Jul. 21, 2003 - 22:52 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

Comics Last

On the run today so I just skimmed the newspaper. Probably just as well, my opinions on what I read are mine. I don't expect news to be all sweetness and light but there are times I become nauseated at what I read.

Seems like the champion of the underdog, The New York Times is trying to pull a swifty. In an article by Michelle Malkin of the Creator's Syndicate she tells us, "The Times Company's development partner has asked city officials for $400 million in federally financed "Liberty Bonds. The federal program was meant for rebuilding in New York City's September 11 disaster zone, not for subsidizing a private newspaper's long-held ambition to build a new 52-story headquarters on the edge of Times Square." Further along, "One minor glitch: the land government authorities proposed to give away -- and the 11 buildings and 30 businesses located on it wasn't theirs for taking. No matter. The corporate welfare conspirators invoked two magic words eminent domain." She mentions something, "Although the Fifth Amendment of the U.S, Constitution bars the use of Eminent Domain without "just compensation." The figures seem to indicate that the biggies are getting a bargain. Wonder how much money to the guys at the helms pockets will put that one through ?

In another article headlined "House bill would change pension rules," The House is trying for some funny stuff, "Americans could put more tax-deferred income into personal retirement accounts, and corporations would have to set aside less to cover their defined benefit pension obligations to retirees." They also want to make other changes, "Change a 40-year old rule under which individuals must start withdrawing money from their reirement accounts at age 70 1/2, reflecting tht Americans now live longer, the new age would be 75."

So I can see it coming already, the government is setting things up that will force people to work until they are 75. I can also see that the corporations will cease to retire folks at 65 and expect ten more years of work from them. From a purely selfish standpoint a lot of us even with Social Security and pension coming in have a heck of a lot less income than continuing to work until we are 75. As it stands companies and corporations come off cheaper paying pensions. But pensions are under the axe apparently.

Prescription bills differ in coverage for poor. Between the House and the Senate it looks to me that a compromise between the two will be a detriment to the health of many folk. In an article by Robert Pear of the New York Times he says, "The House and the Senate have huge differences over how to treat poor people in legislation adding prescription drugs to Medicare and lawmakers say those differences have become a major obstacle to a compromise bill." The whole thing seems to be a mixed bag, Senate proposes providing larger subsidies to low-income people. But the Senate bill would deny Medicare drug coverage to 6 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also qualify for Medicaid. They could still receive drug coverage under Medicaid. Later it says, "Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said, (in part): Under the Senate bill, Pollack said, an elderly person with income less than the official poverty level, $8,980 a year would need to spend just $75 to obtain prescription drugs worth $3,000. But under the House bill he said, the person would have to spend about $1,100."

To go further, "Conservatives argue that the Senate subsidies are too generous. That bill, said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa, provides too much of a subsidy to too many people." Another conservative comes in with, "Another Republican, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "The drug subsidies are so generous that drug utilization will soar and costs could explode."

Much discussion from both sides ensues, and it seems to me there will be little compromise -- so what will they do, just drop it in file thirteen ? One could almost figure that prescription drugs will cost the American public more and more as Congress fiddles over the burning HMO's and dying poor folks.

Short remarks about a long article by Robert Burns of the Associated Press, titled, "More trouble looming in Iraq." "Resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq will grow in coming months as progress is made in creating a new government to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, the top commander of American and international troops in Iraq predicted Sunday." I think a good many of us figured that out already.

We seem to have a comic opera player in Iraq, one apparently sold on the philosophy of calling something used for moving earth a utensil for manually moving earth instead of a plain old shovel - obviously taught in the Bush School of obfuscation. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense is in Iraq, who has made a point of insisting that the attackers not be called "resistance." He said they should be called "forces of reaction . . . . ."

Heh, another set of fancy names, slogans etc. Hell the folks attacked will be just as dead when attacked by ones named "forces of reaction" instead of "resistance". Looks to me that the war of Euphemisms is going at full tilt now.

Present day news is why I have required the antidote and read the Comics Last . . . . . . . .

Blog