SavvySugar

I want this :

LizaToad — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:38:26 -0700

I want this business card holder from Kate Spade.... it's $55 and VERY good looking, I think...

What do you guys think?

I'm constantly needing to give out cards and end up just keeping them at the bottom of my messy purses....

Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs

Roarman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:42:41 -0800

Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits.

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives - potentially for years to come.

Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.

Here in Southern California, Jean Eisen has been without work since she lost her job selling beauty salon equipment more than two years ago. In the several months she has endured with neither a paycheck nor an unemployment check, she has relied on local food banks for her groceries.

She has learned to live without the prescription medications she is supposed to take for high blood pressure and cholesterol. She has become effusively religious - an unexpected turn for this onetime standup comic with X-rated material - finding in Christianity her only form of health insurance.

“I pray for healing,” says Ms. Eisen, 57. “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got to go with what you know.”

Warm, outgoing and prone to the positive, Ms. Eisen has worked much of her life. Now, she is one of 6.3 million Americans who have been unemployed for six months or longer, the largest number since the government began keeping track in 1948. That is more than double the toll in the next-worst period, in the early 1980s.

Men have suffered the largest numbers of job losses in this recession. But Ms. Eisen has the unfortunate distinction of being among a group - women from 45 to 64 years of age - whose long-term unemployment rate has grown rapidly.

In 1983, after a deep recession, women in that range made up only 7 percent of those who had been out of work for six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. Last year, they made up 14 percent.

Twice, Ms. Eisen exhausted her unemployment benefits before her check was restored by a federal extension. Last week, her check ran out again. She and her husband now settle their bills with only his $1,595 monthly disability check. The rent on their apartment is $1,380.

“We’re looking at the very real possibility of being homeless,” she said.

Every downturn pushes some people out of the middle class before the economy resumes expanding. Most recover. Many prosper. But some economists worry that this time could be different. An unusual constellation of forces - some embedded in the modern-day economy, others unique to this wrenching recession - might make it especially difficult for those out of work to find their way back to their middle-class lives.

Labor experts say the economy needs 100,000 new jobs a month just to absorb entrants to the labor force. With more than 15 million people officially jobless, even a vigorous recovery is likely to leave an enormous number out of work for years.

Some labor experts note that severe economic downturns are generally followed by powerful expansions, suggesting that aggressive hiring will soon resume. But doubts remain about whether such hiring can last long enough to absorb anywhere close to the millions of unemployed.

A New Scarcity of Jobs

Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce - particularly for older, less-educated people like Ms. Eisen, who has only a high school diploma.

Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 - the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.

“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”

During periods of American economic expansion in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the number of private-sector jobs increased about 3.5 percent a year, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, a research firm. During expansions in the 1980s and ’90s, jobs grew just 2.4 percent annually. And during the last decade, job growth fell to 0.9 percent annually.

“The pace of job growth has been getting weaker in each expansion,” Mr. Achuthan said. “There is no indication that this pattern is about to change.”

Before 1990, it took an average of 21 months for the economy to regain the jobs shed during a recession, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by the National Employment Law Project and the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-oriented research group in Washington.

After the recessions in 1990 and in 2001, 31 and 46 months passed before employment returned to its previous peaks. The economy was growing, but companies remained conservative in their hiring.

Some 34 million people were hired into new and existing private-sector jobs in 2000, at the tail end of an expansion, according to Labor Department data. A year later, in the midst of recession, hiring had fallen off to 31.6 million. And as late as 2003, with the economy again growing, hiring in the private sector continued to slip, to 29.8 million.

It was a jobless recovery: Business was picking up, but it simply did not translate into more work. This time, hiring may be especially subdued, labor economists say.

Traditionally, three sectors have led the way out of recession: automobiles, home building and banking. But auto companies have been shrinking because strapped households have less buying power. Home building is limited by fears about a glut of foreclosed properties. Banking is expanding, but this seems largely a function of government support that is being withdrawn.

At the same time, the continued bite of the financial crisis has crimped the flow of money to small businesses and new ventures, which tend to be major sources of new jobs.

All of which helps explain why Ms. Eisen - who has never before struggled to find work - feels a familiar pain each time she scans job listings on her computer: There are positions in health care, most requiring experience she lacks. Office jobs demand familiarity with software she has never used. Jobs at fast food restaurants are mostly secured by young people and immigrants.

If, as Mr. Sinai expects, the economy again expands without adding many jobs, millions of people like Ms. Eisen will be dependent on an unemployment insurance already being severely tested.

“The system was ill prepared for the reality of long-term unemployment,” said Maurice Emsellem, a policy director for the National Employment Law Project. “Now, you add a severe recession, and you have created a crisis of historic proportions.”

Fewer Protections

Some poverty experts say the broader social safety net is not up to cushioning the impact of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Social services are less extensive than during the last period of double-digit unemployment, in the early 1980s.

On average, only two-thirds of unemployed people received state-provided unemployment checks last year, according to the Labor Department. The rest either exhausted their benefits, fell short of requirements or did not apply.

“You have very large sets of people who have no social protections,” said Randy Albelda, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. “They are landing in this netherworld.”

When Ms. Eisen and her husband, Jeff, applied for food stamps, they were turned away for having too much monthly income. The cutoff was $1,570 a month - $25 less than her husband’s disability check.

Reforms in the mid-1990s imposed time limits on cash assistance for poor single mothers, a change predicated on the assumption that women would trade welfare checks for paychecks.

Yet as jobs have become harder to get, so has welfare: as of 2006, 44 states cut off anyone with a household income totaling 75 percent of the poverty level - then limited to $1,383 a month for a family of three - according to an analysis by Ms. Albelda.

“We have a work-based safety net without any work,” said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “People with more education and skills will probably figure something out once the economy picks up. It’s the ones with less education and skills: that’s the new poor.”

Here in Orange County, the expanse of suburbia stretching south from Los Angeles, long-term unemployment reaches even those who once had six-figure salaries. A center of the national mortgage industry, the area prospered in the real estate boom and suffered with the bust.

Until she was laid off two years ago, Janine Booth, 41, brought home roughly $10,000 a month in commissions from her job selling electronics to retailers. A single mother of three, she has been living lately on $2,000 a month in child support and about $450 a week in unemployment insurance - a stream of checks that ran out last week.

For Ms. Booth, work has been a constant since her teenage years, when she cleaned houses under pressure from her mother to earn pocket money. Today, Ms. Booth pays her $1,500 monthly mortgage with help from her mother, who is herself living off savings after being laid off.

“I don’t want to take money from her,” Ms. Booth said. “I just want to find a job.”

Ms. Booth, with a résumé full of well-paid sales jobs, seems the sort of person who would have little difficulty getting work. Yet two years of looking have yielded little but anxiety.

She sends out dozens of résumés a week and rarely hears back. She responds to online ads, only to learn they are seeking operators for telephone sex lines or people willing to send mysterious packages from their homes.

She spends weekdays in a classroom in Anaheim, in a state-financed training program that is supposed to land her a job in medical administration. Even if she does find a job, she will be lucky if it pays $15 an hour.

“What is going to happen?” she asked plaintively. “I worry about my kids. I just don’t want them to think I’m a failure.”

On a recent weekend, she was running errands with her 18-year-old son when they stopped at an A.T.M. and he saw her checking account balance: $50.

“He says, ‘Is that all you have?’ ” she recalled. “ ‘Are we going to be O.K.?’ ”

Yes, she replied - and not only for his benefit.

“I have to keep telling myself it’s going to be O.K.,” she said. “Otherwise, I’d go into a deep depression.”

Last week, she made up fliers advertising her eagerness to clean houses - the same activity that provided her with spending money in high school, and now the only way she sees fit to provide for her kids. She plans to place the fliers on porches in some other neighborhood.

“I don’t want to clean my neighbors’ houses,” she said. “I know I’m going to come out of this. There’s no way I’m going to be homeless and poverty-stricken. But I am scared. I have a lot of sleepless nights.”

For the Eisens, poverty is already here. In the two years Ms. Eisen has been without work, they have exhausted their savings of about $24,000. Their credit card balances have grown to $15,000.

“I don’t know how we’re still indoors,” she said.

Her 1994 Dodge Caravan broke down in January, leaving her to ask for rides to an employment center.

She does not have the money to move to a cheaper apartment.

“You have to have money for first and last month’s rent, and to open utility accounts,” she said.

What she has is personality and presence - two traits that used to seem enough. She narrates her life in a stream of self-deprecating wisecracks, her punch lines tinged with desperation.

“See that,” she said, spotting a man dressed as the Statue of Liberty. Standing on a sidewalk, he waved at passing cars with a sign advertising a tax preparation business. “That will be me next week. Do you think this guy ever thought he’d be doing this?”

And yet, she would gladly do this. She would do nearly anything.

“There are no bad jobs now,” she says. “Any job is a good job.”

She has applied everywhere she can think of - at offices, at gas stations. Nothing.

“I’m being seen as a person who is no longer viable,” she said. “I’m chalking it up to my age and my weight. Blame it on your most prominent insecurity.”

Two Incomes, Then None

Ms. Eisen grew up poor, in Flatbush in Brooklyn. Her father was in maintenance. Her mother worked part time at a company that made window blinds.

She married Jeff when she was 19, and they soon moved to California, where he had grown up. He worked in sales for a chemical company. They rented an apartment in Buena Park, a growing spread of houses filling out former orange groves. She stayed home and took care of their daughter.

“I never asked him how much he earned,” Ms. Eisen said. “I was of the mentality that the husband took care of everything. But we never wanted.”

By the early 1980s, gas and rent strained their finances. So she took a job as a quality assurance clerk at a factory that made aircraft parts. It paid $13.50 an hour and had health insurance.

When the company moved to Mexico in the early 1990s, Ms. Eisen quickly found a job at a travel agency. When online booking killed that business, she got the job at the beauty salon equipment company. It paid $13.25 an hour, with an annual bonus - enough for presents under the Christmas tree.

But six years ago, her husband took a fall at work and then succumbed to various ailments - diabetes, liver disease, high blood pressure - leaving him confined to the couch. Not until 2008 did he secure his disability check.

And now they find themselves in this desert of joblessness, her paycheck replaced by a $702 unemployment check every other week. She received 14 weeks of benefits after she lost her job, and then a seven-week extension.

For most of October through December 2008, she received nothing, as she waited for another extension. The checks came again, then ran out in September 2009. They were restored by an extension right before Christmas.

Their daughter has back problems and is living on disability checks, making the church their ultimate safety net.

“I never thought I’d be in the position where I had to go to a food bank,” Ms. Eisen said. But there she is, standing in the parking lot of the Calvary Chapel church, chatting with a half-dozen women, all waiting to enter the Bread of Life Food Pantry.

When her name is called, she steps into a windowless alcove, where a smiling woman hands her three bags of groceries: carrots, potatoes, bread, cheese and a hunk of frozen meat.

“Haven’t we got a lot to be thankful for?” Ms. Eisen asks.

For one thing, no pinto beans.

“I’ve got 10 bags of pinto beans,” she says. “And I have no clue how to cook a pinto bean.”

Local job listings are just as mysterious. On a bulletin board at the county-financed ProPath Business and Career Services Center, many are written in jargon hinting of accounting or computers.

“Nothing I’m qualified for,” Ms. Eisen says. “When you can’t define what it is, that’s a pretty good indication.”

Her counselor has a couple of possibilities - a cashier at a supermarket and a night desk job at a motel.

“I’ll e-mail them,” Ms. Eisen promises. “I’ll tell them what a shining example of humanity I am.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21unemployed.html?sq=... New Poor&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

Pastor's Business Card

Dreama Long — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:36:52 -0800

Pastor's Business Card

A new pastor was visiting in the homes of his parishioners. At one house it seemed obvious that someone was at home, but no answer came to his repeated knocks at the door.

Therefore, he took out a business card and wrote "Revelation 3:20" on the back of it and stuck it in the door.

When the offering was processed the following Sunday, he found that his card had been returned. Added to it was this cryptic message, "Genesis 3:10."

Reaching for his Bible to check out the citation, he broke up in gales of laughter. Revelation 3:20 begins "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." Genesis 3:10 reads, "I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid for I was naked."

Economy prompts fresh look at ND's socialist bank

liliblu — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:27:36 -0800

Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010
By By DALE WETZEL | Associated Press Writer

It has no automatic tellers or drive-up windows, doesn't issue credit cards, and tends only a few thousand checking and savings accounts. Its only location is a glass, steamboat-shaped headquarters near the Missouri River, where the business moved from its original 1919 home in a former auto assembly plant.
The Bank of North Dakota - the nation's only state-owned bank - might seem to be a relic. It was the brainchild of a failed flax farmer and one-time Socialist Party organizer during World War I.
But now officials in other states are wondering if it is helping North Dakota sail through the national recession.
Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Oregon and a Washington state legislator are advocating the creation of state-owned banks in those states. A report prepared for a Vermont House committee last month said the idea had "considerable merit." Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore promotes the bank on his Web site.
"There's a lot of hurt out there, a lot of states that are in trouble, and they're tying the Bank of North Dakota together with this economic success that we're having right now," said the bank's president, Eric Hardmeyer.
Hardmeyer says he's gotten "tons" of inquiries about the bank's workings, including questions from officials in California, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Washington state. North Dakota has the nation's lowest unemployment rate at 4.4 percent, soaring oil production and a robust state budget surplus - but Hardmeyer says the bank isn't responsible for the prosperity.
"We are a catalyst, perhaps, or maybe a part of it," he said. "To put this at our feet is flattering, but it frankly isn't true."
The Bank of North Dakota serves as an economic development agency and "banker's bank" that lessens the loan risks of private banks and helps them finance larger projects. It offers cheap loans to farmers, students and businesses.
The bank had almost $4 billion in assets and a $2.67 billion loan portfolio at the end of last year, according to its most recent quarterly financial report. It made $58.1 million in profits in 2009, setting a record for the sixth straight year. During the last decade, the bank funneled almost $300 million in profits to North Dakota's treasury.
The bank has the advantage of being the repository for most state funds, which can be used for loans and occasional relief for private banks that need a jolt of cash during sluggish credit markets.
"We think of ourselves as kind of a little mini-Federal Reserve," Hardmeyer said.
The state earns roughly 0.25 percent less interest than state agencies would get from a commercial institution. The bank also pays no state or federal taxes and has no deposit insurance; North Dakota taxpayers are on the hook for any losses.
The Bank of North Dakota was a cornerstone of the agenda of the Nonpartisan League, a farmers' political insurgency spawned by anger about outside control of North Dakota's credit and grain markets.
Founded in 1915 by A.C. Townley, who became a Socialist Party organizer after he went broke raising flax in western North Dakota, the NPL advocated state-owned banks to provide low-interest farm loans, along with state flour mills, grain elevators, meatpacking houses and hail insurance.
Supporters gained control of the legislature and the governorship within five years. The movement's power quickly waned, but two of its state-owned businesses survived - the Bank of North Dakota and a state flour mill and grain elevator in Grand Forks.
From the 1940s until the early 1960s, the bank served mostly as a public funds depository and municipal bond buyer, said Rozanne Enerson Junker, author of a 1989 history of the bank. Its economic development activity has greatly expanded since.
Gary Petersen, president of the Lakeside State Bank of New Town, a community on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northwestern North Dakota, said the state bank is often willing to take a stake in local development projects.
"In my experience, you make a contact with the (Bank of North Dakota), and their question is, 'How do we get this done?'" Petersen said. "They're not looking at ways to knock it down."
Alerus Financial, a Grand Forks bank, has sold about $115 million of its $600 million loan portfolio to the Bank of North Dakota, both to spread its risk and provide itself with additional loan money, said Karl Bollingberg, Alerus' director of banking services.
"If you're left to find other participating banks, that can be very challenging," he said. "They don't have the same interest that the Bank of North Dakota has in helping you to do deals."
Mauro Guillen, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, said it is unlikely other states would open similar banks, in part because "the political culture here is very much against that kind of a thing."
Some state and federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration, already have economic development programs similar to those at the Bank of North Dakota, Guillen said.
Bollingberg said the idea of other state-owned banks would also likely rouse opposition from private banks that wanted to keep their share of state deposits. "Because the (Bank of North Dakota) has been here so long, no banks know what it was like to have those deposits," he said.
Hardmeyer said he, too, was always doubtful others would take up North Dakota's model, but now he's not so sure.
"When I see what's going on around the country, it's not quite as far a leap as I thought it once was," he said.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/business/national/story/1030348.html

Is "Rating (Revenge) Therapy" Wrong?

DefyAllLogic — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:30:17 -0700

That is, when you feel wronged by a company (be it a salon, a bakery or retail shop) you make yourself feel better by rating them poorly on not just one website but as many as you can?

Can companies retaliate if they realize who it is? It's an opinion or an experience so it's okay to put it out there, or is it slander/liable? They might accidentally on purpose charge your credit card and then have it take forever to fix, or something...

(This doesn't apply to employers, past or present, that's definitely poor form.)

Shanghai Business Trips Tips

beijingtours — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:41:13 -0800

Planning on doing business in China? Business in China is not the same thing, where you are. If you compare China to keep your country, but this is fine, you will not be more useful in China. If they agree on their own terms. Here are some tips on doing business in Shanghai. 1. Be punctual - Shanghai people are known for their punctuality, so that they will expect the same for you. Although this is not the case, is observed in most Asian countries, and here. Try to arrive 10 minutes earlier. 2. Stay in Pudong - Shanghai is the eastern side and where the most high-tech companies and government agencies. Puxi is the older, more traditional side of Shanghai. So, if you do not live companies on the West Bank, right here. Tips - You can prepare a fantastic underwater world of Pudong to Puxi about 5 dollars. This amazing journey with a beautiful light show. You will not see ads along the Bund. 3. Make sure to avoid the federal government - for people who come to you asking for help (you are not tourists do not you?) Or do you want to take their photograph. I know it sounds pleasing, but this is just a gimmick. Be careful. 4. Business-smoking men - unlike other countries, many people still smoke in a business environment, but it is gradually emerging. When you organize a meeting with a Chinese businessman, you do not take it to the Western restaurant / hotel, where you can not smoke. Do you think he is somewhere more convenient way is it before you start. So: the sensitivity of cultural strategies. 5. Xrays in the subway - most of all the subway stations examined Xray machines in luggage. Collapsing completely sure that your laptop is not damaged or that pass through your movie, and so on. Unlikely, but be careful. 6. WiFi - you can get Wi-Fi in many cafes, especially close to Pudong, but you often have to ask for a password to access the network. 7. Travel Card - when you stay more than a week to get a network card. You can use the subway, bus, and in most taxis. This means that you need to spend less cash with them and spend less time standing in line. 8. Metro City - is the IT mall (Puxi) and Best Buy and other Western companies on the same street. 9. More information about the deal - in most Asian countries are expected for some trades that do not take to heart. If they are asking 100, I suggest you see a 30 in the horror, we have to bargain a little, and eventually settle at around 60. 10. Chopsticks - if you stay at the Hyatt, etc., to learn and use chopsticks. Most places are no knives and forks. It takes 30 minutes to learn how to use chopsticks. Ask a local practice with peanuts. This is the only way. 11. Expo 2010 - Construction everywhere, so try to stay away from the Bund (Puxi side in particular), and under this heavy revision. Remember, Shanghai, not Beijing, and Beijing is not Hong Kong.
Shanghai is so wonderful,if you want to visit Shanghai,the following you can choose to stay
Tong Mao Hotel Shanghai Yalong International Hotel Shanghai Zhao An Hotel Shanghai Great tang hotel Shanghai Liang an hotel Shanghai New Harbour Service Apartments Shanghai Ivy Hotel Shanghai Penta Hotel ShanghaiSports hotel Shanghai Laurel hotel Shanghai Rendezvous merry hotel Shanghai

How well can you get to know someone in 7 minutes? (Speed Dating)

PinkNC — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:30:38 -0800

What exactly is a speed dating event?

The whole idea of speed dating is to be exposed to as much potential dates as possible in a limited amount of time. Don’t go into the experience with too many expectations! If you do, you may be setting yourself up for some major disappointment.

Again, the goal of these events is to help busy active singles, have a chance to meet in a pleasant non-threatening, private environment face-to-face.

Women generally stay at the same table all evening, while the men participants progress around the room to a different table meeting a new "date” every 7 minutes. At the sound of the "DING," each date ends and everyone marks their score sheet as to whether or not they'd like to follow up with that particular person again.

At the end of the evening, everyone turns in their sheet. The holders of the speed dating event will take your cards and calculate who is your best match, at which time; you will be given a phone call informing you of who is your best match.........Now, tell PinkNC

.
.
Here is the question: How well can you get to know someone in 7 minutes?
.
.
.

How to Avoid Disaster Donation Scams

PinkNC — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:01:17 -0800

Contributor By: Z. Padmore

Don Hankins: Be wary of donation scams

The earthquake in Haiti on Jan. 12 created a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Two million of Haiti's 9 million residents were affected by the earthquake, which struck just 10 miles away from the capital city of Port-au-Prince.

Governments around the world have offered their support. China and the United States quickly delivered airplanes full of supplies with other countries are joining to pledge their support during this humanitarian disaster, along with millions of individuals through large and small donations.

Unscrupulous people can take advantage of this generosity, as seen in the weeks after the 2004 tsunami with reports of rampant donation scams. Criminals tried to capitalize on the disaster by creating fraudulent web sites, addresses, and even paraphernalia for their fabricated charity organizations.

For individuals who feel helpless or overwhelmed by images of the disaster, making a donation is one way to assist in relief efforts, but the key is to make sure your money gets to the right people.

Instructions

Step 1

Look for a BBB logo on the charity's website.

Check with the Better Business Bureau.

The Better Business Bureau issues reports on charities using the same metrics they apply to Fortune 500 companies. Organizations volunteer their information to be verified by a local or national BBB organization. Check their updated list to confirm your charity or organization is operating in good standing.

Step 2

Unicef and Red Cross team up to offer water at local organization.

Give to a charity already established at the disaster site.

There are local organizations that have served every community. In times of crisis, international organizations aid the local workers who have direct access to the area. Give directly to organizations with an infrastructure, staff, and direct connection to people of the disaster area. You can be assured that your donation will directly assist the lives of people by giving to a local organization since the donations will not be redistributed across an international fund.

Step 3

Is your charity reporting their earnings?

Find facts at Foundation Center.

The Foundation Center searches for an organization by name, location or EIN (business identification numbers). It searches for the organization's most recent tax declaration using a 990 tax form search. If your charity isn't listed, it may not be considered a non-profit organization or it has not filed its earnings within the past year.

Step 4

InterAction identifies first response organizations.

Be in the know and assess the need.

InterAction is a clearinghouse for U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It's a forum where leaders working on specific issues share best practices. They use their worldwide membership directory to highlight resident NGOs in a disaster zone. The NGOs offer a direct response to damaged areas as well as an account of areas in need. Read their reports to understand key recommendations from NGOs on the ground.

Step 5

Charity Navigator offers extensive reports.

Use Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator is staffed with forensic accountants who analyze financial documents of NGOs and charities. These expert sleuths work to account for how each cent of donated money is used. If you have doubts about a charity, run the name through the navigator. You're sure to get a full report on its financial management.

Step 6

Track charity dollars.

Check nonprofit status at GuideStar.

GuideStar documents organizations tax return forms and other information associated with their EIN. GuideStar lists the most recent tax return and how much money is reported on annual income statements.

Look for organizations that give at least 75 percent of their funding to directly to their causes. If more than 25 percent is spent on administration costs, it means the organization is heavily staffed but may not be equipped for direct response to disasters.

Step 7

Avoid responding to scripted telemarketing calls.

Be wary of direct solicitations.

Few small organizations sponsor telephone drives in this Internet age. Be wary of callers reading from a script to donate to a disaster area. These people set up private businesses with names that sound like relief organizations. Once credit card information is given, it's routed to a personal account rather than an organization.

Also be leery of urgent email and texting campaigns. Your phone service provider may charge you hidden fees in order to complete the transaction. Established organizations use mainstream media channels to alert you of their need for donations.

Step 8

Earn tax deductions with your donation.

Donate money.

The best way to donate to an organization is to give money. Unless you have a direct contact in the disaster area, do not send clothes or other supplies. During an emergency zone, the postal delivery can take weeks to arrive at a location and the logistics of retrieving packages can become a nightmare. It's best to send money so organizations can identify and purchase the proper resources. Make sure to ask for a receipt that identifies your contribution as tax-deductible.

Step 9

Get others to donate to your charity.

Spread the word.

Unless you're a medically trained first responder, you should not go to the disaster site. Organizations do not have systems to house and feed volunteers. During the recovery period, there may a need for volunteers. Unfortunately before rebuilding begins, the focus is on medical response and evacuation.

After you have donated, spread the word to family and friends to encourage them to donate as well. Campaigning for your charity will alleviate the helpless feeling that often overwhelms those who want to do more.

Step 10

It takes years to rebuild after a disaster.

Commit to give long-term.

Disasters inspire people to give as an immediate expression of grief and care. Still most organizations seek long-term commitment. Consider spreading a donation of $240 into $20 donations each month. Your consistent donation helps keep the organizations fully staffed during the recovery months.

Giving in the time of disaster is important, but long-term commitment is even more important. Avoid donation scams and form a sustaining relationship with a charity.
.
.
.

Health Insurance Reform is still on my mind, what about everyone else?

mydiadem — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:51:38 -0800

I'm posting 2 columns from the Washington Post that kind of echoes my insistance that something must be done about healthcare in this country because its totally on my mind. My boyfriend got really sick in December and had to stay in the hospital for 4 days and eventually get a surgical biopsy. He is fine, and we are lucky that he works for a small business employer that pays 100% of his health care costs. 4 days in the hospital - 12K. Outpatient surgery $50k. He has doctor's visits and more test to be done - additional thousands. We are lucky he has such good benefits. I, on the other hand, do not. My Fortune 500 company was bought by a Fortune 50 company last year. This year we are on the new health plan for our new employer. If the same thing happened to me I would have to pay 5k out of pocket. If I want to have a baby someday I would have to pay 5k out of pocket. Basically if anything happens to me, since my insurance only covers 80% of any hospital, surgery, or such expense - I would come up to the maximum out of pocket. All while paying 60 bucks a month in premiums. Talk about a major pay decrease! Oh and if I was married my spouse couldn't be covered unless they couldn't get insurance on their own. And how long before all of you out there without the potential for high medical bills are in the same boat? This is the trend if nothing is done. Ok enough rant, the two articles now:

Abandoning health care after the Brown election, and other Washington nonsense

By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, January 22, 2010

People, let's get a grip!
Okay, so Massachusetts voters elected a hunky, unknown Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. That's no reason to ignore the result of a national general election, throw out a year's worth of hard work on a range of important issues and rush to embrace a bunch of simple-minded solutions meant to mollify an angry electorate.

Honestly, in a city that thrives on nonsense, we've heard more of it in the past few days than you normally do in a year.
One of my favorite bits of Monday morning quarterbacking is that President Obama should have put health care and Afghanistan and climate change and everything else on the back burner for the past year and insisted that he and everyone else focus exclusively on jobs, jobs, jobs. What do you call a $787 billion stimulus package of tax cuts and increased spending, a $50 billion auto industry bailout, a $1 trillion prop to the housing sector and nearly another $1 trillion in old-fashioned monetary stimulus -- chopped liver? And how exactly do you square the idea that the president and Congress should be working 24-7 to "create" jobs with that other nugget of conventional wisdom, that Americans are demanding smaller government, less spending and lower budget deficits?

Then there is the big question of what to do about health care now that the voters have allegedly turned against the president's proposal.
One reasonable-sounding idea is that the president should reduce it down to just a few of its most popular provisions, such as the one requiring that insurance companies be barred from refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions or charging them sky-high premiums.
The problem with that, of course, is that if you don't require everyone to buy insurance, then there will be lots of people who will wait to buy their policies until they get sick and then demand coverage at the "community" rate. That's a great way to drive up premiums, which in turn will drive even more healthy people to drop coverage, which will raise premiums even further.
To prevent this kind of debilitating "insurance spiral," you could add one more feature -- a mandate requiring everyone to buy at least a basic insurance package. Unfortunately, there are lots of low-income households for which the newly mandated premiums could eat up as much as a half of after-tax income, which hardly seems fair. So you'd probably want to make sure that there's enough competition among insurers to keep premiums down, which is what those government-supervised exchanges are all about. And you'd want to have some subsidies to limit the financial hit to low-income families. To pay for the subsidies, you'd either have to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas.
And that, basically, is the outline of Obama's health plan, just as it was Clinton's health plan and the Nixon plan before that. In fact, if you want a health-care system that's universal and affordable and based on a competitive market of private insurers and health-care providers, that's pretty much where you have to start. There is no simple solution to this puzzle.
Of course, there are plenty of details that we can talk about -- how comprehensive the basic insurance plan should be, how the insurance exchanges should be structured, how big the subsidies should be and what combination of taxes and spending cuts should be used to pay for them. In fact, we've had a rather vigorous debate on those issues for more than a year now, which ought to put the lie to another piece of nonsense put forth by the Republicans -- namely that health reform has been "rushed" through Congress without any input from them or the public.
Instead of moving to take back the health-care issue, however, President Obama on Thursday seemed more interested in changing the subject, launching another broadside against the big Wall Street banks
In the populist imagination, the root of the recent financial crisis was the decision in the 1990s to allow commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, to get into the riskier but more lucrative investment banking business, where firms underwrite and trade securities on behalf of their customers and themselves. For months, liberals have been pushing to reinstate the old rules to separate the two activities. And for months, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has pushed back, arguing that many of the banks that got in trouble did so the old-fashioned way, by making stupid loans, while many of the institutions that contributed most to the crisis -- Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG -- weren't in commercial banking at all.
However, Obama suddenly reversed course and embraced the populist critique, demanding that commercial banks give up their risky investment activities. In truth, the new rules probably would not do much to reduce the chance of another crisis, or another bailout. The president's motives seemed less substantive than they were political, allowing him to shift from defense to offense and put Republicans in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the Wall Street status quo.
This is a leadership moment for the president. It is a chance to show he can respond to setbacks not by running for cover or resorting to political gamesmanship, but by calmly and confidently reasserting his control over his party and the public debate.

You Have No Idea What Health CostsIf You Did, You Might Just Want Real Reform
By Ezra KleinWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, September 20, 2009

The most important health-care document released this week was not Sen. Max Baucus's Healthy Future Act. It was the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2009 Employer Benefits Survey.
While the proposal by Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, outlines a direction for policy, the survey, which polls employers about health benefits to assemble a detailed look at the actual cost of health care, fits it squarely in our pocketbooks.
The truth is we all pay, and much more than we recognize, for health care.
For many, it's among the largest investments we'll make, on par, even, with the money we spend on a house or tuck away for retirement. But while it's easy to track our stock portfolios as they tank along with the market, our outlay for health care is less obvious. Employers pay some, and so do individuals, and taxpayers. And some even hides behind the deficit. As such, few of us see the full picture. But to make sense of the proposals for reform, getting a grasp of the cost is critical.
The average health-care coverage for the average family now costs $13,375, according to Kaiser. Over the past decade, premiums have increased by 138 percent. And if the trend continues, by 2019 the average family plan will cost $30,083.
Three years of slightly above-average health insurance will cost a solid six figures.
Those are numbers to marvel at. Those are numbers to fear. But they are not the numbers that loom in the minds of most Americans. And therein lies the problem for health-care reform.
About 160 million Americans receive health coverage through their employers. In general, the employer picks up 73 percent of the tab. This seems like a good deal. In reality, that money comes out of wages.
As Ezekiel Emanuel, who advises Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag on health-care policy, has pointed out, health-care premiums have risen by 300 percent over the past 30 years (and that's after adjusting for inflation). Corporate profit per employee has soared by 200 percent. Hourly earnings for workers, adjusted for inflation, have fallen. The wage increases have been consumed by health-care costs.
Another 80 million Americans are on public plans, mainly Medicare and Medicaid. Those costs are paid by taxpayers. And about 46 million Americans are uninsured. The costs for their care are shifted to the insured: This raises premiums for the average family by $1,100 each year, according to an analysis by Ben Furnas and Peter Harbage of the Center for American Progress.
Imagine if people who touched a hot stove felt only a small fraction of the pain from the burn. That's pretty much what's happening in our health-care system. It hurts enough that we would prefer it to stop, but the urgency is lost.
That's the dilemma for Washington wonks trying to fix this mess: They look at the numbers and see health-care costs crushing our economy, overwhelming our government, swallowing our wages. But the public isn't feeling it. Virtually no one cuts a $13,375 check for health care. Most pay 27 percent of it, or even less. The surest way to cut health-care spending would be to make people shoulder more of the burden directly, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and lost wages. But that's about as popular as a puppy pot roast.
Thinking Long-Term
Health-care reform concentrates on the people in acute distress: the uninsured and the underinsured and the poor few who've been left to the cruel chaos of the individual or small-group insurance markets. The public insurance option -- if it comes to pass -- would be open to only these groups, and the bill's hefty price tag is almost entirely devoted to helping them afford coverage. But what about the rest of us?
The problem for the White House has been that the proposed health reform policies meant to help the average American aren't specific. They're not a cash transfer or a new insurance card. These are the "curve benders," policies meant to cut long-term health-care costs. The problem is they're abstract, speculative and, at times, even unpopular.
The White House's favorite curve bender is called "comparative effectiveness review" -- a fancy way of saying "evidence." Study after study has shown that we waste an incredible amount of money on medical interventions that just don't work. If we can figure out which ones those are, we can stop using them and save money by not buying what we don't need. That may work. But the evidence will take a long time to amass, and we don't yet know what it will show. What if it finds that some brand-new and incredibly expensive treatments are wildly effective? That could raise spending. Industry stakeholders, however, had little interest in waiting around to find out: They made such a fuss that Congress quickly inserted a provision promising that the government wouldn't use any of this evidence in deciding what Medicare and Medicaid would cover. Because God forbid government programs rely on evidence.
The favorite proposal of liberals is the public insurance option. If the public plan were open to all Americans and partnered with Medicare, it could negotiate deep discounts with health-care providers. The Lewin Group, a health industry consultancy firm, and the Commonwealth Fund, a liberal-leaning health-care advocacy organization, have both estimated that this sort of plan could save the average American 20 to 30 percent on premiums.
Of course, providers don't much like the sound of that because they would see 20 to 30 percent less revenue. And insurers don't much like the sound of that because they could not compete with that sort of buying power. Republicans and centrist Democrats have banded together to weaken the public plan and maybe even remove it altogether. President Obama now promises that the public plan would be open only to the uninsured and wouldn't offer any advantages over private insurers. It won't, in other words, be allowed to save people money.
Conservatives favor the idea of taxing health-care benefits and popularizing "high-deductible health plans." In short, if people have to pay more for health care, they'll use less of it. This is true, but as you might expect, quite unpopular. The Finance Committee's bill would tax insurers who offer high-cost plans, but we'll see whether that survives once people realize it would raise the price of their insurance.
'Reform' = Wonky Tweaks
If Americans felt the full burden of health-care costs, they'd likely be clamoring for all these policies, and maybe more. They'd want transformational change. But they don't feel those costs, and so they're resistant to change. Obama continually promises that most Americans will notice no changes in their existing coverage, and all the bills reflect that vow. So what's left? How do you reform a system you cannot change?
You ask the wonks. People often complain about the length of bills. But you don't need many pages to explain a public plan, or set up a death panel (kidding!). Rather, the bulk of these bills amount to hundreds of small tweaks and fixes that make this corner of the health-care system a smidge more user-friendly, or that transaction a tad faster. Rather than saving hundreds of billions of dollars with a single dramatic intervention that transforms the system, they provide for the accretion of modest savings and small efficiencies.
For instance, despite all the fire over the co-op plan, it gets two pages in the Finance Committee's bill. Pages 75 to 110 are all devoted to delivery system changes that are meant to make the system a bit more efficient but that no one has ever heard of. "Value-based purchasing" alone gets six pages in the bill. The "National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling" gets another five.
Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin, a researcher at the Rand Corporation, and David Cutler, a health economist at Harvard, recently estimated the savings that could be attained by "modernizing" the system over the next 10 years. The changes they examined weren't dramatic. Replacing paper records with computerized files, making it easier for people to comparison-shop across insurers, "bundling" payments for the treatment of a single illness rather than shelling out separately for each doctor visit -- that sort of thing. Added up, they equaled a startling $2 trillion over 10 years. That's a lot of money for policies that have received virtually no attention in the debate.
And yet, this is the quiet promise of health-care reform. The grand theories might fail. They often do. But making the system a bit better, a bit quicker and a bit more agile -- we can do that. And until the stove gets hot enough, it may be all we can do.

Report Card for the Obama Administration

Grandpa — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:36:52 -0800

Report Card for the Obama Administration

by CEI Staff
January 20, 2010

Washington, D.C., January 20, 2010-One year ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as President of the United States. Since then, he and his appointees have had the opportunity to begin implementing their policy agenda, with notable results throughout the federal government’s departments and agencies. The analysts of the Competitive Enterprise Institute have assessed the administration’s first-year performance and assigned grades accordingly.

D- White House (overall) ― Barack Obama, President

Grader: Fred L. Smith, Jr., President

Americans rallied behind President Obama’s message of hope and change, giving this administration a wonderful opportunity to reframe the debate about an array of issues in America-entitlements, environmental policy, health care, and the roles of the federal and state governments. Americans, not wedded to either the Democrats or the Republicans, were ready for a reappraisal, a rebalancing of the powers of the people and the politicians. He blew it. Despite being elected by moderates and independents, this administration adopted the most statist agenda and created the most bloated bureaucracy in America’s history. By championing further politicization of an already overly politicized America, there have been rapid drops in Obama’s credibility and popularity.

Americans are dropping out of his Long March toward Socialism. Obama could have adopted a “Nixon in China” policy, working with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to rebalance private and political frontiers, encouraging greater private involvement in education, allowing private property a role in the environmental field, taking on the non-sustainable entitlement programs already threatening the survival of Europe, reducing the regulatory and tax burdens on entrepreneurial creativity, and moving away from the neo-conservative “nation building” crusade of his predecessor. Unfortunately, he has not. He could have been-and, if he reshapes his course quickly enough, might still become-a great president. But, in this first year of his presidency, he has disappointed. The performance of the White House to date merits only a D-.

D+ Department of Agriculture ― Tom Vilsack, Secretary

Grader: Frances B. Smith, Adjunct Fellow

In a February 24, 2009, address to Congress, President Obama promised the American people that his administration would be taking a hard look at farm support. “In this budget,” he said, “we will . . . end direct payments of large agribusinesses that don’t need them.” However, reality wasn’t consistent with that rhetoric, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that direct government payments would total $12.5 billion in 2009, a 2-percent increase over 2008. Agricultural policy in the Obama administration has also continued and expanded massive agricultural subsidies, with new “green” subsidies for ethanol production. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 gave USDA nearly $28 billion in funding, which together with guaranteed loan programs represents nearly $52 billion in new program funding. The Obama administration has also refused to touch special interest programs that benefit wealthy farmers at the expense of consumers-for example, the USDA decided not to increase import quotas for sugar, which restrict the amount of sugar available for sugar users and consumers. And, despite World Trade Organization rulings against U.S. cotton subsidies, no U.S. action has been taken to change that program.

D Consumer Product Safety Commission ― Inez Moore Tenenbaum, Chairman

Grader: Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk and Environmental Policy

The CPSC gets a D for its management of perhaps the most significant item on the Consumer Product Safety Commission agenda for 2009: the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). It regulates lead and certain chemicals in toys. Never mind the fact that the trace levels are too low to pose a health risk, this draconian law is putting small businesses out of commission and forcing charities to toss old books, toys, and other items. Small businesses and others have been fighting this unreasonable and impractical law since its inception. But CPSC has made things even more difficult than necessary by refusing to apply any flexibility built into the law.

Commissioner Ann Northup, one of the few voices of reason at CPSC, noted recently in the Wall Street Journal: “For the past several months, American businesses have been caught in the middle of a classic standoff between the federal commissioners in the majority, who argue that the statute ties their hands, and members of Congress, who claim they wrote flexibility into the law and blame the commission for any harsh consequences. Although the commission steadfastly refused to reach out to Congress to seek clarifications to the law, Congress has now reached out to us-asking the agency last week for a list of recommendations to amend the statute. Thankfully the commission responded, in part, by agreeing to extend the stay on testing and certification for lead content. This window gives Congress time to consider such common-sense changes…” The commission gets a few points for having at least extended one compliance deadline to allow time for reform, but it could have taken more opportunities to apply some reason to the application of the law.

F Department of Energy ― Steven Chu, Secretary

Grader: Iain Murray, Vice President for Strategy

The mission of the Department of Energy has historically been one of ensuring that America has the power to meet its economic needs. Unfortunately, under Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, the Department has apparently decided that America’s economy is too big and needs to be scaled back. It has taken a decision to frown upon traditional sources of energy, generated from fossil fuels, and discouraged their further development. Alternative sources of energy, which cannot possibly meet America’s needs in the short-to-medium term, are instead encouraged with massive taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some noises have been made about nuclear energy, but it remains the red-headed stepchild of energy policy. The result will likely be a continuing degradation of America’s energy infrastructure which will almost certainly result in its failure to meet economic needs should the nation begin to climb out of the current recession, with the likelihood of a stalled recovery. For its failure to appreciate exactly what it is supposed to be there for, the Obama administration’s Department of Energy gets a resounding F.

F Environmental Protection Agency – Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

Grader: Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy

EPA flunked on April 16, 2009, when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson found that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare, and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This endangerment finding came after an advance notice of proposed rulemaking begun during the Bush administration in July 2008 that resulted in numerous substantive expert comments that show clearly that the finding is unwarranted scientifically, that the Clean Air Act is entirely unsuitable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and that using it to do so would create a regulatory nightmare and do enormous economic damage. Administrator Jackson admitted that the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but went ahead and made the finding anyway.

In addition, EPA has moved aggressively to stop coal production in Appalachia by intervening in mine-permitting decisions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA has even demanded that the Corps revoke permits for new mines that have already been granted. The grounds upon which the EPA is attempting to stop coal mining are utterly ridiculous.

D Federal Communications Commission – Julius Genachowski, Chairman

Grader: Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies

Radio and television stations, Internet service providers, and even wireless phone companies are all regulated by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This agency is tasked with governing the nation’s airwaves and making available communications services to the residents of the United States.

Technological evolution has spurred fundamental changes in the way we communicate over the last couple of decades. Consumers nowadays enjoy more information and entertainment sources than ever before, and the notion of scarcity in communications has yielded to a world of abundance. Consequently, the FCC’s proper role has grown smaller and smaller.

Like most modern bureaucracies, however, the FCC has maneuvered in recent years to interject itself in market processes in order to preserve the agency’s relevance in the face of a rapidly changing communications landscape. Most recently, the FCC has proposed imposing net neutrality rules that would limit how Internet providers can manage their networks in the name of protecting consumers. But these rules threaten to constrain tomorrow’s innovative business arrangements-arrangements which today’s shortsighted regulators simply cannot foresee.

The FCC also made headlines in the fall of 2009 when it launched an investigation into wireless industry practices. AT&T, the nation’s second largest wireless carrier, and Apple, the maker of the iPhone, were at the center of the controversy. Naturally, the FCC claimed its actions were aimed at protecting consumers. In fact, the looming scepter of regulatory intervention in the wireless market-a market which is highly innovative and competitive, according to objective measures-causes firms to retreat, stifling innovation and making consumers worse off.

On the other hand, the FCC has publicly acknowledged the need for expanding the pool of spectrum available to the marketplace. Spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile communications, but government controls giant swaths of this resource. The FCC has streamlined the process of deploying wireless services, which has helped ensure that wireless carriers are able to meet escalating demand for mobile data service. But the Commission still has a long ways to go if it’s to enable American enterprise to realize the full potential of the spectrum.

F Federal Trade Commission – Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

Grader: Michelle Minton, Policy Analyst

The purpose of the Federal Trade Commission is, ostensibly, to protect consumers and encourage competition in the marketplace. However, over the last year the FTC and the Obama administration have initiated or endorsed actions that display an increasingly interventionist intent and that would resoundingly impede competition and threaten the liberty of individual consumers. Congress initiated plans to repeal portions of the McCarran-Ferguson act, ending the long-standing antitrust exemption for health insurers. This proposal, endorsed by President Obama, would do nothing to reduce the costs of health insurance and would more than likely result in increased costs and market consolidation. The “collusion” practiced by health insurers actually allows them (especially small insurance companies) to share information and rate-setting standards for more accurate premium calculations. Setting accurate risk-based rates is fundamental to an insurer's ability to charge adequate rates that are neither too little or too much. States already have the power to regulate antitrust in the insurance industry so the result of repealing the antitrust exemption would most likely be insurance companies erring on the side of caution by reducing market cooperation, a reduction in premium rate accuracy and thus an increase in the costs of writing insurance.

Additionally, the FTC filed an antitrust suit against Intel, the leading manufacturer of microprocessors, alleging that the company violated federal laws by engaging in exclusionary business practices. In reality, Intel has been able to achieve its success due to constant innovation as a result of a vibrant and competitive market. The application of antitrust laws will only retard what is an otherwise dynamic market. There is no evidence that Intel's market success has harmed consumers in any way. Lastly, and most disturbingly, the FTC issued new rules which went into effect December 1, 2009, that would make the average blogger liable for civil penalties for false claims about products or failure to disclose material connections between the reviewer and the marketer of a product or service. This raises serious concerns about the scope of the FTC's powers and its ability and willingness to hamper individuals' freedom of speech. For this and the previously mentioned offenses the FTC receives an unequivocal F.

C- Food and Drug Administration – Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner

Grader: Gregory Conko, Senior Fellow

The Obama administration’s Food and Drug Administration had a sub-par performance in 2009. The agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research approved just 24 new drugs and biotech medicines last year-roughly on par with its performance in the final year of the Bush administration, but well below recent highs of 53 in 1996 and 39 in 1997. In other areas, the FDA’s new leadership has taken a “get tough” attitude with manufacturers that will do nothing to improve safety, but could deprive consumers of useful products and information. For example, in April, the agency informed drug manufacturers that their use of “sponsored link” ads on search engines such as Google and Yahoo! were unlawful because the 70-character links did not present the same encyclopedic risk information required of conventional print advertisements-even though the links directed users to a page containing the full risk disclosure.

In May, the FDA issued a warning letter to General Mills that labels on boxes of Cheerios indicating that consumers could lower their cholesterol by eating the whole grain cereal turned the product from a food into a medical drug. And, in July, Principle Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein recommended imposing strict limits on the use of certain antibiotics in livestock production. The appointment of so-called consumer advocates such as Sharfstein and Assistant Commissioner for Policy Peter Lurie suggest one reason why the new FDA leadership has been taking a needlessly antagonistic regulatory approach. Similarly, the appointment of Ralph Tyler, an attorney with no food and drug law experience, to serve as FDA chief counsel, bodes poorly for consumers and manufacturers alike.

F Immigration and Customs Enforcement – John T. Morton, Assistant Secretary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Alejandro Mayorkas, Director

Grader: Alex Nowrasteh, Policy Analyst

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) receive an F for enforcing America’s self-destructive immigration policies. ICE and USCIS have the impossible task of separating immigrants from economic opportunity, and have failed spectacularly. The cost per apprehension of illegal immigrant on the border is up by 1,041 percent since 1992, and the number of illegal immigrants only seems to dip in response to recessions. When our immigration laws are confronted with the economic realities of mass immigration, ICE and USCIS end up with egg on their faces and taxpayers with a hole in their pockets.

F Department of Interior – Ken Salazar, Secretary

Grader: R.J. Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar

Unfortunately, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the host of environmentalists who have filled key slots appear determined to continue to expand the amount of federal land ownership through the acquisition (and regulation) of private lands-supporting the creation of ever more National Parks, National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, National Heritage Areas, National Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. With the poor record of stewardship on so many of the federal lands, one would hope for some demonstrated ability to care for what they already have, in place of endless acquisition as a seeming end in itself.

And while DOI is reducing private land ownership, it is also locking up millions of additional acres of existing federal lands in Wilderness Areas, which can never be used and most of which have never even been inventoried for their potential contributions to national survival. Additionally the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of listing more and more species of plants and animals as threatened or endangered regardless of the facts as well as designating ever-larger critical habitats for listed species. DOI is supporting efforts of environmentalists to not only close areas of known fossil fuel deposits to exploration and development, but is also opposing the creation of alternative wind and solar energy farms because they might impact endangered species and their habitat-or harm “viewsheds” -thus making doubly sure that America has neither non-renewable nor renewable energy supplies for the future. Such policies harm the land, the resources, the wildlife and the American people. How could one do worse?

F Department of Justice – Eric Holder, Attorney General

Grader: Hans Bader, Senior Attorney

The Justice Department is deeply politicized, putting partisanship before its legal responsibilities and the Constitution. It has failed to enforce federal voting rights laws like UOCAVA that protect the right of military service members to vote, resulting in many of them receiving absentee ballots to late to vote in close congressional races, like the special election for New York’s 20th congressional district. The obvious result of this is to put critics of the administration, who are disproportionately backed by military voters, at a disadvantage in every election. It dropped a voter-intimidation case after career justice department had already won the case and obtained a default judgment, shielding from punishment an Obama poll watcher and Philadelphia democratic official who used a nightstick and racial epithets to intimidate voters, and who belonged to the anti-Semitic, racist New Black Panther Party. It then thumbed its nose at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission in its investigation of the administration’s actions. It overturned a legal opinion by David Baron, a liberal Justice Department attorney hired under the Obama administration, when he had the temerity to point out the inconvenient truth that giving D.C. a congressman, as Obama advocates, would violate the Constitution.

The Justice Department has expanded the use of Miranda Warnings in Afghanistan -even though they are not constitutionally required and impede investigators. Yet it argues in court briefs that detainees subjected to torture have no redress under the U.S. Constitution. It is eroding civil liberties by re-prosecuting in federal court teenagers acquitted of a hate crime in state court, even though testimony in the state case supported the jury’s not-guilty verdict by pointing to a different culprit. It failed to take steps to cut off funds to ACORN, a political ally of the President, despite ACORN’s being caught on video promoting mortgage fraud and other criminal activity, and the existence for years of federal statutes debarring contractors who engage in fraud.

D Department of Labor – Hilda L. Solis, Secretary

Grader: Ivan Osorio, Editorial Director

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis gets a low grade for shifting the focus of the Department of Labor to run once again as if it were the Department of Organized Labor. Since taking office, she has worked with union bosses to promote organized labor’s agenda, including undermining efforts to improve union financial disclosure. However, one mitigating factor is the fact that the department’s searchable database for union LM-2 reports remains online (the database was made available online by Solis’s predecessor, Elaine Chao).

C- Office of Management and Budget – Peter Orszag, Director

Grader: Ryan Young, Journalism Fellow

Spending and deficits are far higher than under President George W. Bush, himself a big spender. But Obama can’t be given all the blame. The bailout and stimulus spending programs that caused much of the fresh red ink got their start under Bush. In a potentially positive regulatory development, the number of pages in the Federal Register decreased from 79,435 in 2008 to 69,676 in 2009. Of course, the contents of those pages matters more than how many of them there are. And on that front, the new administration is business as usual.

F Public Company Accounting Oversight Board – Daniel L. Goelzer, Acting Chairman

Grader: John Berlau, Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, created by Sarbanes-Oxley to implement its rules, gets an F. It has done nothing to simplify the rules that Republicans and Democrats have called overly burdensome to small public companies. And this year when bonuses in the private sector were under so much scrutiny, the PCAOB raised the salary of its chairman to almost $700,000 a year.

However, it is important to note that Obama cannot be held accountable for any of the PCAOB's actions, since the PCAOB's unconstitutional structure prevents the President from exercising any control through either the appointment or removal process. Despite our disagreement with the Obama administration, in a pending Supreme Court case, CEI has argued for his and future administrations to have the necessary constitutional controls over this agency so that they can be held politically accountable for its actions, good or bad.

D Securities and Exchange Commission – Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman

Grader: John Berlau, Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs

The reason the SEC does not get an F is because its Chairman Mary Schapiro, appointed by President Obama last year at the beginning of his administration, has made going after major investor fraud a key priority. She has brought on law enforcement experts and shifted enforcement resources from trivial headline-grabbing investigations such as the alleged backdating of stock options, which caused little harm to shareholders’ bottom lines, into seeking out Madoff-like Ponzi schemes. Contrary to press accounts, the SEC was not inactive during the Bush administration, but focused on the wrong enforcement priorities. It threw the book at Martha Stewart for trivial charges, but ignored warnings about Bernie Madoff and other fraudsters (as the agency had also done with regard to Madoff, to be fair, under the Clinton administration).

However other actions of the Obama-Schapiro SEC have greatly undermined shareholder well-being. Schapiro brought back the widespread use of corporate penalties to punish shareholder fraud. But penalties on the corporation, rather than individual bad actors in the company, have the effect of punishing the very shareholders the fraud was committed against. The money to pay the penalties is taken from the corporate treasury, which ultimately belongs to the ordinary shareholders of the company. Thus, shareholders end up being penalized twice for the fraud: once when the corporate executives misuse a company's money and again when the corporate penalty further reduces the assets that belong to all shareholders.

Schapiro also gets this bad grade for, over the objection of the two Republican commissioners, overriding 150 years of state corporate law to mandate that companies list shareholder nominees on the same ballot with their own. These proposed “proxy access” rules would let special interests with agendas and shares of stocks, such as union pension funds and environmental groups, use the director nomination process as a wedge against management to promote political agenda items that are contrary to the interests of ordinary shareholders.

And Schapiro failed shareholders and entrepreneurs when she refused to extend an exemption from the Sarbanes-Oxley “internal control” auditing mandates to the very smallest public companies. At a time when President Obama and Republicans are worries about small business growth and the ability to create jobs, this will severely limit these companies ability to grow. And Sarbanes-Oxley, despite costing the economy more than $1 trillion according to University of Minnesota economist Ivy Zhang, did little for shareholders in preventing fraud in the subprime crisis. This action may be mitigated by bipartisan actions in Congress to create a permanent exemption for these smaller companies. This measure was inserted into the financial regulation bill that passed the House in December, with the Obama administration's limited support. But it still needs to clear the Senate. Schapiro should heed this bipartisan action and continue to extend this exemption so vital for entrepreneurs and shareholders from this law that was rushed through after Enron and signed by President Bush in 2002.

F Department of Transportation – Ray LaHood, Secretary

Grader: Sam Kazman, General Counsel

For proposing, in conjunction with EPA, to raise vehicle fuel economy standards to even greater levels, despite the overwhelming evidence that such standards kill people by causing cars to be made smaller and lighter. Downsizing may squeeze more mpgs out of a car, but it also reduces crashworthiness. When passenger car standards were at 27.5 mpg several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that they contributed to about 2,000 traffic deaths per year. As those standards are pushed up by DOT and EPA, that death toll will only climb, with nary a peep out of the agency whose alleged job is to promote traffic safety.

D Department of Treasury – Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary

Grader: Wayne Crews, Vice President for Policy

In a libertarian world of civil rather than political society, the Treasury Department would pay the modest bills of a constitutionally limited government. It’s true that Congress holds the purse strings; but during an economic and financial crisis rooted in already-gargantuan government that – despite the news reports – has regulated money, credit and interest rates many decades, a sane Treasury’s vision for leadership and recovery would rule out seducing Congress with yet more elaborate and larger purses (with elastic seams besides). This Treasury Department has compounded the “NASCAR” bailouts, helps inflate a silly “green energy” bubble, and stands at the podium cheerleading the idea of regulating the private-sector salaries among other priestly interventions in one formerly free endeavor after another. But creating ficticious economies through political means is nothing new; we’re experiencing the fruits of this key governmental function now. I want to give Treasury an “F” for standing by as the 2009 deficit topped an incomprehensible $1.6 trillion last year amid this self-serving orgy, a political spending phenomenon unrelated to the requirements of economic recovery.

However, Treasury gets only a “D” because it inherited from President Bush what was already the largest government on Planet Earth ($3 trillion) a behemoth it had few complaints about financing. We can argue it ‘till the whiskey’s gone, but there’s no question that under President Obama, Treasury has been instrumental in extending and “customizing” a Stimulus to Nowhere already making a beeline for the cliff’s edge, and things could have been otherwise. Federal interventions are so extensive that civil, voluntary society as opposed to administered society may never quite recover in this particular geographical area of the world during any of our lifetimes.

Since it insists upon doing more than keeping the books, to get an “A,” the U.S. Treasury Department must take a leadership role in removing obstacles to corporate and small business innovation like tax and capital gain liberalization, and help expand economic deregulation on a massive scale. Apart from paying the government’s own light bill, Treasury’s leadership is only valuable when it prioritizes wise and honest alternatives to spending yet more stimulus money that it doesn’t have. It can take a lead role in expanding ideas like privatization, liberalizing America’s network industries like electricity and telecommunications (it will surprise few that the latter is being newly regulated rather than deregulated), simplifying taxes, explaining why a VAT is disastrous, and much more. The U.S. federal government buys us far too much misery with the $4 trillion it now spends annually; I almost wish it were more Machiavellian rather than just crazy. Freedom and liberty cost less than this, America.

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest group that studies the intersection of regulation, risk, and markets.
Related Files:

http://cei.org/news-release/2010/01/20/report-card-obama-administration