantly Being Cheated Out Of Pay: Study (huffingtonpost.com)
• A Reluctance to Retire Means Fewer Openings (nytimes.com)