In Minnesota the Reliance on Gambling Revenues to Fund a Football Stadium Is a Disaster

So Maybe the State Will Cut Education, Transportation or Aid to the Needy to Make Up the Difference

This Forum likes to pick on Minnesota, not because the people there aren’t nice and friendly, they are, but because they seem idiotic in their fiscal policy (and they keep sending Michele Bachmann to Congress, but that’s for another time.)  Minnesota Republicans shut down the state government briefly in 2011 rather than raise taxes to fund needed programs.  Then the state decided it had hundreds of millions to give to the NFL Vikings for a new stadium.  That hasn’t worked out well.

The state decided it could painlessly raise the money by approving new gambling devices and games.  The money raised would be $35 million a year, or maybe not.

Those estimates became the foundation for the state Department of Revenue’s projection that the new games would rake in $35 million for stadium funding by the end of this year.

In November, that figure was sliced to $17 million. In February, it was slashed to $1.7 million.

So what was the source of ‘those estimates’?  Oh, the industry that makes the devices, the industry that would benefit from the program, they provided the estimates.

The botched projections showing that electronic pulltab sales would explode in Minnesota and immediately start paying for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium were based largely on estimates made by gambling businesses with a vested interest in the new but untested form of charitable gaming, the Star Tribune has found.

Sales estimates were based on different kinds of gambling devices played in other states, made by national gambling equipment managers and vendors, according to e-mails obtained by the Star Tribune. Express Games MN, the first e-game vendor approved by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, reviewed and analyzed the sales estimates that were part of the final stadium legislation.

Charities selling the games had little input into the projections, according to e-mails and interviews with key players in the stadium debate. The e-mails also reveal the fine line walked by the board between being a regulator and an advocate for the new games, despite no track record with consumers.

Now how did all this happen?  Well the Governor, a wealthy Democrat wanted a new stadium.  Republicans wanted no increase in taxes.  The solution, just increase gambling, increase social problems of those who ruin their live gambling and use the money for a football stadium with seats so expensive the local population cannot afford to attend.  But like all corrupt analysis, reality ultimately sets in.

So what’s Plan B?  How does the state replace the lost revenue?  Well there cannot be any tax increase, so how about all that money that is wasted on education, roads and public safety. Or, turn things over to the Republicans who will just shut down state government.  That will save a ton of money that can then be used to build a football stadium.

Insurance Company in California Ordered to Pay $3.8 million to Doctor They Retaliated Against

The Physician Was Guilty of Trying to Get Reimbursement for His Patients

The corrupt, mismanaged, inefficient, outdated (fill in your adjective here ________) U. S. health care industry got a nicet lesson when a jury in California awarded a physician $3.8 million in damages when an insurance company tried to exclude him from their preferred physician group.  The problem, according to the doctor and validated by a jury was this.

The jury ruled late Monday in favor of Jeffrey Nordella, 58, an urgent-care and family-practice doctor who alleged that Anthem barred him from its network in 2010, when he applied to be a preferred provider. The damages could climb higher Friday, when the 12-person panel reconvenes and considers punitive damages against Anthem, a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc.

The jury found that Anthem, the state's largest for-profit health insurer, violated Nordella's right to "fair procedure," and the company did so with "malice, oppression or fraud." That latter finding prompted the hearing Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court to determine punitive damages.

Now juries are notorious for siding with doctors, so this case will go to appeal and the insurance company may yet prevail.  But here is one of the smoking guns in the trial.

The company rejected Nordella's application for its PPO network because he wasn't board certified in family medicine and because Anthem already had a sufficient number of primary-care physicians, Ng said. At the time, Nordella was medical director at Porter Ranch Quality Care, a walk-in clinic that offers urgent care and family medicine.

Theresa Barta, a Newport Beach attorney who represents Nordella, said the insurance company contended it had 137 primary-care physicians in its network within 10 miles of Porter Ranch. At trial, Anthem could name only seven of those doctors, Barta said.

Gee, seven instead of 137.  Well the company had an excuse.

Because of frequent changes in its list of physicians since 2010, Anthem said, it could not retrieve all of the requested information.

but of course there is another explanation as to why the company could not name the 137 doctors.  They didn’t exist.

 Oh, that.

Washington Post Columnist George Will Complains About Pro-Choice Extremism

Apparently Murdering Doctors and Others – Which Anti-Abortion Rights Supporters Do – Is Not Extremism

The inconsistently irrelevant columnist for the Washington Post, George Will, is furious, just furious because students and faculty members who are in favor of the rights of women to control their own bodies are rather pushy in the debate.  He is upset that the free speech rights of some of the opponents of choice are being denied their full rights to speak and protest.

The target of Mr. Will’s wrath is the student government association at Johns Hopkins which is fighting against anti-abortion rights groups that want to thrust their views and their images on the campus community, a community that may not want to hear those views and see those images.  But he also rants against what he thinks are pro-abortion rights advocates actions to deny opponents equality of speech.

Hopkins’s institutional intolerance would be boring were it simply redundant evidence of academia’s commitment to diversity in everything but thought. It is, however, indicative of the increasingly extreme ambitions and tactics of those operating under the anodyne rubric of “choice.” 

We don’t know if Mr. Will’s examples are valid, he is not exactly the paragon of objectivity here.  But we do know that if one is looking for extremism in this arena, it is those who are on Mr. Will’s side who are killing those with whom they disagree.  Maybe Mr. Will doesn’t consider that the kind of extremism that should be denounced, although since killing a pro-abortion rights individual does rob them of their right to free speech, maybe he would object for that reason.

Anyway, Mr. Will inadvertently presents the argument that is in favor of abortion rights and against his position.  He presents this dialogue in a legislative hearing in Florida involving rights advocate Alisa Snow.

“If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”

Mr. Will’s position is of course that he, George Will, knowing nothing about the individuals, the situation or having any medical expertise should make that decision in every case, and do so through the intrusive arm of government.  And this is what passes as Conservatism these days.

Tiger Woods and August National Embarrass Themselves Even More Than They Have Done in the Past

Something Everyone Thought Was Impossible

On Friday at the Master’s golf tournament Tiger Woods cheated.  He admits he cheated, in fact, in a clear statement he described how he cheated.  He was either deliberately violating the rules, or incredible as it may sound, he was ignorant of the rules.  The penalty should have been disqualification.

The rules officials at the Masters could have and should have stepped in to disqualify him.  That was the  penalty imposed when a person does not report their score correctly.  But they didn’t, coming up with a set of convoluted excuses.  Why?  Because Tiger Woods is a draw, he is a reason people watch the tournament and basically he got a break no one else would have or should have been given.

And oh yes, the Rule peoples at Augusta did penalize a 14 year old for slow play, a ruling supported by Mr. Woods who said 'Rules are Rules', which they are except for himself.

The honorable and decent thing would have been for Tiger to withdraw.  But as has been shown in the past, Mr. Woods is not a decent and honorable person.  For him, his personal life has no principles and in golf he only cares about winning, no matter how.  As for the Augusta National, this is a group that has a long history of discriminating against African Americans and women.  What exactly do they know about honor in sports and competition?

So if Mr. Woods win the tournament the headline should state,

Tiger Woods Cheats His Way to a Victory in the

Master's Golf Tournament

All Those Conservatives Worried About the President Attacking Them with Drones – Not To Fret, You Can Shoot Them Down with a Laser Pointer

And It’s Cheaper Than a Gatling Gun (A Gatling Gun??)

Conservatives were recently outraged by the fact that the United States government would not categorically rule out the use of drones in domestic operations.  Of course, this did not mean the government and their fleet of black helicopters and gun confiscating special forces would use drones in everyday life.  It meant that in the event that a domestic terror operations drones could be used if appropriate.

And now it turns out that for about $1.00’s worth of electricity one can shoot down or disable a drone.

The Navy plans to install a laser gun on a ship next year to zap dangerous swarming small boats and flying drones while in the Persian Gulf.

Officials say the $32-million high-technology system offers the Navy a weapon a fraction of the cost of its traditional arsenal -- cruise missiles, as well as rapid-fire Gatling guns.

"Our conservative data tells us a shot of directed energy costs under $1," Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder said in a statement. "Compare that to the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to fire a missile, and you can begin to see the merits of this capability."

The laser’s power also can be scaled down, presenting the Navy a non-lethal alternative to ward off threats such as pirates, terrorists and smugglers.

Okay, so that solves that problem.  But what’s this thing about ‘Gatling guns’.  Really, weren’t Gatling guns something that was used in the last part of the 19^th century.  Are we really still using Gatling guns? 

As for the scaling down to ward off pirates, presumably this will simply mean using one of those laser pointers to distract them or even blind them.  See, everyone knew those things would multi-task.

Number of African American Baseball Players is Down – Is This a Problem?

Maybe Not – This is Not 1946

With the release of a new movie on the life of Jackie Robinson there is new reporting on the reduced involvement of African Americans in major league baseball.

Black players from the United States made up 8.5 percent of the 25-man rosters on opening day. The highest percentage of African-Americans playing in the majors, according to new research by Mark Armour from the Society of American Baseball Research, was 19 percent in 1986. . . .

the decline is staggering. In the last generation, baseball has lost more than half its percentage of African-American players. Several teams, including the World Series champion San Francisco Giants, have no African-American players.

Jeff Kowalsky/European Pressphoto Agency

About 8.5 percent of major league players, including the Tigers’ Torii Hunter, left, and Austin Jackson, are African-American.

But the question here is whether or not this is an issue.  Obviously it was an issue until the 1950’s, when the ugly racism of major league baseball finally gave way to decency and equality and removed any barriers to African Americans playing on major league rosters.  But does the percentage of African Americans playing today matter?

As long as there are no prejudicial barriers to signing and playing African Americans, then who cares.  The reduction in the percentage of Blacks on major leagues rosters is maybe just a reflection of cultural differences and freedom of choice.  African Americans are choosing to do other things.  Good for them, do what you want. 

So celebrate the fact that official racism is long gone from sports, read about the heroics of Jackie Robinson and all that is left is question, why did it take so long for America to right this wrong and why did it even happen in the first place.

Reasonable Gun Regulation Farce To Continue in the United States Senate

Isn’t Everyone In On the Joke?

The script that everyone in government follows after a horrific massacre involving guns is in full force.  First politicians of all stripes condemn the action and argue that something must be done.  Than the NRA and its allies mount a campaign that argues the easy access to guns is not the problem.  Next legislation is introduced to curb just a few of the egregious aspects of allowing the public to have automatic weapons.  The final act is where the legislation dies, no one notices or cares, and everyone moves on to the next gruesome act where the process is repeated.

Such is the case now, with the news that the Senate may have enough votes to overcome a filibuster by Republicans opposed to any gun measures and actually debate and pass a gun law.

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

That’s right, the legislation would require background checks.  So the process of buying a gun would involve checking the purchaser to see if they were a convicted mass murderer.  If they were they probably would not be denied the right to buy the gun (after all that would violate their Constitutional right to kill 20 or 30 people) but it would be noted that they did undergo a background check. 

So what will happen?  The Senate will pass the bill.  It will go to the House where it will never be brought to a vote (or if it is, it will be soundly defeated).  Politicians on both sides will go home to voters saying they fought the good fight, please re-elect me, and also, please don’t shoot me.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Ends Plan to Eliminate State Income Tax and Increase Sales

What – Raising Taxes on the Low and Middle Income Groups to Fund Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Isn’t Popular?

There was great fanfare in the conservative media outlets weeks ago when Louisiana’s Presidential wannbe Bobby Jindal decided the thing to do was raise taxes on working families to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.  Jindal proposed completely eliminating the state’s income tax, and making up for the lost revenue by raising the sales tax rates.

Here is the Wall Street Journal gushing over his proposal.

Then there's Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who wants to zero out his state's income tax (top rate 6%) and the 8% corporate tax and replace them by raising the state's current 4% sales tax. He would also eliminate some 150 special interest exemptions from the sales tax, including massage parlors, art work and fishing boats.

As an economic matter, this swap makes sense. Income taxes generally do more economic harm because they are a direct penalty on saving, investment and labor that create new wealth. Sales taxes, by contrast, hit consumption, which is the result of that wealth creation. Governors Jindal, McCrory and Heineman cite the growing evidence that states with low or no income taxes have done better economically in recent decades compared to states with income-tax rates of 10% or more.

The only problem, reality set in.  Voters having just digested the lessons of the last national election are not in a mood to do more for the ultra wealthy.  So Mr. Jindal, facing an embarrassing defeat has quit the program.

“I realize that some of you think I haven’t been listening. But you’ll be surprised to learn I have been,” he said in prepared remarks. “And here is what I’ve heard from you and from the people of Louisiana: ‘Yes, we do want to get rid of the income tax, but governor, you’re moving too fast and we aren’t sure that your plan is the best way to do it.’”

Notice of course he doesn’t admit he was wrong, people like him never do.  And he says there are other ways to get rid of the income tax. 

Already, several of you have filed plans that phase out the income tax. So, let’s work together to pass a bill this session to get rid of our state income tax.”

and since raising the sales tax doesn’t work, then this must mean cutting programs that aid low income families, the elderly, students, the disabled and other groups too lacking in political standing to fight back.  Exactly how that is an improvement over raising the taxes for those folks is not explained.

Paul Krugman, always on top of everything, documents the Jindal fiasco in even more detail.  Mr. Krugman tries to find the true heir to Margaret Thatcher in the U. S. and comes up with Mr. Jindal.

And what that means is that her truest heir in America is … Bobby Jindal, the not-so-whizzy whiz-kid governor of Louisiana, who proposed scrapping his state’s income tax and replacing it with sales taxes.

Grover Norquist loved it:

Grover Norquist, the intellectual leader of the anti-tax crowd in Washington, had praised Jindal’s plan as “the boldest, most pro-growth state tax reform in U.S. history.” He noted that it was particularly significant, because with Obama positioned to veto anything resembling the House GOP’s budget for the next several years, Louisiana might be Republicans’ best chance to show off their tax ideas on the state level.

“The national media and Acela-corridor crowd continue to focus on the bickering Washington, but they can learn what real tax reform looks like by looking to Louisiana,” Norquist said.

But strange to say, it’s not just Acela riders who hate this idea; so do the citizens of Louisiana, who disapprove by 63 to 27 percent. Jindal’s own approval has collapsed, so he’s having his own poll tax moment.

 Gee Grover, how is all this working out for you?

Question: How Much Severance Should a CEO Get for Running His Company Into Bankruptcy?

$20 Million, Yeah That Seems Like a Fair Number

The recent election saw the issue of class warfare brought into the fray by Conservatives.  Their position was that anyone who challenged the idea that most if not all of the economic benefits of society should go to the wealthiest members of society were just envious and were engaging in class warfare.  They were offended, highly offended that anyone should question that the so-called “job creating class” should not have incomes in the tens of millions and tax breaks even higher.

What they failed to understand, most likely deliberately because it would destroy their position, is that most Americans do not resent the riches bestowed upon the business successes of the nation, even if they do think what those people get is a little too much.  What most Americans resent is the falsity of a system that is supposed to be built on the concept of rewarding the successful and economically punishing the failures, except it does not.

Now it is true that when a business enterprise fails, many people suffer.  The employees lose their jobs, their self respect and in some cases their savings and their retirement income.  Creditors usually suffer losses and stockholders may suffer a complete loss.  But the resentment comes from the fact that even in massive failure a very few top executives, the ones most responsible for that failure do very well indeed.

Such is the case with the CEO of bankrupt American Airlines.  There is an effort underway to pay him $20 million in severance.  Fortunately a Federal judge has at least raised the issue of whether or not the payment is appropriate.

A bankruptcy judge said it would be "inappropriate" to approve a $20 million exit package for the outgoing chief executive of American Airlines parent AMR Corp., calling it his only "hang-up" as he cleared the way for a merger with US Airways  Group Inc.

One has to admire the judge for his restraint, as he uses the term “inappropriate” to describe the payment.  The more appropriate term might be “thievery”.  Why?  Because an individual who was probably the single most person responsible for the bankruptcy should get nothing except a shove out the door.

Yes, there is a law against this sort of thing, but laws don’t even slow down lawyers who are getting millions to protect the interests of those whose malfeasance caused American to fail.

The law, added as part of a Bankruptcy Code overhaul in 2005, forbids severance payments to so-called "insiders" of companies under Chapter 11 protection unless the compensation is applicable to all full-time employees or is less than 10 times the average severance paid to non-management employees during the same calendar year. Insiders are generally defined under bankruptcy law as executives, directors or others controlling a company.

American's lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP argued the severance would be paid by the new merged airline and therefore wasn't subject to the Bankruptcy Code's restrictions.

Mitt Romney and his ilk railed against the entitled class, but never named anyone.  Ok, if anyone still cares, here is an example, a man who thinks he is entitled to $20 million for driving a company into bankruptcy

Senate Immigration Bill Turns Out to Be Sham – No Path to Legal Permanent Residence

Unless These Things Happen

Much ado about nothing.  The bi-partisan group in the Senate who have taken upon themselves to craft an immigration bill have come up with, well, nothing.  This of course is not the official word, but here is what the key part of the proposal contains.

The border-security proposal, part of a broader immigration bill being written by eight senators, sets several goals that would have to be met before any of the estimated 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally could apply for permanent legal residency, also known as a green card, according to the people familiar with the Senate talks. Meeting all the goals is expected to take 10 years.

So what are the things that have to be met before a person who was brought to the country as a 3 year old can walk about without being hunted down and deported by enraged conservatives who hate 3 year olds.  This Forum has the exclusive list.

Requirement to be Met Before Legal

Residence Can be Granted

1. No person named Bush is running for statewide or national office.
2. The Buffalo Bills win a Super Bowl, and the Chicago Cubs win a World Series. (But not necessarily in the same year; some things are just impossible.)
3. Republicans admit that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush created the largest budget deficits ever.
4. Mitch McConnell undergoes plastic surgery so he no longer looks like an alien.
5. John Boehner’s glowing artificial tan fades.
6. Europe declares austerity a failure and adopts pro growth policies.
7. The American public realizes that the Kardashians are just like Betty Crocker, icons created by the advertising industry and not real people.
8. The iPhone introduces a low priced model that just makes phone calls.
9. A full 12 months goes by without any child being killed by an automatic assault weapon.
10. Justice Scalia reveals that his opinions come from little people from Mars that only he can see and hear.

But yes, just as soon as these conditions are met children who are now classified as criminals will be given legal residence in the U. S. and allowed, gasp, to be treated as regular human beings.

Former and Probably Future Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum Says Americans Are Too Stupid to Understand Implications of Gay Marriage

Duh, Gosh, We Just a Bunch of Idiots, Please Rick Help Us, Or Better Yet Think for Us

Like an unemployed relative who came for a visit and now will not leave, the American public gets to endure Republican Rick Santorum for the next several years while he makes up his mind on whether or not to run for President, again.  Mr. Santorum is the personification of the opposition to equal right for gay and lesbian couples.  This makes him very attractive to the Republican base.

Mr. Santorum indicating the number of gay and lesbian people he thinks should be in a relationship

And now it turns out that Mr. Santorum doesn’t think very highly of the American public.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, also said that Americans haven’t carefully thought out what legalizing same-sex marriage would mean for the country. “[It] is not a well thought-out position by the American public,” Santorum said.

Well gee golly Rick, thanks for setting us straight – pun intended.

In Honor of Augusta National Ending Decades of Discrimination and Inviting Women (Two of Them, Wow) to Join, The DPE Reprises an Earlier Post

With Condoleeza Rice Now Visible at the Masters Tournament, We Think Our Advice to Members is Needed

[Editor's note:  The Dismal Political Economist does not think it is right to reprint past postings, that repeating a post is the work of someone who is lazy and not highly motivated.  But then he realized he is lazy and not highly motivated, hence this repeat of a post.]

From USA Today

AUGUSTA, GA. -- Condoleezza Rice has been everywhere the past three days at Augusta National Golf Club, apparently making up for lost time, not just for herself, but for 51% of the U.S. population.

The former U.S. Secretary of State played a round of golf Sunday with Phil Mickelson, then said a warm hello to Tiger Woods, who used the word "fantastic" twice Tuesday to describe the fact that the club that hosts the Masters finally has two women members. On Monday morning, Rice was spotted in her new green jacket greeting spectators at the club's exclusive new hospitality center behind the fifth green, according to theAugusta (Ga.) Chronicle. Then, Tuesday afternoon, a security guard near the first tee was marveling about just how visible she was.

 

 

 

From The Dismal Political Economist, August 2012

Augusta National Golf Club Decides That After Being National Security Adviser, Secretary of State and A More Accomplished Individual Than Almost Any Of Its Other Members

Condolezza Rice is (Over) Qualified to Join the Club

The Master’s Golf Tournament is one of the greatest sporting events in the world.  It is a product of the August National Golf Club, one of the least greatest organization’s in the world.  For decades after everyone else recognize the ugly nature of racial discrimination Augusta refused to recognize African Americans as equals.  They ultimately did so, but steadfastly refused to admit women as members.

This has finally changed.  Augusta National will admit two women,  one of whom is one of the most distinguished individuals of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries.

Rice, 57, served as national security adviser and secretary of state under President George W. Bush. She is currently a professor at the Graduate School of Business atStanford University, where she has also been provost. Rice was long considered a likely candidate for Augusta National membership if it became open to women.

In an incredible display of arrogance and ignorance, the head of the club seemed positively giddy that the club would actually recognize that women were equal.

“This is a joyous occasion,” Billy Payne, the Augusta National chairman, said in a statement released by the club.

Actually, it is not.  It would have been a joyous occasion 50 years ago.  Today it is an affirmation of the bigotry of the club and the disgust and revulsion that fair minded people have felt for the discriminatory practices of what should have been a prestigious organization.  If Mr. Payne and his fellow members had even a sliver of human decency they would feel great shame that only until now has the club relaxed its ban on women members.  C'mon man, even Mitt Romney recognized that the club was wrong.

We would only ask a couple of  things of August National Members. 

1.  Don't hit on her.

2.  Don't ask her to bring you some extra butter for the rolls.

3.  Don't tell her you remind her of the maid that raised you.

4.  Don't tell her the women's entrance is in the rear.

5.  Don't ask her is she is considering playing a woman's version of 'Driving Miss Daisy'.

6.  Don't ask her if she is Jewish, and then laugh out loud.

OK, not that hard, so please try.

One final mystery that may never be solved.  Why does this accomplished and intelligent woman want to ever be associated with the cretins that run Augusta?

Plan on Getting Multiple Sclerosis Any Time Soon? Don’t

You Can’t Afford It, Pick a Less Expensive Disease

MS is one of the most horrible of diseases that attack a human being. The recent death of actress Annette Funicello, who appeared to be a nice and regular person devoted to her family brought home just how awful this disease can be.

MS is a chronic autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous systems of about 400,000 people in the US and about 2.5 million worldwide, disrupting communication between the brain and other parts of the body. Over time, patients can suffer from muscle weakness, loss of balance, and a progressive decline in function.

But good news, sort of, is at hand.  A new treatment promises to help.

ESSDRAS M SUAREZ/GLOBE STAFF/FILE 2008

The Biogen Idec manufacturing plant in Cambridge.

Biogen Idec, which won Food and Drug Administration approval Wednesday to sell the twice-a-day oral therapy in the United States, said Tecfidera will distributed, stocked, and available to MS patients “on or around” Monday.

The catch, yes there always is a catch.

Biogen Idec Inc. said Friday it will price Tecfidera, its new pill to treat multiple sclerosis, at $54,900 a year per patient.

Officials at the Weston-based biotechnology company said the figure represents a “solid value” to MS patients.

“We think it’s appropriate price,” said Tony Kingsley, executive vice president for commercial operations at Biogen Idec.

Well it is certainly an 'appropriate price' for Biogen.  And no, this is not out of line with other treatments for the disease.

The cost of Tecfidera represents a slight premium over the the $51,000 projected by investment fund managers polled by New York research firm ISI Group. But it is less expensive than the first MS pill, Gilenya, sold by Swiss drug maker Novartis AG, which is priced at $60,000.

A more recent market entry, the Aubagio pill marketed by the Cambridge-based Genzyme division of French drug maker Sanofi SA, has been priced at $45,000 a year. Analysts said Tecfidera has demonstrated greater safety and effectiveness than competing pills.

And yes, insurance or help from the manufacturer will support the product.

Health insurance covers most of the cost of the drug for the majority of patients. But Biogen Idec, like other drug makers, sponsors patient assistance programs to help pay for the drugs in cases where all or part of the cost is not covered by private or public payers.

But if you have MS or are friends or relatives of someone with MS you know they have no choice here.  Pay the money or suffer horrible consequences.  In many countries that is called extortion. Because what happens if you do not have insurance and the drug company doesn't, in their magnificence, give you the medicine?  Well, in that case you . . .

In the United States this is called health care.  

Conservatives Celebrate Reduction in Cancer Drug Treatment as Proof of Their Success in Cutting Government Spending

News That Didn’t Happen – But Could Have and Might Still

When the so-called ‘sequester’ went into effect and there was no immediate calamity Conservatives responded that see, cutting government spending does not hurt anyone.  It turns out they were wrong,  not surprisingly.

Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts.

Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially.

Patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the capacity to accommodate them.

But this was probably only good news for anti-government spending legislators, who see government involvement in health care as a huge colossal blunder.  So on hearing the news they may have reacted thusly.

Portrait of a Wasteful Government Spending Program

Ralph V. Boccia of the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders runs a cancer clinic that is in danger of losing funding due to the sequester cuts. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)

Conservatives in Congress Praise Cutting Off

Cancer Patients from Expensive Drug Therapy

Washington April 5 (AP).  A group of highly conservative members of Congress today announced that the sequester was a great success, and cited as an example the fact that many clinics would not be able to have government support to supply cancer drug treatment for patients with advanced cases of cancer.  They said this was pure proof that government spending cuts were the right way to go.

“These patients were part of the 47% who think they are entitled to live” said one member of the group “and that just because they cannot afford drug treatment for their cancer they think that the Medicare system should pick up most of the bill.  Just because they have Medicare doesn’t mean they get health care.” 

When asked how those advocating the cuts would feel if people died another member of the group said “Look, these people are probably going to die anyway, so continuing to treat them would just be a waste of money.  That’s the type of government waste we were sent to Washington to end.”

The group was asked if, as part of the Sequester, health care for members of Congress such as themselves would be cut. “That would be short sighted” Congressman Walter “Killer” Judd said, adding “we need to be at our healthy best in order to follow up with cuts in child care, nutrition programs, housing assistance and other wasteful Federal spending.” 

In Louisiana Voters May Be Catching On to the Bobby Jindal Act – Even Supporters May No Longer Be Fooled

And In a State That Hates the President, Mr. Obama is Polling Higher Than Gov. Jindal

Now that he is safely re-elected, radical conservative Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is exposing some of his true beliefs.  But the citizens of that state aren’t buying what they just bought a couple of months ago.

Why So Glum??

The Republican governor’s job approval has sunk 13 percentage points, from 51 percent to 38 percent, since last October.

What’s the problem?  Is it that like almost all politicians in that state, regardless of party or political philosophy Mr. Jindal has been determined to be a crook?  No, that’s not it, and this Forum admires Mr. Jindal for his honesty.  For that’s about all anyone admires him for.

Nearly two thirds, 63 percent, opposed the governor’s tax swap proposal, which eliminates state income taxes but increases sales taxes, while only 27 percent supported the plan. A larger majority, 75 percent, were even more dissatisfied with public health care, saying they found little or no progress in the state’s system.

Oh, and what was Mr. Jindal’s major expertise before becoming Governor?  Health care.  As for how bad it is for Mr. Jindal, it turns out Mr. Obama is better liked than the Republican radical.

While President Barack Obama doesn’t exactly earn the love of the majority of the voters, he still came out with a 43 percent job approval rating, putting him five percentage points ahead of the governor. Louisiana is a red state Obama lost in the 2012 elections by more than 17 points.

Now if there was just a functioning Democratic party in the state . . .

Unbelievable – Story of New York City Democrat Bribing Republicans to be the Republican Nominee for Mayor

It Doesn’t Get Any Stranger Than This

The city of New York will elect a new mayor this fall, and nobody outside the city pretty much cares.  In fact, it is hard to see how even potential candidates care very much.  The job is probably the most difficult municipal job in the world, and it leads to, well, nowhere.  New Yorkers should thank their stars every day that Michael Bloomberg was willing to do it for three terms.

Adrees Latif/Reuters

State Senator Malcolm A. Smith, a Queens Democrat, at a White Plains courthouse on Tuesday. Mr. Smith is accused of trying to buy a slot on the mayoral ballot.

It turns out that the way to get to be the Republican nominee is to bribe Republican party officials something that apparently everyone knows but only just recently has the FBI been able to bring the alleged perpetrators under arrest.

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan whose office is prosecuting the case, said the arrests demonstrated that “a show-me-the-money culture seems to pervade every level of New York government.”

The complaint described envelopes of cash trading hands in Manhattan hotel rooms and restaurants, payments of thousands of dollars to persuade Republican leaders in New York to put Senator Smith, from Queens, on the Republican ballot in November. The bribes were to be paid to obtain certificates authorizing him to run for mayor as a Republican even though he was a registered Democrat.

We will let others talk about the politics and other serious aspects of this case.  But this Forum will function on just how absurd the whole thing is.

1. The individual charged with trying to bribe his way onto the Republican ticket is a Democrat.  Apparently this had absolutely no bearing on the Republican process of selecting a nominee.

2. It turns out the price is negotiable.

Mr. Savino, the Bronx Republican chairman, wanted $25,000 for his signature, the complaint stated. “In an envelope,” Mr. Halloran suggested. Mr. Savino eventually settled for $15,000, the authorities said.

3. A lot of the negotiations took place in parked cars.  Exactly where in New York can one find that many parking spaces when you need to?

4. How inept were the alleged schemers here, they couldn’t even find the wire on the person recording all of this.

Valentine’s Day was a busy one. The agent met separately with Mr. Savino and Mr. Tabone at Sparks on the East Side of Manhattan, presumably amid couples celebrating the day. Both men stepped outside with the agent and accepted envelopes of cash, the complaint stated. Mr. Tabone even paused to frisk the agent for a wire. He failed to find it, and the recording continued without interruption.

5. And yes, Sparks restaurant is notorious, it is where a big time criminal, Paul Castellano was murdered. 

Constantino Paul "Big Paul" Castellano (pronounced cass-TAY-lah-noh) (June 26, 1915 – December 16, 1985), also known as "The Howard Hughes of the Mob" and "Big Paulie" (or "PC" to his family), succeeded Carlo Gambino as head of the Gambino crime family, then the nation's largest Cosa Nostra family. The unsanctioned assassination of Castellano by John Gotti would spark years of animosity between the Gambinos and the other New York crime families. (Wikipedia)

There’s a lot more, but everyone gets the strong odor of farce here.  The famed New York writer Jimmy Breslin, whose most well known book was about incompetent criminals and titled “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” could not have made up a better story.

One wonders if the ironyin all of this was lost on these participants.  And does anyone else see a revival of The Sopranos here?

Malcolm Smith, the Democrat who wanted the Republican nod, is of course presumed innocent and has of course retained an attorney.  The good news for the rest of us is this.

Gerald L. Shargel, a lawyer for Mr. Smith, said: “The allegations in this complaint do not tell the whole story. I think there is a lot more to the story.”

“A lot more to the story” !!!! We can hardly wait.

Wesley Snipes – Guilty of Celebrity Tax Fraud To Be Released From Prison

No, It’s Not Fair – But It is What It Is

Being a celebrity brings with it fame and riches, because that’s what this nation does for celebrities.  But law enforcement is on the lookout for these people, particularly in white collar crime.  Convicting and imprisoning a celebrity gets a lot of publicity, which law enforcement folks really, really like.

So actor Wesley Snipes went to jail on a conviction of cheating on his taxes.  Had Mr. Snipes been Joe Snipes, he would have been yelled at, made to pay a big fine and would have had to promise never to do it again.  But the government saw a nice public target, so Mr. Snipes went off to federal prison.  He is  to be released,

TMZ reports that Wesley Snipes was released from prison on Tuesday after serving two years and four months of his three-year sentence on three counts of willful failure to file tax returns under § 7203. He is is subject to home confinement until July 19.

and the lesson here is a message to all celebs.  Yes, we are watching you.  That is not always a good thing.

House Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans Dismiss Mr. Obama’s Budget Without Even Seeing It

Even When Mr. Obama Proposes Something They Support

It would be nice if those pundits who constantly claim that the gridlock problem in Washington is equally the result of Republicans and Democrats would finally shut up.  If they do not see the one sided nature of the problem after Mr. Obama’s announcement that his budget will propose changes in Social Security that the Republicans want, then maybe nothing will make them view reality.

Mr. Obama is going to propose that a different cost of living factor be used in future SS benefit computations.  This will reduce future benefits and improve the fiscal viability of the Social Security Trust Fund, something Republicans have been demanding and it will do it in a way that Republicans have supported.  But nothing the President proposes, even if it is what Republicans stand for is, will the Republicans stand for.

Republicans quickly dismissed that idea, noting that the C.P.I. change also raises some revenue for the treasury and should not be used as an excuse for other tax increases. Mr. Boehner said that the president had “never lived up to his rhetoric” about being willing to cut entitlement programs.

“In reality, he’s moved in the wrong direction, routinely taking off the table entitlement reforms he’s previously told me he could support,” Mr. Boehner said in the statement. “That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”

One can only hope that Mr. Obama was not so naïve that he actually expected Republicans to support the policy that Republicans support.  So maybe the President is making his proposal in order to demonstrate to the country that Republicans will not accept yes for an answer, will not work with the President and are only in Washington to obstruct.  If the country doesn’t understand this now, it probably never will.

As Rare as Six Thursdays In a Month – Sunday Talks Shows Do Not Have Senator John McCain On Any of Them

Going for the Holy Grail – A Sunday Without McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

On the Sunday news talk shows today, you know the ones that have experts in the their field blowhard politicians and commentators with no expertise in international affairs, domestic policy or science, there is a startling event.  None, absolutely none of the shows have Sen. John McCain scheduled to be interviewed.  A Sunday news talk show without Sen. McCain is like the Maltese Falcon, it is the stuff that dreams are made of.

Oh No, sorry, we misread the schedule.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, both members of the bipartisan group of eight senators working on comprehensive immigration legislation, will appear on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Darn, another dream vision shot to hell.  Another disappointing Sunday.  But The Dismal Political Economist is nothing but optimistic, and one day, maybe, just maybe there will be a Sunday news interview show without both Sen. McCain and his joined at the hip on every week colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham. After all this week Sen. McCain is appearing on only one show, instead of his customary 17.

New Conservative Hero Dr. Ben Carson (Who?) Fits Right In

Ugly Slurs Are Now the New Entry Fee to Conservative Hero Worship

A gifted Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson made the news some time ago when he used his appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast to berate President Obama and to support a flat tax because it was based on the Bible.  For both of these reasons Dr. Carson became a hero to the right wing, and got a nice speaking gig at the CPAC meetings.

But because he is not a career politician, Dr. Carson needed to compete in the “slur” competition, which he has done in an admirable fashion.

The John Hopkins doctor came under scrutiny when he appeared to liken homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, sparking the outrage of the LGBT community.

And like all Conservatives who utter the offensive things they really think, he had to rely on the old “my comments were taken out of context” approach.  That approach has the dual purpose of posing as a retraction while still letting his supporters know that what he said is what he meant.

“I think in terms of what was said on Sean Hannity’s show, that was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to say,” Carson told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people and that includes people who have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone… If anyone was offended, I apologize to you.”

Gosh Dr. Carson, why would anybody be offended by your bigoted and ignorant comments? Quite frankly, once you were identified as a Conservative who thinks Biblical lore is the basis for fiscal policy and social policy (stoning adulterers anyone?) what you said is what we expected.  Welcome to the Conservative Club, you are now a full bona fide member in good standing.