Medical Mistakes Costs Lives and Money

During the health care reform "debate" of the past few months, the issue of tort reform has been raised as a way to hold down spiraling health care costs. Republican lawmakers bemoaned the lack of any restrictions on "frivolous lawsuits" in the health reform legislation. What frivolous lawsuits? Interestingly, whenever these subjects come up, there never seem to be any statistics to back up their case. The only statistic mentioned is how much malpractice insurance rates have risen!

The logic goes something like this: Poor, altruistic hospitals and medical doctors do their darnedest to keep us all healthy, only to be slapped with lawsuits from disgruntled patients. This, in turn, causes their malpractice insurance rates to rise, forcing them to charge more for their services. Oh, and don't forget all those useless tests they "have" to order on every patient lest they be sued for malpractice.

How much truth is there to this argument? Not much, it seems. While the whiners never cite any supporting data for their cause, there is plenty to show the kind of harm the health care industry wreaks on patients. A 2004 report by HealthGrades, an organization that rates medical facilities, showed that for the years 2000-2002, patient deaths caused by medical errors averaged 195,000. Those were just deaths, mind you, and so were just a fraction of all medical errors that actually occurred in those years.

In other news, the December 2007 issue of Consumer Reports cited increasing rates of patient deaths from implanted medical devices. They cite statistics from the Food and Drug Administration reporting 2830 deaths, 116,086 injuries and 96,485 malfunctioning devices. And that's for the year 2006, alone! The magazine notes that many of these cases involved devices that had been on recall lists.

As for medical tests, an article in the September 2009 AARP Bulletin relates that fully half of all prescribed antibiotics are unnecessary; $1.1 billion is wasted each year in this manner. Not only that, but this practice is largely to blame for the appearance of "superbugs" such as MRSA and C. difficile. MRI and CT scans are also over-prescribed, by as much as one-third. These scans represent a $100 billion a year industry, so it's easy to see why doctors think everyone should have one. There's one problem, though: CT scans bathe patients in enough radiation to equal 50 chest x-rays, a definite cancer risk. Why do physicians over-prescribe and over-test? According to doctors interviewed for the article, it's easier than explaining to the patient why they don't need it! To top it all off, Consumer Reports notes in its October 2009 issue that doctors fail to notify patients of adverse test results in 7% of cases. Why order the tests if the results won't be reported?

The industry is doing little if anything to reduce these errors. The latest issue of Consumer spotlights the high rate of "central-line" infections that occur in ICU wards. These bloodstream infections, caused by contamination of large intravenous catheters, represent 30% of the 99,000 reported hospital-infection related deaths each year. Total infection rates, by the way, are in the neighborhood of 1.7 million every year.

As of October 1, 2008, Medicare no longer pays bills associated with hospital errors; unbelievably, hospitals and doctors have the nerve to bill Medicare and insurance companies for mistakes they make, then for the treatment necessary afterward. "Tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits"? They've got to be kidding.

What Jim Bunning's Grandstanding Was Really About

Finally, Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, has backed off on his self-serving rhetoric regarding "deficit spending" and let the 30-day extension of benefits for unemployed Americans go through. Why the turnaround? Some news sources say that Democratic chiding and criticism within his own party is what changed his mind. Bunning is no stranger to either of these situations, however, and I think the reason for the sea change is much simpler: He got what he wanted.

What was that, exactly? Attention, and a little revenge. He is leaving congress this year, so the effects of his filibuster will not impinge upon a re-election bid. Recent news articles have mentioned that he is "retiring" this year, but go no further than that. As it turns out, it is a forced retirement, engineered by his own party, with no other than Mitch McConnell at the helm.

Bunning, a former Baseball Hall of Famer, possesses an abrasive personality and lack of tact that has earned him few admirers, even within his own party. Michael Lindenberger of Time reported last July that Bunning, in his announcement that this term would be his last, placed the blame for this decision squarely in the lap of McConnell. The powerful Senate minority leader merely dropped a few hints regarding the prudence of another run by Bunning, and the money flow soon shut off. The Republican party, in true survivor fashion, was cutting out a cancer that could put the entire entity at risk, and it was done quietly and efficiently.

Bunning, apparently, doesn't feel the need to go quietly. In addition to pointing out the source of his political downfall, he has threatened to sue the Republican party. Truth be told, he barely won each election anyway, so the smallest of nudges was really all that was necessary. Nevertheless, Bunning seemingly saw his opportunity to annoy and embarrass not only Democrats, as any good GOP member is wont to do, but also those within his own party, who he views as traitors. The jobless bill, with its unusual agreement between the two parties that quick action was needed, worked very nicely. Who could argue against "fiscal responsibility" and a "ballooning deficit", phrases constantly trumpeted by Republicans these days?

The downside, of course, is that people in his own state would also suffer, and did. Surely Bunning knew this at the outset of his little public temper tantrum, though, and didn't care. He got the attention he craved, though his status as martyr is probably not secure. Probably a senator of this ilk would have failed re-election, anyway. The Republican party, however, not willing to chance it, took matters in its own hands. No one will miss this guy, and they know it. And the machine hums on.

Tea, or Coffee? How About Hot Cocoa?

I guess it was just a matter of time until someone came up with the answer to the so-called Tea Party: The Coffee Party. Conceived by Anabel Park and birthed on Facebook, this new political movement is building up a full head of steam. What do they stand for? Civility, inclusiveness and a desire to see government fulfill promises made during the presidential campaign. Okay, I can get behind that. I do think, though, that "Coffee Klatch" sounds better.

Of course, those same concerns are part and parcel of the Tea Party shtick, in as far as its members also feel government is deaf to ordinary people's needs and is spiraling out of control. They also want lower taxes and "smaller" government (whatever that means). The Coffee Party, besides forming as a knee-jerk reaction to the Tea Party, has a charge that is a little more fluid. According to a new member interviewed by Dan Zak of the Washington Post, this movement is "very grass-roots, there's no official organization and individuals can participate as individuals without having to see eye to eye on everything". Well, that will surely get things done!

To be fair, the Tea Party was unclear about its goals at first, too (actually, they still are). These two groups may have more in common than they think: Both express disgust for a federal government that is ineffective and out of touch with voters. Coffee people used the same methods to organize as did the Tea Party, namely social websites. This is something that the Democrats should take note of, and use to their own advantage. Why did it take 8 years of Republican rule for people to get fed up, versus one year of a Democratic government? The GOP has the marketing down, and the Dems would do well to copy their tactics.

Where will all this lead? Well, change would be nice, finally, but don't count on it. It seems that politics always trump good intentions, so expect to see infighting in both these "parties" fairly soon. Is there no hope? The best thing these two groups could do is find common ground and unite. The corporate/government model is big enough to crush disorganized, warring factions, but might have to take notice of a nationwide voter rebellion. "Hot Cocoa", anyone?

Who Says Americans Don't Want Health Care Reform?

The "health care summit" has come and gone, and, as expected, partisanship is still alive and well. Instead of focusing on what is best for the country, our elected leaders took this opportunity to once again bicker amongst themselves, proving to one and all just how useless they really are.

Republicans, of course, had no intention of negotiating away any of the deep fissures between themselves and Democrats on this issue. Their main concerns going into this meeting were split between concerns for citizens and concern for industry. For example, they wanted to discuss how to make insurance available and affordable to those with pre-existing medical conditions, but also want to end "frivolous lawsuits" and expand health care cost related savings accounts. They keep bleating that the nation just can't afford this legislation (where were these budget-squeezers when the bailout bill was passed?) and that the "American people" don't want it, anyway.

Not that the GOP is entirely to blame. Democrats are quickly losing the membership that was once willing to vote in favor of their health reform bill. Back in November, the House's version squeaked by with a 5-vote majority, and even that seems barely attainable now. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-PA, is quoted in an AP article by Alan Fram as saying that some Democrats who initially voted "yes" on the health care legislation would now vote "no" because, "they went home and got an unpleasant experience" due to the way they voted.

Who are these Americans who don't want health care reform? They are not anyone I know, or the readers who write into our local paper's editorial page. Why in the world would an average person put the concerns of the insurance industry and the health care profit machine before their own financial and personal health? We, the voters, are not getting cash gifts and free cruises, or large donations to our re-election campaigns. For these congresspeople to say it is the "will of the people" is just plain ludicrous.

As usual, our needs will be ignored as congress and industry ride off, hand in hand, into the sunset. The only real way to determine whether or not the citizenry want health care reform is to put it to a vote. Would you vote against changing the system? I know I wouldn't. Funny how that idea never came up, isn't it?

Do the New Credit CARD Rules Help or Hurt?

The much-lauded Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act finally went into effect this week, after months of unethical shenanigans by the credit card industry as they tried to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible. Signed by Obama last May, the law's implementation was put off until February in order to give the credit card companies and banks time to "adjust". What they did, of course, was play havoc with customer's money, jacking up fees, applying them retroactively, and instituting interest rates close to 1000%.

Now, though, the party is over. Or is it? Closer inspection of the law's provisions certainly seem protective of consumers: Caps on certain fees, 45-day notice on interest rate increases (which took effect last summer), and the scoop on exactly how long it will take to pay off your debt if you pay the minimum each month. These things are all good, especially the part where the print must be readable without the use of an electron microscope. The effect on consumers, though, is not quite so positive.

Eileen AJ Connelly, a reporter for the AP, writes that banks and other lenders that issue credit cards are already finding ways around the new law. Since the newly enacted restrictions will reduce their profit margins by half within three years (according to FICO), lenders have responded by creating new fees, re-instituting annual fees (almost unheard-of for the last few years) and cutting lines of credit. If you find yourself affected by these changes, consider yourself lucky: Many accounts were simply closed by credit card companies in order to reduce their risk. The account holders had no say in the matter.

Although the new 6-week notice for interest rate hikes is a good thing, there is no cap on high those rates can climb. In addition, many cards that previously had fixed interest rates have now, unilaterally by the lenders, been changed to variable rates. Since the only direction at this point for rates to go is "up", this does not bode well for card holders. Overall, credit cards will be much less accessible for everyone, particularly those with lower incomes.

Card issuers argue that not only does the new law decrease their profits, but the recession also took its toll on their bottom lines. According to the Nilson Report, lenders saw their earnings plunge from $19 billion in 2007 to $6.32 the next year. Of course, that's still a hefty profit, and, since much of the decrease was due to unemployed people defaulting, I guess they didn't suffer as much as others did. However, since the laws are written for the big guys and not everyman, their suffering is worth more. A reasonable person might expect that reduced profits during economic downturns are just a cost of doing business in the credit industry, but never mind. That yardstick only applies to small businesses, apparently. Therefore, they are able to make up their profits in new ways unavailable to the rest of us. Score another one for the big boys.

Americans Addicted to Sex-Addicted Celebrities

Dave Letterman, John Edwards, Steve Phillips and Tiger Woods. What do these four men have in common? Unless you've been living in a cave, you know that each one has recently been "outed" for sleeping with women other than their wives. Except for Letterman (who was not technically married at the time of his affair), each has seen his career ruined as a direct result of the affair becoming public. Oh, and two of them have admitted to being a "sex addict" and have done a stint in a Sex Addiction Clinic where, presumably, this particular monkey has been forcibly removed from both Phillips' and Woods' backs.

Now, just the other day, came the piece de resistance: Tiger Woods making a public apology for sleeping with several women during his marriage. He admitted that he had "cheated" and "hurt" those he loves. Okay, but why do the rest of us need to hear this? Apparently, sponsors have fled, and a public apology is believed to be the remedy. I wonder if that is part of his therapy: A kind of 12-step program, perhaps?

Americans can't get enough of this sort of drivel, it seems. Everybody likes sex (right?), and probably droves of us would have more of it if we weren't so working-class and boring. So, why is it surprising that those who lead exciting, spare-no-expense lives have more sex than we do? They have all the ingredients to attract partners, such as money, looks, money, talent, and money. Yet, each time some celebrity is found to have had extra-marital affairs, the media acts as if infidelity has just been invented (again).

Prurient interest aside, I think the real reason behind this feeding frenzy is the idea that each of these guys, particularly Woods, has been brought down a peg. Think about it. Whenever someone achieves some status that regular Joes and Janes only dream about, the media will almost immediately begin its search and destroy mission. Thus, beauty queens are dethroned for having posed nude (imagine!) earlier in their careers. Exemplary athletes like Michael Phelps become pariahs for taking a toke at a party, and the most gifted golfer in history finds himself in therapy designed to make him master of his domain. Let's face it: It took a lot of digging with heavy machinery to turn a one-car accident into the current scandal. None of this stuff was come across by accident, and every tidbit gets played for all it's worth.

Celebrities are people just like us, just richer (always) and more talented (usually). Tearing them down and exposing their foibles doesn't make them less so, but it does seem to make the general public feel better about themselves. It also doesn't make people like us any more important, or morally superior. If people want to be titillated, my suggestion is to subscribe to the Congressional Quarterly. At least knowing these peoples' shortcomings enables us to votes the bums out.

Reverse Mortgage Meltdown

Advice articles abound during recessions, each touting a new (or old) way to make every dollar count. When I saw an article about reverse mortgages by Saul Friedman, writing for the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, my interest was piqued. I had read about these financial instruments last September in Consumer Reports magazine, and that feature was not very flattering. It was obvious that Friedman was hawking these mortgages, so I read on to see how his perspective differed from that of Consumer.

He wrote about how many seniors are living in poverty but are not eligible for federal or state aid. If they own a house free and clear, however, they could tap the equity in their homes to pay bills and make their golden years worry-free. This is where the reverse mortgage, or Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, comes in. According to Friedman, these loans are safe because the Federal Housing Administration guarantees them, which means the borrower is protected not only from losing money if the property value drops below that of the loan amount, but also from losing the property itself. He asserts that none of these loans have gone belly up, so no taxpayer funds will need to be set aside to cover losses.

Consumer Reports tells a different story. According to their research, the number of reverse mortgage loans bailed out by the feds has increased fourfold in the last few years: from $81.3 million in 2004 to $381.3 million in 2008. Additionally, insurance policies paid for by borrowers used to cover these losses, which are now becoming the taxpayer's responsibility. What type of situation would trigger such a loss? When the money from the sale of the home doesn't cover the loan.

Friedman states that he himself has a HECM loan and has invested some of the proceeds. Consumer indicates that pressure to invest money procured from these loans seems to be part of many lenders' loan packages, regardless of whether it is a good fit for the customer. And while Friedman mentions the counseling requirement and some drawbacks to reverse mortgages, the article glosses over the negatives, which are many and could be ruinous.

The Consumer article profiles a man who lost his home after taking out such a mortgage. Since he was under age 62, the lender suggested putting the loan in his wife's name, who was older (and very ill). When his wife died, the loan came due. He could not pay off the loan, and the lender refused to re-negotiate terms. The house had fallen in value, and the associated costs of the loan and mounting interest payments caused the payoff amount to balloon. Indeed, the magazine noted that fees over the life of such a loan could easily reach one-sixth of the amount borrowed.

While the risks to seniors are legion, the banks love these loans because they can't lose: The taxpayer picks up the tab every time. And the costs are growing. The amount requested for FY 2010 was $798 million; in the mean time, the banks, insurance companies and investment firms are getting rich. Meanwhile, the equity in borrowers' homes gets dissolved by interest and fees, even if they don't take out the full amount of the loan. It's just a matter of time until our tax dollars are used to bail out the reverse mortgage industry, since there is no impetus for them to stop writing these loans, despite the mounting failure rate. By the way, where is that financial institution reform legislation?

Lack of Credit Spurs Small Business Ingenuity

Our local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, ran a couple of articles recently that really got my attention. In the February 15 edition, they profiled area bank CEOs who were bleating that while they have lots of money to lend, no small businesses are asking for it. Today's paper showed a much different side of the story: An Amherst businessman, Nick Seamon, detailed his quest for a small business improvement loan. Four tries netted him four refusals.

Seamon owns the Black Sheep Deli, an Amherst eatery in business 23 years. When he heard about the America's Recovery Capital program, whereby federal loans to small businesses would be backed by the Small Business Administration, Seamon contacted several banks, all of whom refused him. This is strange, since the Obama administration conceived this program specifically to help small businesses weather the recession as well as take the risk off of area banks, thus encouraging them to make these loans. What was going on?

Monday's article sheds a little light. According to four local bank CEOs, small businesses simply aren't asking for money, which is why they aren't getting any. Not only that, but the banks in this area are well capitalized, meaning they don't even need the $30 million in paid-back Troubled Asset Relief Program money that the federal government is making available for these loans. Meanwhile, today's article published the "Top five reasons why businesses were denied financing in the past 12 months": Insufficient revenue (37%); start-up business (23%); insufficient collateral (13%) bad credit (13%) and, my favorite, bad economy (13%). Does this sound to you like businesses aren't trying to procure loans?

The sad truth appears to be that the banks simply don't want to lend money to small businesses and individuals, and, gosh darn it, they ain't gonna. The four titans of finance interviewed for the first article crowed about how the savings rate has been increasing, which means more deposits for their bank. They obviously don't feel the need to give back, however, by providing credit to the community that boosts their banks' bottom line.

But Seamon has taken matters into his own hands. He is issuing "deli dollars" to customers, thereby raising the capital he needs to make repairs and renovations to his business. I think he's on the right track. How else to teach these big blowhards, who don't blink at taking our money for their own use without ever returning the favor, a good lesson? Let's bring back the community Savings and Loan and Building and Loan, where customers know where their money is coming from. Everybody pitches in and everybody profits. After all, that's the way things started; maybe it's time to start over again, and cut the big guys out. Now, there's a "downsizing" idea I can believe in.

Health Insurers Profit, Consumers Lose

I shouldn't have been surprised to see the article by Noam N. Levey concerning a report of the gargantuan profits made in 2009 by health insurance companies. After all, the battle between the voters and the insurers, refereed by congress, has been decided in favor of the industry. Who do we have to thank for this outcome? Our own elected, but industry-subsidized, legislators.

If the health care reform debate accomplished anything, it made the health care insurance leviathan more powerful than ever. Given a chance to enact laws that would level the playing field in favor of working people, our (mostly Republican) legislators chose, instead, to invite these greed-driven industry captains to the bargaining table. Then, without equalizing the debate with any representatives of we, the people, proceeded to hand them everything they asked for, plus the kitchen sink. By publicly protecting their interests, rather than ours, they showed exactly who they are really representing, and it ain't us, babe.

The "government takeover" rhetoric that helped kill the public option as well as the very public support of the industry's exemption from anti-trust laws surely emboldened these firms to take profit to new levels. The report, based upon the documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, shows an industry that increased profits by 56% while the country was mired in a deep recession. How do they explain this aberration? They blame their stockholders, of course.

Industry analyst Sheryl Skolnick is quoted as saying, "It's a terrible thing to run your business for Wall Street". According to this logic, the industry is required to keep raising prices in order to please stockholders. Was it stockholders, then, that caused California's Anthem Blue Cross to raise premiums by 39% on many of its customers? How about the decision by three of the five largest insurers to allocate less of the premiums collected to paying patients' claims, and more to salaries and profits? Somehow, I can't believe that these CEOs are taking their orders from investors, particularly when the result is more profit in their own pockets.

The huge sums insurance companies poured into congress last year are really paying off. As long as this country is run more by corporate interests than the interests of the electorate, no real reform will ever take place.

The Republican Marketing Machine

Have you ever wondered why the Democrats always seem to be in a muddle? Even when they are fighting for issues close to the hearts of many Americans, they seem to flub it up. The party best known for representing the working class has become almost useless to us, since everything they try to do seems to get turned around. Even with a majority, they can't bring home the bacon. What is wrong with them?

The primary problem, of course, is the Republican Party. Despite having a congressional majority for thirty years and the White House for eight, they are now managing to blame all the ill-considered and lame-brained decisions that came out of those years on the Democrats. And what are the Dems doing against this onslaught? Well, nothing. They're "negotiating". They're "conceding". The one thing they are not doing is standing up for themselves.

While "negative campaigning" always seems to irk the voting public, there is no doubt that it works. People will believe nearly everything you choose to tell them, as long as you say it often enough. Ridiculous assertions like "death panels" becoming part of Medicare and health reform become gospel truth to the minions incapable of thinking past the end of their noses. That is the strength of the Republican party: They know their audience, and they know how to market themselves. It doesn't hurt, either, that they don't mind being rude and obnoxious, and taking credit where it is not due.

Take the "Tea Party" example. They are using the Internet as a primary tool to get the word out (whatever that is) and organize. Who originally came up with this idea? The Democrats, of course. Howard Dean pioneered this concept and Barack Obama used it to much greater effect. The conservatives don't mind hijacking others' ideas, even if they profess to despise them. And how about that Scott Brown? The Republicans pulled off a real marketing coup with that one. Getting a Republican elected to Ted Kennedy's old seat is like having both sides of your Democratic face slapped. Where were the Democrats while all this maneuvering was going on?

If the Democrats want to regain what they have lost, they need to fight fire with fire. Voters who should know better are letting themselves be swayed by lies, and the party of the people should be stepping up to shout down these unscrupulous pols. The conservatives don't mind copying from the other side whatever strategy works; neither should the Dems. They'd better hurry, though, because they've got a lot of catching up to do.

Sarah Palin for President?

Sarah Palin's speech at the "Tea Party Convention" in Nashville this past weekend certainly received plenty of press. If you hadn't heard about her Presidential aspirations before, now you know. Snippets of her rousing oration have made many a thinking person wince in embarrassment. Sarah Palin for President? What is the world coming to?

I also wonder what the Tea Party was thinking. I understand that they are trying to become a force to be reckoned with, and they are steadfastly moving in that direction (even though direction is not their strong point). So, for their first convention they invite...Sarah Palin? Sure, she knows enough about national politics to fill a thimble, but does anyone, including the GOP, take her seriously?

Sound bites of her speech leave one astounded. Her statement that what this country needs is a "...commander-in-chief, not a law professor at a lectern", despite getting thunderous applause from conventioneers, doesn't make sense. You can't swing a dead cat in the U.S. Congress without hitting someone with a law degree. So, what's her point? That what we need is a former beauty queen? Not only does this comment make her look silly, it doesn't say much for the intelligence level of the average Tea Partyer, either. Thankfully, she had admitted brushing up on issues and events that spread beyond the state of Alaska. Well, good. The hokey, stupidey thing hasn't really done her much good so far.

What does the Republican party think of all this? They seem to be biding their time, keeping their distance. John McCain, who we can all blame for unleashing Palin onto the national political scene, has declined to criticize her publicly. Stand-up guy that he is, he probably never will. It will be interesting to see however, how he and the GOP handle this "Palin thing".

Who is the "Tea Party" Coalition?

More than 200 years after the famous "tea party" revolt, the term is popping up everywhere: Newspapers, magazines and of course, the Internet. A somewhat loose, but evolving movement, the common thread holding it together appears to be voter anger. White, middle-class anger, but real and boisterous. Too many taxes, too much government and the erosion of individual rights seem to be the primary concerns of those who profess to be deeply involved in this coalition. These are not new complaints; what is new is that they are being loudly voiced so early into a new administration. Does anyone really believe that all these issues came about within the last year?

While it is apparent that this movement is gaining ground, it is unclear which party they will eventually align with. Both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to harness this "energy", with the GOP coming out on top. At the recent "Tea Party Convention" in Nashville, Sarah Palin was the featured speaker. So, this must mean that the Partyers are rallying around the Republicans, right?

Well, maybe. An AP article by Liz Sidoti notes that, although the Partyers don't consider themselves a "third party", it has been mostly Independents running for office who have attached themselves to this movement. Additionally, members themselves profess not to really know where this new coalition is going. The McClatchy News Service quotes Rebecca Wales, spokesperson for SmartgirlPolitics.org as saying that it has been difficult to boil down the coalition's message to any one issue, but that, "we're unified in the fact that we do get out. We mobilize quickly and it's powerful when we do." Well, that certainly clears things up.

It is understandable that many of us are upset by the way our tax dollars have been used: Unwinnable wars, bailouts for financial institutions who refuse to follow the rules and turn around and hand out tax money to their friends in the form of bonuses. But blaming a new administration is not going to solve the problem. Top-down changes in government need to occur, and big money and corporate influence need to butt out. Okay, "Tea Party" members--get to work. Any group that can manage that gargantuan task will certainly earn my vote.

Where are All the Jobs?

Obama's State of the Union Address was about many things, but one subject dominated: Jobs. His stimulus package, featuring job-creating projects, is already facing hurdles in the Senate, due to a new concern about deficit spending. If only lawmakers had thought of this when they passed, like greased lightning, the bank bailout bill. Maybe fewer of us would be out of work now, especially if that $700 billion had been earmarked for job creation!

A problem exists, however, in that well-paying jobs are scarcer than hen's teeth these days. One of the few in that category, the autoworker, has certainly seen his/her fortunes plummet with the problems suffered by the auto industry. Manufacturing used to be a fairly secure job sector, with good benefits and hourly wages. According to an article published last September by Leo Hindery Jr., Leo Gerard and Donald Riegle, Jr., those jobs paid 15% more, on average, than non-manufacturing positions in 2008. Additionally, manufacturing jobs induce a radiating effect, creating other supporting positions as well as additional spending for every dollar invested. These authors were encouraging the inclusion of "Buy American" language in the economic stimulus package.

The question is, where are all these manufacturing jobs? Surely, not in this country. Starting in the 1970s and encouraged by the Nixon administration, businesses began shipping their production overseas to poorer, "developing" countries in order avoid unions, environmental restrictions and other curbs on their pursuit of the almighty dollar. When I was a youngster living in eastern Massachusetts, I would go job-hunting at any number of factories on Friday and have a new job for Monday. These weren't high-paying jobs, but they paid the bills and if you lost that one, there was another to be had in short order. It's been a long time since job hunting was that easy.

What is the result of this capital flight? Increased profits for corporations, certainly, though how much profit is enough has never been clearly defined. For workers, it has spawned a generation of college graduates flipping burgers, and non-college graduates spending a lot of time in the unemployment line. At this point in time, unemployment is the highest it has been in 30 years, and more people are staying unemployed longer.

Can Obama turn this around? I can't see how. An AP article by Mae Anderson from October 13, 2009 stated that 80% of economists queried said that the recession was over and the recovery had begun. Well, nearly four months later, it is obvious that they were wrong. Hmmm, I wonder how many economists are are now standing in unemployment lines?

Republicans Stonewall, Democrats Dither and Nothing Gets Done

The recent dust-up between Obama and the Republican party in Baltimore once again plays up the fact that our government representatives are not only at odds with the American public, but also with each other. Despite the fact that we have a two-party system of governance, there is a basic requirement that they must work together in order to get anything of importance done. More often than not, though, we wind up with a system stuck in first gear as our elected officials engage in ego-indulgence, greediness and downright unethical behavior in order to feather their own nests. This appears to be the state of affairs at present, and people are getting sick of it.

While the exchange between the President and GOP can certainly be considered healthy, no forward movement appears to have been achieved. Republicans keep repeating that they have the plan to save the day, all the while complaining about "deficits". Why the sudden concern over deficit spending? Republicans accused the Obama administration for getting us into this hole, but the facts don't uphold this view.

The two wars that were begun during a Republican administration have so far cost this country $1.05 trillion dollars, with little if any positive return. Combined, they cost approximately $150 billion each year. Certainly, Democrats voted in favor of these actions as well, but the fact is that the Republican party was in control at the time. And let's not forget who was at the helm during the lightning-fast creation and passage of the no-strings-attached financial industry bailout bill.

When it came to health care reform, the GOP actively obstructed any positive outcomes for taxpayers, while consistently handing health care and insurance industry lobbyists whatever they wanted. However, an AP article published late last year spotlighted how, in 2003, Republicans pushed through a Medicare expansion bill that was completely deficit-financed. This bill, which the Democrates opposed, has added tens of billions to the deficit, according to author Charles Babington. How does the GOP defend this? Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was quoted as saying, "it was standard practice not to pay for anything," six years ago. Oympia Snowe, R-Maine, opined that "dredging up history is not the way to move forward." Well, history is our teacher, and if we can't learn from it, how exactly are we to "move forward"?

When people voted for Obama, they were voting for change. What they got was intransigence, sophomoric displays of ego and constant, tiresome sniping. Can Obama move the country past this stalemate? Time will tell.

Toyota Drops the Ball on "Sudden Acceleration" Problem

The Today show featured an interview with Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Company, regarding the automaker's suspension of sales and recent recall of eight vehicle models. He stayed cool and collected under Matt Lauer's questioning, which included queries regarding not only what the company is currently doing to solve the problem, but also about when they knew the problem existed. Lentz stated that Toyota is shipping pedals to dealers starting today, and that the company had no knowledge of this issue until last October.

Anyone watching this interview would agree that Lentz was setting the stage for deniablility once the lawsuits start coming, which they will. Lents neglected a few issues here, such as the fact that the recall was the result of pressure from the Obama administration; that Toyota had, previously to today, only shipped new pedals to the factories, while dealers cooled their heels waiting for parts to fix the scores of cars coming in off the streets; and the fact that the LA Times has reported 19 deaths attributed to the "sticky" pedal problem.

When Lauer mentioned accelerator problems occurring over the last decade, Lentz replied that the first problem with sudden acceleration was due to "car mat entrapment" and not the current issue of sticky pedals. He said the first problem is now "fixed" and Toyota only learned of the second issue last October. Yet a November 12, 2009 article by Jim Motavalli details the experience of a man whose 2007 Lexus suddenly accelerated on the highway. Luckily, he kept his cool and was able to bring the car to a halt. He filed a complaint with the National Highway Safety Administration, who, as it had in five previous cases, returned a verdict of "no fault" on the part of the automaker. This incident occurred in March of 2009, and there was no mention of "mat entrapment".

How, then, could Toyota have no knowledge, if it had to answer investigative questions from the NHTSA? The answer is, of course, that they must have known. If the company spent as much time and energy admitting to and fixing these serious problems as it does trying to deny accountability and ready itself for lawsuits, perhaps its reliability would not be in question right now. It is unfortunate that one of the best automakers around has fallen victim to the "protecting the bottom line" mentality, instead of stepping up as it did when the frame failure issue became apparent on Tacoma trucks. Toyota denies that its rush to grow and expand is to blame for its current woes. Lentz denied that the company ever had as its goal to become the biggest automaker. Maybe it was just attempting to become "too big to fail".

The Supreme Court Decision to Stifle Democracy

It's official: The United States, as some have always suspected, is truly governed by corporate America. Not content to continue on as the power behind the throne, it has finagled its way into that revered document, the U.S. Constitution. Even the most starry-eyed idealist will now have trouble maintaining that this great country of ours is "for the people".

Of course, the Supreme Court itself is more to blame. Its responsibility is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, not backpedal on its own decisions when faced with spurious legal babble presented by corporate lackeys. I can understand the latter trying anything to get the case decided in favor of big money, even proffering an idea as ridiculous as the concept of a corporate entity being equal to a human being and thereby capable of free speech. But where, I wonder, did the Court find in our founding document that very definition?

Apparently, these behemoths of industry will now enjoy all the rights and protections of citizens. The Court would have us believe that the framers intended to have "corporations", a term and concept not heard of at the time, on an equal footing with persons. Certainly, corporations are considered "entities" as far as tax law is concerned; these companies make profits in addition to the individuals who own and work for them, so why should they not pay taxes, as well? This is a far cry from considering them actual persons, with brains and mouths with which to formulate and voice thoughts and opinions. It boggles the mind that any rational person would consider this notion for even one moment.

But, it is done. If you have any doubt that marketing and propaganda can sway an election, witness the recent victory of Scott Brown. Money talks, and people listen, even when what is being said is ludicrous. As Doug Kendall, founder of Constitutional Accountability Center wrote in an editorial back in September of 2009, the record-breaking fundraising coup by Barack Obama in the last presidential election would be nothing against the money that a company like Exxon Mobil could muster. The ability to shout down even the most popular candidate is a powerful tool, and they will make the most of it.

At least, I suppose, there is a bright side. Now, any one of us, not just the wealthy, can run for public office. A candidate only need to present his or herself to any number of fat cat corporate entities and determine what they need to say in order to have their journey to public service financed. Every elected official will be no more than a corporate mouthpiece, forcing big business' agendas down our throats in the form of new legislation. Who would have thought that the body whose charge it is to interpret and uphold the law of the land would be the very instrument that the rich and powerful would use to obstruct this democracy?

Drug Safety Decreases as Prices Increase

As prices for prescription drugs rise, there has not been a commensurate increase in quality. Indeed, if the products produced were actually decent, one might not be so annoyed by the astronomical rise in costs, since the consumer would at least be getting something for his money. Alas, in the real world where the market is not the real governor of big corporate profits, this is not so.

The fact is that drug manufacturers consistently market harmful products, with the collusion of the U.S. government. Back in November 2009, an AP article by Matthew Perrone described detritus found in many of Genzyme's products. Rubber, steel and other garbage, apparently big enough to see floating in vials of the drug, was declared by the Food and Drug Administration as capable of causing "serious adverse health effects". Did they force the removal of these dangerous concoctions from the market? Not on your life; there were too few "alternatives" available. Doctors were encouraged to look closely at the vial before injecting its contents into patients. Nice to know that the FDA is on our side.

In another article by this same author, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2009 criticized the FDA for not disclosing pertinent information about drugs' side effects on labels. Since these labels are written by the industry and only rubber-stamped by the agency, this is no surprise. The labels only report (in part, it seems) results from the company's own studies, not independent trials. The FDA is supposed to weigh positive v. negative outcomes and only deny approval when the latter outweighs the former. When all negatives are not disclosed, though, problems can arise, and obviously do.

Another revenue enhancer for big pharma was discussed in the latest issue of For Your Benefit, a publication of the MA Group Insurance Commission. Direct marketing to consumers by the drug industry has helped push their profit rates to 15.8% of gross revenues compared to only 5.7% for all Fortune 500 companies. These ads promote the prescribing of name brands, rather than generics, which are generally priced much lower. Here's another "side effect" of this marketing strategy: According to a report last fall by the Centers for Disease Control, drug-related deaths now outnumber those from automobile accidents in at least 16 states. The majority of these deaths are from prescribed pain-reducing drugs, not illegal ones. The prime offender? Opiates. According to a researcher from the University of Washington, "There has been a dramatic change in how doctors prescribe opiates" during the past 10 years; today, 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 10 teenagers are taking these prescribed drugs.

Why does our government not step in? It seems apparent that drugs that routinely are involved in untimely deaths should be scrutinized, as well as their delivery mechanism (prescription). Obviously, the war on drugs only pertains to those opiates and other drugs that interfere with the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Health care reform could and should have targeted this problem. Once again, money talks and the needs of the people walks. Oh, well. I think I'll go turn on the TV and watch some prescription drug ads, and relax.

Prescription Drug Prices Rising Faster Than Inflation

Another byproduct of the health care reform debate is the recent escalation of prescription drug prices. According to the latest edition of the AARP Bulletin, between October 2008 and September 2009, brand-name drugs often prescribed to those patients receiving Medicare rose an average of 9.3%. It is noteworthy that during this same time period, other consumer prices were in decline.

Why the price rise? The industry, concerned about possible regulation if reforms were actually put in place, was apparently running up prices ahead of reform, according to a memo received by the Government Accountability Office. The congressional authors are requesting an investigation.

That is all well and good, but the chances of big pharma being called to task for this behavior are very small indeed. Remember, this is the industry that was given every concession they wanted, as well as a seat at the table, during health care reform negotiations. They, along with health care delivery entities, were the biggest spenders last year when it came to showering congress with greenbacks.

The last time drug prices rose at his rate was back in 2003, when our pals in congress passed the Part D "benefit" to Medicare, according to the article. Fear of a new government entity that would be empowered to negotiate lower prices for the government health plan was the impetus behind those price hikes. However, the legislation specifically prohibited this type of negotiation, thanks to lobbying by the industry. So, what were they afraid of, really? Nothing, probably. They saw another opportunity to make a killing, and they did, much like big oil does every now and then. Despite the cries for investigation, which sometimes actually occurs, nothing is ever done by our elected officials to stop the plunder. And so, it goes on.

The most recent attempt at health care reform also prohibits the government from creating a national formulary to procure discounted pricing on drugs. However, the article points out that the Department of Veteran Affairs has always used a two-tiered system to attain the steepest discounts from drug companies. This agency requires discounts before formulary-based negotiations even take place.

Why, then, can't this be done for Medicare, and by a government-sponsored public option program? Because the industry doesn't want it to happen, that is why. Not only is the public option issue dead, but congress caved in to lobbyists (while accepting renumeration, no doubt) and inserted anti-negotiation language in the Medicare reform bill. According to a report from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, applying the VA model to Medicare would save the government approximately $24 billion per year, savings that could bridge the gap popularly known as the "doughnut hole".

PhRMA, big pharma's trade group, says price hikes are necessary to offset high research and development costs and the loss of income from patent expiration. In a market economy, though, no one is supposed to be guaranteed a profit. If you cannot make a living, you go out of business, plain and simple, right? More and more, that applies only to small, not large, businesses. Government giveaways support the oligarchies while family businesses flounder. According to the Kaiser Foundation, the drug industry spent $10.4 billion in 2007 just for advertising. Does that sound like a company descending into the throes of poverty?

Massachusetts Votes for More Washington Inertia

Massachusetts voters decided, for the first time in almost 40 years, to send Republican representation to Washington in the form of Scott Brown, R-Wrentham. This was no ordinary race, mind you, as this is the very seat that our venerable statesman, Edward Kennedy, held for almost 50 years. If there is anyone more dissimilar to that great man, I would be surprised.

How did this happen? Sure, Martha Coakley ran a lousy campaign, which even the assistance of Barak Obama could not save. But this race was more than that. It was also about preserving a Democratic majority in Washington, as well as passing health care reform. Ted was indisputably popular, yet Brown is almost his exact opposite. He has vowed to vote against health care reform, one of Kennedy's lifetime goals. He is also arrogant. In his "Open Letter to the People of Massachusetts" he states, "We can send another (emphasis mine) rubber stamp to Washington or...we can elect an independent voice..." Well, I assume he's speaking of Coakley here, but he appears to also be referring to Kennedy. Brown sits on many key committees, yet I have yet to hear what good his "independent" voice has done for us. Someone needs to tell him that he is no Ted Kennedy!

This election has been labeled a "referendum" not only on the track record of Democrats, but also that of President Barak Obama. People are disappointed with the lack of promised change, they say. So--they elect a Republican? Who has been keeping real health care reform from occurring? The Republicans. Who started both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Right. Which party has made the health reform bill about Obama, and not health care? Right again.

People blame Obama for making promises he could not keep, yet obstructionism, not lack of effort on his part, has kept real change from taking place. On the other hand, politicians always make promises during election campaigns; why should Obama have been any different? Decades and decades of corruption and ineffectual rule have gotten us to the point we are today. Expecting one man to change it all in a year's time is just plain ridiculous. By the way, do you remember any other President being called on the carpet only one year into a new administration? Perhaps there is more to this "referendum" than meets the eye.

Banks Stick it to Consumers Before CARD Rules Take Effect

If you are a credit card holder, you probably already know that on February 22, new rules governing these accounts goes into effect. Titled "The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act" (CARD), this law is a consumer-protection piece of legislation meant to keep the more barbaric practices of the industry under control. It will bar issuers from raising rates retroactively, instituting limitless fees and giving fewer than 6 weeks notice of rate increases (already in effect). It also protects gift card holders from finding their entire gift amount used up by issuer fees before they get a chance to use it.

My husband and I generally do not have problems with our credit card issuers. So when he received his Barclay's credit card bill this month, we were surprised but not upset to see a $42 charge for being 2 days late with the payment. After all, we always pay the full amount each month, and on time; between the holiday and the due date of January 2, however, his payment supposedly didn't get to them until the 4th. Although the penalty seemed high, we were sure he could get it removed, since this was the first time that this had happened.

Wrong! When he called Barclay's, not only did they say they could do nothing about the charge, they were downright rude. My husband became livid as his eyes sought out the "new" interest rate on his account: 933.85% per annum. Almost 1000% interest? Was this a mistake? Oh, no. You know what the bank rep said? "That's not a monthly rate, sir. It's for the whole year." Well, thanks for explaining to us what "per annum" means, you nasty little person.

I suggested he call our senator, John Olver. He spoke with one of his aides, who said that the credit card companies are going "crazy" with charges on the eve of the reform bill taking effect. Apparently, this is legal. He said he would like a copy of our bill to send along to Washington, though, just in case. My husband also mentioned that once he said he wanted to cancel his account, he was put on hold for ten minutes, twice in a row. Once they decide they don't want to talk to you anymore, this is what they do.

We will follow through by sending the bill and a letter to Olver, and closing the account. I had a few laughs listening to my spouse berating the bank reps, asking them whether they thought this was good customer relations and demanding of them how they could sleep at night while engaging in practices more befitting a pirate. Of course, they don't care. Their job is to squeeze as much money out of the customer as possible, by any means necessary.

As my husband commented, it is easy to see how these bank CEOs find the money for their huge bonuses. This incident doesn't scratch the surface of sleazy business practices banks use to take advantage of consumers. By the way, isn't it nice to know that our tax dollars were used to bail out these guys? Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?

Skyrocketing Health Care Costs Need Reforming, Too

Despite the months of lip service and mounds of paperwork that have come to symbolize the health care reform debate, very little has been said about controlling costs associated with health care delivery. Not only are these costs hurting workers and the economy, they are bucking the deflationary trend by rising faster than any other indicator (except, perhaps, the unemployment rate).

A blurb in our local paper Saturday stated that despite last year's low inflation rate of 2.7%, college tuition and health care were two costs that continued to rise far above that meager rate. I recently read an article about a local girl with a rare disorder, whose treatments were expected to cost tens of thousand of dollars each month. A letter to the Editor of the Valley Advocate last week praised the state-funded MassHealth insurance for paying for treatments costing $3500 per month. Over $40,000 a year for medical care? What "treatments" can possibly cost that much?

Unfortunately, this is reality. The health care industry and the insurance industry have developed a symbiotic relationship whereby each makes gargantuan profits off of spiraling health care costs. Imagine if there was no such thing as health insurance. Would people purchase these overpriced and often marginally helpful treatments? Most probably, they would not. No matter how much you feel you need it, thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for health care is not workable for most of us. We would do without, find alternatives, or stay sick, maybe even die. Medical professionals don't give health care away for free.

Such high costs are only sustainable on a large scale when people have insurance that will cover most of the costs. The higher costs become, the more people need insurance. The insurance industry thrives because without the high costs, people wouldn't need their services. Remember, no matter how high medical costs become, there are only a small percentage of claims paid compared to the millions of customers paying exorbitantly high premiums each month. At any rate, insurers raise their rates each time health costs rise, so they don't ever lose; either do the hospitals and doctors charging these rates. The only losers are you and me, the customer/patient. Oh, and don't forget that insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws, as well.

An article by Stephanie Kraft in the September 24, 2009 Advocate presents some sobering statistics. According to the California Department of Managed Care, six of the largest health care insurers rejected, on average, nearly 32% of all claims submitted in the first half of 2009. That's an extraordinary percentage of refusals for an industry whose reason for existence is to pay medical claims. Not only that, but the number of insurance administrators has increased 3,000% since 1970, while the number of doctors has only risen by 200%. The greatest surge has occurred within the last 20 years.

As long as this profit-taking alliance exists, there will be no real reform in health care delivery. Our lawmakers had another chance to rectify this situation, but did not. In fact, they have succeeded in making it worse for us, by now guaranteeing increased revenue to these monoliths in the form of a requirement that each of us buy their products. Government by and for the corporations strikes again!

The "Making Home Affordable Program" Helps Very Few

The Today Show aired a segment this morning in which Ann Curry questioned two of the show's real estate "experts" regarding the Obama administration's mortgage loan modification program. The numbers they quoted were grim: Out of 760,00 applications, only 30,00 have been approved. Their advice? One of the experts suggested the bootstrap theory for troubled homeowners, advising them not to expect government to help them out with their problems. The other was more succinct. She said that sometimes the only option is to "walk away".

It seems this latter comment is probably the one to take to heart. Ever since the government came out with the Making Home Affordable Program, it has been beset with problems. One big issue is that banks do not have to participate if they don't want to. Some of these banks, mind you, received TARP money (Well Fargo, Bank of America), yet feel no compelling need to give something back in the form of loan modifications. Considering that the government has set aside $75 billion to entice them, it makes you wonder why.

A big problem is that banks make more money when a property goes into foreclosure than by saving the loan. Ilyce Glink, of Tribune Media Services, frequently comments on this program and the myriad of reasons why it is not working. Last fall, she cited a report by the National Consumer Law Center that examined this issue in depth. They found that loan modifications cost servicers more than, for instance, letting homeowners take a "break" from loan payments while they get their financial house in order, or foreclosing on the loan. The report cites "a lack of third-party oversight" that could nudge lenders into modifying troubled loans rather than taking the easy, and most profitable, way to dispose of the problem. A lack of regulation of the mortgage industry is, apparently, mentioned more than once.

Until Congress gets to work overseeing the financial industry, we, both as homeowners and taxpayers will continue to suffer, while the big guys continue to stick it to us. Obama keeps saying he's going to do something about it. Let's hope it he actually does.

Bailout Backlash for Geithner

At the end of 2009, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner declared that this year will not bring another financial meltdown. As much as we all hope that this is true, it is getting more and more difficult to believe anything Geithner says. Not only was he head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the biggest corporate welfare bonanza ever, but the mainlining of funds from taxpayers to Wall Street has now been extended until at least October. Now, to top it all off, memos have surfaced outlining an elaborate hushing up by the New York Fed of the methods used to funnel billions to the largest banks during the mopping-up operations regarding AIG's failure.

It has certainly taken a long time for this issue to become front-page news. Back in early February 2009, an AP article by Jim Kuhnhenn cited a report released by the Congressional Oversight Panel that noted a $40 billion payout to AIG, funded by taxpayers, for a mere $14.8 billion in assets. It went on to state that overpayments to Wall Street totalled $78 billion. I remember reading another article that described so-called negotiators, pockets stuffed with our money, practically forcing the big banks to take these bloated payments in return for canceling AIG's liabilities. I am not being blithe here. While many of these banks were actually willing to take less than what was owed them, it seems that this was not allowed. They had to take more.

The government is finally admitting that it lost at least $30 billion on the AIG bailout. Now Geithner is taking heat for the huge AIG bonuses that were given out on his watch, as well as the secrecy surrounding the AIG bailout itself. Why was so much money essentially thrown away? The old adage to "follow the money" is useless here, as our government has shown itself incapable of doing anything of the kind. So, it seems they have chosen to follow Geithner, until he breaks down and gives everyone some answers. But, will we be able to believe him?

Health Bill in Need of Reform

Passage of the health care reform bill, now predicted to be a reality by the time Obama delivers the State of the Union address, has turned into a bipartisan slug fest. Democrats and Republicans, each claiming to be the voice of the people, snipe at each other and tear bits of real change from this legislation like wolves fighting over a carcass. And that's exactly what the reform bill has become: A carcass, a mere shadow of its former, historically reform-minded self.

Gone are the items that would benefit the masses, such as the public option alternative to private health insurance. Even an expansion of Medicare to those aged 55 or older has been pulled, thanks to the very public bleating of legislators like Joe Leiberman. His recent crusade to embarrass the Democrats while getting his name in the newspaper is supposedly based on the fact that this benefit would, "add taxpayer costs...add to the deficit. It's unnecessary." For a guy so concerned about costs, it seems odd that he never mentions cracking down on Medicare fraud, which reportedly costs taxpayers billions each year. Speaking of taxpayer costs, the new legislation will now increase most people's monthly premiums, while providing no alternative relief.

Another benefit that has fallen off the table is the hoped-for introduction of the insurance industry to the world of competition. Not only has the status-quo been preserved, but additional revenue is guaranteed by the aforementioned premium increases as well as the new bill's requirement that everyone purchase health insurance, or face fines. Reform of health insurance practices very quickly became additional legislated enhancements to the industry's bottom line.

The pharmaceutical industry also got their dibs in, winning long-term protection of their drugs patents against more affordable generics. The cosmetic surgery lobby was successful in heading off a tax on their largely unnecessary services, which could have provided a source of revenue that might have been used to offset the costs of true health care reform.

What is left? More corporate giveaways, more costs to the taxpayer. Less reform, fewer benefits and now financial consequences for those who can't or won't buy health insurance. Exactly what the GOP previously railed against, they have helped bring about. It's nice to know that some things never change.

Another Bad Day for Airline Passengers

Since the thwarted Christmas day terrorist attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, airline security and government agencies have responded to the revelation that current security measures aren't working in their customary way: Don't let one hand know what the other is doing.

Newspaper reports confirm that security protocols have been beefed up to absurd levels on some flights while remaining unchanged on others. The Transportation Security Administration explains the confusion away by claiming that the idea is to keep terrorists guessing. Oh, sure. It couldn't be that they just don't know what they're doing, right?

Apparently, frisking infants and making them scream, causing long lines to form on an airborne plane within minutes of announcing an upcoming ban on using the toilets and not allowing passengers to read on flights are now "anti-terrorist" measures.

The incident that occurred at Newark Liberty International airport last night shows just how ridiculous these assertions are. A man was allowed, by sheer neglect, to walk through a door into a secured area without being screened. Luckily, the man was not a terrorist, he just made a mistake. Thanks goodness for luck, or many tragedies would have taken place on planes since 9/11. The airport's reaction to this security flub was typical: Harass passengers by forcing them to be re-screened. Delay flights and re-rout passengers. And, most important of all, don't tell anyone what is going on.

Ever since 9/11, airport security has consisted of inconveniencing customers while charging them higher fares. While persons such as the late Ted Kennedy are placed on "do not fly" lists, those who should be added to these lists are not. In the name of safety, airplanes are left idling on the tarmac, full of passengers without access to toilets or food, for hours. Meanwhile, supposedly secure doors are left unlocked and unattended.

I think I've figured out what they're doing. Think about how recent would-be terrorists like Richard Reid and Abdulmutallab have been foiled: they were subdued by passengers. How does an airline prepare passengers for such duty? By annoying the heck out of them before takeoff. Angry, frustrated passengers with adrenaline coursing through their veins not only make great stand-ins for the absent sky marshals, but the airlines don't have to pay them. They actually pay for the privilege of saving their own lives! And you thought they didn't know what they were doing.