Bloomberg Shows His Warmth For The Homeless

There have already been stories about how much empathy Bloomberg has for the least amongst us in the city. The latest to come from the desk of the plutocrat Mayor is sadly, not much different. His biggest supporters say that because he runs a media empire, running a city government should be pretty much the same way. Bloomberg prefers efficiency, expediency and a business model to good government, fairness and dedication to the public good. Unfortunately, one does not lead to the other and unless you are trying to make a profit off the city than that idea needs to be dropped in a hurry. Just like with Mayoral Control of the schools, Bloomberg is looking to bring "efficiency" to the city's homeless.

From The Gothamist:

The number of families sleeping in shelters is near an all-time high; according to the Department of Homeless Services, there were 34,774 people in shelters last week, including 9,361 families. The Bloomberg administration is now seeking state approval for a new set of policies intended to move families out of shelters more quickly and, according to the Times, apply the "market-driven, incentive-based philosophy to homeless shelters that it has used in schools." Under the new rules, the city would pay shelters more than the usual rate, which is roughly $100 a day, for the first six months that it houses a family. But after six months, if the family has not found permanent housing, the shelter would be paid 20 percent less than the standard rate. Homeless advocates deem the new policies "mean-spirited" and worry that families would be forced out after six months. But Linda Gibbs, deputy mayor for health and human services, insists families would only be ejected for "refusing to look for housing, refusing to seek employment, anything that is an unreasonable refusal to participate in the steps they need to take to overcome their homelessness." In April, homeless advocates blamed Bloomberg for the rise in homeless families.

Bloomberg meanwhile lives in his own world where those numbers are falling, thanks to some faulty calculations. The key thing is that the Mayor is looking to strip funding from homeless shelters when in these times, we need more assistance in that area to catch people who are falling behind. This isn't about market equilibriums and cost-benefit analyses, we are talking about real, live human beings and our city's government should be able to recognize that.

Citigroup Still Fighting Against The People Who Bailed Them Out

The big financial news on Tuesday was that Citigroup has turned themselves around after their stock price went from ninety-seven cents to a buck and a quarter due to better earnings this quarter. So what if it used to be at $60.00? So what if the country bailed them out to the tune of $20 billion? For the here and now, the megalithic bank is profitable, three cheers for the bank!

For the executives at Citigroup, it makes it easier to forget about the taxpayer's assistance so that you can turn around and knife them in the back over EFCA:

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that “embattled financial giant Citigroup Inc., which has received at least $50 billion in federal bailout funds, hosted a private conference call on Wednesday to build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.” On Tuesday, Citigroup downgraded its rating of Wal-Mart from buy to hold, citing fears that EFCA could pass. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said earlier this week that “fierce resistance from Republicans and business groups could force him to delay action” on the measure.

Republicans are putting up fierce resistance? Is Citigroup's stock advice about WalMart is supposed to scare the rest of us into forgetting about the unions and Democrats in general that want this bill to pass?

Hello Harry Reid!!! Republicans lost the election by a ridiculous margin. Citigroup indebtted to us. We owe them nothing! Nothing damnit!

Elections have consequences and now is the time to prove it. Unions are what have made this country strong and given workers the rights they have today. If it were up to Citigroup, we'd have labor conditions that mirrored the Gilded Age, where workers toiled for 60 hours a week with no breaks. There is no reason on Earth why we should give into what they are plotting and on top of that, there is no reason they should be plotting anything to begin with, since they are using our money.

Now grow a spine Senator Reid and get this bill through the Senate!

Dems Vs. Repubs: Should Health Care Be A Right, Or A Privilege

As much as Ralph Nader says there's no difference between the two parties, the facts say otherwise. Case in point, health care. Barack Obama is holding a conference today on what to do about our currently broken system. One thing is for sure about it, the President stated that the status quo must change. Entrenched business interests are frightened about losing the power to set rates, for if the people had a chance to have a real choice in what plans were offered, health care executives would either have to lower their obscene rates and exclusionary practices or lose customers. In this debate, it is important to know who has the people's interests at heart and those that back the wealthy insurers.

From ThinkProgress:

...In response, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) went on MSNBC to explain his opposition to Obama’s stated goal of comprehensive health care reform, arguing that health care is “a privilege,” not a right:

WAMP: Listen, health care a privilege. […]

MSNBC: Well, it’s a privilege? Health care? I mean if you have cancer right now, do you see it as a privilege to get treatment?

WAMP: I was just about to say, for some people it’s a right. But for everyone, frankly, it’s not necessarily a right.

Wamp went on to claim that many Americans are uninsured by choice because they “rejected” the insurance plan offered by their employers. Asked to respond to Wamp, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) remarked “Well my reaction is that it was said by somebody who has a really good health [insurance] plan as a member of the House of Representatives.” “More importantly than that [health care] is a right in this country,” Brown concluded.

In Wamp's view, if you can't manage to afford life-saving surgery or treatment, then too bad for you. Of course, he has no problem taking money from taxpayers for his own incredible insurance plan, but to Republicans like Wamp no matters in this world but him. I wonder how the people of his district feel about a statement like that? With a median income of less than $36,000 a year in the district and an 8.6% unemployment rate across the state (generally worse in the Applachian areas than the rest of the state), I'm sure there are at least a few people who might have a word or two with Mr. Wamp next time he visits the district.

Hypocritical Money Quote Of The Day, Brought To You By JP Morgan Chase

This is one of those moments where you laugh out loud or start ripping your hair out. When it comes to money management and Wall Street, chances are someone talking about it these days is setting up a joke, not for actually trusting your money to the crooks that dwell below Chambers St. So when JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon opened his mouth to lend his "expertise" concerning Obama's homeowner plan, I wasn't sure whether to chuckle at the joke or kick him in the face for his sincerity.

From The Huffington Post:

"I don't think just because someone's underwater they say I don't have to stay there. But they're supposed to pay the mortgage, and we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them. Because you have a mortgage doesn't mean you should run away as it goes down."

Click here for the video.

Oh yeah, this is the same guy that took $25 billion in TARP money for his company that had mismanaged their own funds and helped contribute to the economic meltdown we've been experiencing. Dimon is in charge of a failed lending enterprise that made risky bets with no regard to their fiscal solvency and that of their many clients. He is one of the absolute last people to talk about fiscal discipline of any sort.

Sen. Coburn Puts A Hold On Money For AIDS Prevention

Compassionate conservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) decided along with several other Republicans to place a hold on a bill that will greatly expand AIDS prevention techniques across the country. The bill has widespread support and is one of those no-brainer things that are passed without debate. Yet Coburn, who amazingly is a doctor, decided to stall the program.

From ThinkProgress:

Coburn may be an obstetrician, but he seems to be out of the mainstream with other medical professionals on this issue, who say that focusing on treatment as a form of prevention is short-sighted and ineffective:

“Most experts agree that treatment is only one small part of the prevention agenda,” said Denis Nash, director of monitoring, evaluation and research at the International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs at Columbia University. […]

“The prevention effect of treatment is not likely to be anywhere near the magnitude of prevention through prevention,” including safe-sex education and condom distribution, said Mead Over, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.

Coburn has a habit of blocking bills funding medical research, and his record on health care is abysmal. Coburn has repeatedly blocked legislation funding breast cancer research, doing so as recently as April, as well as funding to screen returning veterans for signs of suicide risk. In 2005, he proclaimed that silicone breast implants “make you healthier.” When running for Senate in 2004, he suggested the death penalty for abortion doctors.

In a letter to Senate leaders last month, 14 GOP senators urged the passage of the PEPFAR funding bill. ONE has a petition here urging senators to support the legislation.

Please sign that petition above and make sure the Senate understands that Coburn and his group of friends have no business blocking that funding. In my opinion, he is opposing it because like many problem-people in the health care world, treatment is much more lucrative than prevention. You can't sell expensive drugs and bill lengthy hospital stays if people steer clear of the disease altogether. It's all good if almost everyone lives in the end, right Senator?

Love Dogs? You're Gonna Hate Romney

There have been many jaw dropping moments for the Republican candidates so far, but when it comes to cruel, inhumane and just plain sadistic behavior, Mitt Romney takes the cake. Granted, the incident happened fifteen years ago, but no decent human being can vote for a man that treats his dog like a piece of luggage.

From The Boston Globe:

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it.

(snip)

As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

Emotion free for business? That passes for capitalistic America these days. Emotionless and cold-hearted treatment for the family dog? That is completely unacceptable and according to Massachusetts state law it is illegal as well. Forget all of the other abhorrent things he has said and done so far in the campaign. This is enough to discard Mitt from the race right here and now. If you can't care for the member of your family that gives the most unconditional love, you don't deserve the trust of your children, not to mention the entire country.