mr 9/11

More great footage about guiliani - the truth - not his spin on all events [from Brave New Films]

Primaries 2008

I don't have a real favorite this year nd honestly - wold be fine with whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

Each nominee has some very good points and each has something that bothers me - but at least I feel I could get behind the ultimate winner.

Given this - I am enjoying watching the processes at work on both sides but more so enjoying the repug side.

Isn't it fun watching them try to out gun, out migrant workers, out Guantanamo, out war, out flip-flop, out conservative and out religious each other. Watching the repug debates is good theater - bad politics - but good theater. The larger repug community is very unhappy with Huckabee winning Iowa - so much so that a top repug would not even mention Huckabee's name : - ). [ahhhhhh...you repugs finally got what you asked for in the last two cycles - so remember - be careful what you wish for because you just might get it]

The Dems are arguing over what change means - that's okay - it's not a sexy argument and doesn't engage me like the repug arguments.

Tomorrow is New Hampshire's day and then the candidates have to run around several states before February -

As a political junkie, I can't wait to see what new high comedy arises after New Hampshire.. for people like me, this is a great season. And I get the football play offs at the same time!

Happy 2008

We are now "officially" into the primary voting season.

Yes - we will still get non stop coverage of all primary candidates but those numbers will decrease over time.

Now that Iowa caucusing is over and done - well except for the spinmeisters and cable noise incessantly analyzing the fallout - we look ahead to New Hampshire and on?

Living in a late primary state - we vote in May - it is a bit discouraging to feel that some parts of the country will have little impact on the presidential primaries...unless it' s still pretty much a tie and then we late states will be seen as prime targets for all the media go-round.

After this election, we need a sane discussion on how to do presidential primaries. Not this craziness we are having with several states moving theirs up into January to be on record as first or second - because they are the ones who want to have the biggest impact.

Not that I have anything against Iowa or New Hampshire - but why these two states are the ones to give the press a reason to dub the "winners" and "losers" I don't know. I'd rather the voting population take back that choice. Why should the media be the ones who get to say who is "viable" - as that is based solely on money raised - not votes. And of course those with the most money get the most media attention and so the cycle of media control over our elections continues.

I recall when the League of Women votes ran the debates. Think of it! A non-partisan entity asking real questions of ALL candidates. How have we reached a position where the media outlet running a debate even gets to tell candidates they can't come because they are not viable and then does not ask questions of those candidates who ARE there?

The whole debate scenario needs a fix along with fixing the primary mess.

TPMtv: Golden Dukes Announced!

From Talking Points Memo

This is fun to watch...even if you recall many of these scandals - it's nice to see a review of the "best" and guess the "winners."

Ain't aging fun?

I'm cross posting this from my aging blog: http://growolderbetter.com because it's about more than aging - sadly....

Ahhhh- you work for a company for decades. You had good health and retirement benefits.

Now? You might lose them or have them reduced if you are 65 and over.

Why? See today's news

December 27, 2007
U.S. Ruling Backs Benefit Cut at 65 in Retiree Plans
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits — or none at all — for those older.

More than 10 million retirees rely on employer-sponsored health plans as a primary source of coverage or as a supplement to Medicare, and Naomi C. Earp, the commission’s chairwoman, said, “This rule will help employers continue to voluntarily provide and maintain these critically important health benefits.”

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent this year and have increased 78 percent since 2001, according to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because of the rising cost of health care and the increased life expectancy of workers, the commission said, many employers refuse to provide retiree health benefits or even to negotiate on the issue.

In general, the commission observed, employers are not required by federal law to provide health benefits to either active or retired workers.

Dianna B. Johnston, a lawyer for the commission, said many employers and labor unions had told it that “if they had to provide identical benefits for retirees under 65 and over 65, they would just drop retiree health benefits altogether for both groups.”

In a preamble to the new regulation, published Wednesday in the Federal Register, the commission said, “The final rule is not intended to encourage employers to eliminate any retiree health benefits they may currently provide.”[emphasis mine - ld]

Well it's not the intention - but intentions don't count....actions do..so wait and watch.

What this can mean for many is that they can lose the "good" benefits if those benefits were the same as those of current under 65ers. A company may continue to provide the same benefits for all - but it now means they can change the benefits of those over 65 without it being considered age discrimination.

Trust the company? The corporation? Maybe the very same ones who, when faced with problems and declining income for their shareholders, cut the pensions and the feds said "sure?"

And, do you think the CEO's will also face this or any downward changes? Or will they still have the top of the line health and pension/retirement benefits while you are now possibly going to lose yours?

Isn't it great to be aging in the good old us of a?

Me? I'd prefer what the nay sayers call "socialized medicine." Let's all have the same health insurance benefits; universal health care.