Sunday, May 3, 2015

Economy Crapped Out?  (Already In Recession?)  Buzzed by Bernie!  (Killed by Police - Six Baltimore Police Officers Criminally Charged)  Judy Miller Tells More Tales



As indicated by (April 30)’s ghastly GDP data, Obama not only shot himself in the foot, he might have blown off his whole leg. Aside from the colossal growth in private inventories – which will be a drag on future growth – todays report was nothing short of a disaster.

First off:

The economy is in the shitter. Consumers aren’t spending because the crap-ass jobs they landed after the crisis pay half as much as the jobs they lost when Wall Street blew up the financial system. Personal savings are up and spending is down because households face an uncertain future where pensions are being trimmed and Social Security is under attack. Also, spending is impacted by the historic low (employment) participation rate which indicates that joblessness is much higher than the government’s phony numbers suggest. When workers are unemployed they don’t spend, activity drops, and the economy tanks. It’s that simple. Today’s data just confirms what most people already know, that the economy stinks and that they’re being ripped off by a voracious oligarchy that’s stacked the deck in their favor.

The US economy is stuck in the mud because our bought-and-paid-for Congress has relinquished all authority and handed over the management of the economy to the industry-controlled Federal Reserve. Whereas our current budget deficits are in the range of 2 percent per annum, the government should be spending a lot more to compensate for the slowdown in private sector spending and investment. In the past, the Congress and President would initiate sensible Keynesian fiscal stimulus programs to keep the economy sputtering along while households repaired their balance sheets or businesses struggled with weak demand. Those tried-and-true remedies have been jettisoned for the new monetarist orthodoxy that requires that all the nation’s wealth be filtered through the Wall Street casino so that the pampered thieves who destroyed the country with their mortgage-securities-Ponzi-scam be further rewarded for their insatiable greed.

Manufacturing, retail sales, MBA purchase applications, business investment etc, are all in the toilet. There’s a very good chance the economy is already in recession which will undoubtedly send stocks even higher since every proclamation of bad news generates a buying frenzy by clever speculators who anticipate that the Fed will continue to extend the zero rates and easy money to infinity.It’s worth noting that the economy had been hanging on by the skin of its teeth mainly d(ue) to strong activity in the oil patch where credit expansion, intensive corporate investment, and high-paying jobs (which supported 4 additional jobs in the local economy!) contributed more than $200 billion per year to GDP. Now domestic oil production is in deep distress.

Layoffs recently surpassed the 100,000 milestone (See: Oil Layoffs Hit 100,000 and Counting, "Wall Street Journal") and borrowing has dried up. Economist Warren Mosler explains the impact the cutbacks in domestic oil have had on GDP in this video from RT that I have transcribed:

“The price drop in oil has turned out to be the unambiguous negative that we had talked about before … where income saved by the consumer, is lost by another consumer. For every dollar not spend by one consumer, another doesn’t get it. ... so you’re just left with the collapse in capital expenditures (business investment). It turns out, there was about $150 borrowed in the sector last year, driving what modest growth we had last year. Since that disappeared, all the numbers have been going straight down. Unless something steps up to the plate to replace the lost borrowing-to-spend from chasing $100 oil, I see no hope whatsoever.” (Warren Mosler Interview, RT)
Economic recovery requires credit expansion, business investment and jobs. All three of these were severely impacted by the Obama’s goofy plan to push down oil prices in order to destroy the Russian economy.

Second (a short sigh of relief as we move forward):

Bill McKibben echoes what we all thought when Bernie entered the race (not to mention the gratitude of the world's wildlife).

. . . I think I might speak for at least a few other environmentalists who feel the same way. Here's why.

First, he's a stand-up guy. When we told him about the Keystone Pipeline in the summer of 2011, he immediately set to work helping us block it. He strategized, he used his bully pulpit in the Senate to spread the word, and he devoted staff time to pressuring the State Department. Contrast that with, say, Barack Obama who was mostly silent about climate change his whole first term, and managed to make it all the way through the 2012 campaign without discussing it. Or Hillary Clinton, who after initially saying she was "inclined" to approve Keystone has gone entirely mum on the most iconic environmental issue of our time.

Who showed up in New York for the "People's Climate March?" Bernie Sanders. Who said, straightforwardly in today's official announcement, "the peril of global climate change, with catastrophic consequences, is the central challenge of our times and our planet." That would be Bernie Sanders.

But what makes that really remarkable is, it's not his defining issue. Everyone in Vermont knows Bernie pretty well (it's that kind of state) and so I can say he fits no one's stereotype of an enviro. He doesn't put on a spandex suit and go cross-country skiing; he doesn't, I'm guessing, meditate to reduce his stress levels. He doesn't go on and on about the woods and the rivers - he goes on and on about working class Vermonters who can't afford health care and heating oil. His issue is inequality and unfairness, and it has been from the start.

And for those of us who do work mostly on the environment, that's just the kind of ally we need. Because it's a constant reminder that this battle is for people, who need renewable energy so they can break the constant cycle of struggling to pay the fuel bill, and because it will be the source of good jobs. And because it will be one of the chief ways we break with the plutocrats, many of them in the fossil fuel industry, who are ruining both our atmosphere and our democracy.

Make no mistake - Bernie Sanders isn't really running against Hillary Clinton. He's running against the Koch Brothers, and all that they represent:   taken together they're the richest man on earth. They've made their money in oil and gas (they're the largest leaseholders in the Alberta tar sands, on the far end of the Keystone Pipeline).

They spend their money to break unions, to shut out solar power, to further concentrate America's wealth. They'll spend at least $900 million on the next election, and my guess is that if Bernie Sanders catches fire they'll spend far more than that - because he knows he's got their number. They know, in their heart of hearts, that there's two of them and hundreds of millions of us, and that's got to be a little scary.

According to my small survey, America's wildlife loathe the Koch Brothers. And like vulnerable people across the country, they're awfully happy to have a loud Brooklyn-accented voice demanding real, fundamental change. Run Bernie run!

But back to business.

Killed by Police.

Click link above and here to learn more about police who have killed citizens and the six Baltimore police officers who've been criminally charged in the murder of Freddy Gray.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Neil Lewis has written a fine summation of Judith Miller's new book (and the corruption at the root of it) in the Columbia Journalism Review.

I recommend that you read it closely.

What We Can Learn from Judith Miller’s Rehab Tour

By Neil Lewis

April 23, 2015


Judith Miller’s publicity campaign for her new book (The Story:  A Reporter’s Journey) which has taken her from the Wall Street Journal to numerous television interviews, has been an instructive and engaging media spectacle.

She has shown characteristic passion and energy in attempting to defend her journalistic reputation after being pummeled during her final years at "The New York Times" for, among other things, writing persuasively that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

But it is discouraging that the truth can be challenged by a determined and wily opponent with a platform to propound discredited ideas. And Miller has long been given such a platform, first by "The Times" and now by a prominent book publisher.

In my 24 years at "The Times" I frequently worked with Miller, often unhappily, as I will explain. Her efforts at recasting events have thus not been a surprise to me.

She has made sporadic efforts before to defend her reporting. But now she’s employing an important element in the modern method of obfuscation and confusion. Waiting several years after the events, she tries to take advantage of fading memories, especially involving detailed and complicated matters.

Time and complexity are the best friends of a determined distorter of events.

How many readers are going to remember or bother to look up all the tedious details in those superb and thorough examinations of her reporting years ago by Jack Shafer in Slate and Michael Massing in The New York Review of Books?

Miller also mixes in some confusion as to what critics have charged her with. In the Journal piece, she begins jocularly by saying she is finally “admitting” her reporting caused the war in Iraq.

“I took America to war in Iraq. It was all me,” she wrote, inviting readers to laugh along with her at such a ludicrous notion.


A clumsy straw man, that; no serious person has charged that Judith Miller took us to war. The charge, serious enough, is that she let herself be used repeatedly by officials and others who sought to do so.

Miller also argues that she accurately reported what officials were really thinking and what was in the intelligence reports they had. How could she be expected to independently evaluate those claims involving top-secret information?

This has produced some commentary around the question of what a journalist’s obligations are when fed hard-to-verify information by people with an agenda.The issue in her case is, however, much more simple. It doesn’t involve whether she or any reporter could fact-check the claims of her sources. What Miller appeared to do was make a Mephistophelian journalist’s bargain with officials and sources that went like this: Bring your assertions to me first. In exchange for the notoriety I will achieve I will place them in "The Times" without careful examination or scrutiny.

Here are some of the problems I found in her account:


1. Throughout her book and in appearances Miller has claimed she was not in a position to investigate independently the WMD claims before or during the war.

Perhaps. But once the war was over she had a box seat to see the evidence for herself. She was the only reporter embedded full-time with the military’s MET-Alpha team deployed in Iraq to find those weapons. If she was constricted to reporting official assertions before the war, this was her time to say: “You had a captive audience in me before, but now let’s see about those weapons you had me write about!” (That is essentially what others, like Bart Gellman of the Washington Post, did).

But that did not happen. Her behavior in post-war Iraq signaled that she herself realized how invested she was in the existence of WMD’s.

She seemed to understand that failure to find evidence of those weapons would demonstrate she had been stunningly credulous and gone overboard in promoting the administration’s story line.

Once in Iraq, she was so eager to find clues vindicating her journalism it seemed that she could barely look at a dumpster or an unusual piece of equipment without seeing a platform for the manufacture of such weapons.

She and another colleague wrote approvingly of early analyses that some tractor trailers found in Iraq were likely mobile chemical weapons labs that could “become a centerpiece” of the Bush administration’s justification for war. Alas, as time went on, it became apparent the trailers were probably used to produce hydrogen to fill artillery balloons. (Several weeks later, she reported, along with other outlets, that some more thorough analyses concluded the trailers could not be related to chemical weapons).

Most infamously, she reported on April 21, 2003 the purported discovery in the Iraqi desert of buried vats of materials she described as precursors for chemical weapons that could be quickly assembled. This was, she told PBS’s News Hour, “more than a smoking gun,” in fact, “a silver bullet” demonstrating that Saddam was making WMD’s. It would, of course, turn out to be neither.

The article introduced readers to the notorious “Iraqi scientist in a baseball cap” who supposedly worked on Saddam’s weapons program and was only allowed to point out the alleged buried chemical vats to her from a distance. Strangely, we never heard any more about those precursors or even much about the “scientist” who suddenly was identified in a subsequent story as a military intelligence expert. There was no explanation as to the change of his occupation before he disappeared too.

2. Her most common refrain nowadays is that many others reported that Saddam appeared to have a WMD program and she has been unfairly singled out for heavy criticism.

This is fractionally true; Others did write such stories. But no one reported this line with such frequency and fervor - or with such frightening language as to the consequences of leaving Saddam alone. At the time of her reports, Miller seemed to revel in her role as pace-setter on this story. Now, it seems, she is eager to assume a more modest posture: she was only doing what most everyone else was.

3. Her role in the issue involving Scooter Libby’s conviction for lying is a perfect example of a convoluted event that can be spun for people who are impatient with an accumulation of details. 

The main issue was head-spinningly complicated: whether Libby, a top aide in the administration, revealed to reporters that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer in order to discredit her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, a former diplomat who had challenged the Bush administration’s claim that Saddam was seeking to acquire uranium from the country of Niger. For Miller, such complexity apparently meant there was fertile ground for sowing a version more to her liking.

Any discussion of the Libby case should include an important disclosure: For years, Miller and I have had a strong dislike of each other, dating to the time she was the Washington Bureau’s news editor and I was a correspondent there. We quarreled and she played a role in causing me to be transferred out of the bureau to New York. (Sixteen months later, she lost her job in Washington and I returned there where I flourished as a correspondent for another 20 years until I accepted a buyout.)

Despite this history, "The Times" had no problem assigning me to cover the Libby trial. I reported on Miller’s contacts with Libby along with the events which led to her being jailed for 85 days for refusing initially to testify to a grand jury. So, I have both an acknowledged bias as well as great familiarity with many of the events.

Libby told Miller twice about Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA, in violation of the law, although he denied doing so in his grand jury testimony. When first subpoenaed, Miller declined to testify about her conversations with her sources. Although Libby had signed a general waiver releasing any journalist from any promise of confidentiality, she said the waiver wasn’t freely given.

She was correct. Libby did not want journalists to testify about their conversations with him. If they did so truthfully, their accounts would contradict his sworn testimony. That left Miller in jail, and for her first weeks it must have seemed exhilarating at times: she was celebrated as a First Amendment martyr and received visits from several luminaries including Tom Brokaw and Bob Dole. But the jail cell turned more miserable after the initial attention faded (Earlier she had asked a judge to instead sentence her to home confinement in her house near the Hamptons. He declined.)

After about two months in the Alexandria, Virginia jail, Miller decided she “owed it to herself” to find out if Libby would provide a genuine, more personal waiver. So her lawyers contacted Libby who in a subsequent note and phone conversation granted her a personal and explicit waiver of her pledge to him of confidentiality.

Because she spoke to him directly, she asserted, she knew the waiver was genuine. Of all her claims, this might be the most indigestible. The most obvious evidence of that was that after receiving the waiver she quickly got out of jail and went on to deliver damaging testimony to the grand jury about her conversations with Libby, and eventually to the trial jury that convicted him. How could he have genuinely wanted her to testify as she claims when she went into the grand jury and provided her highly damaging account?

The fact is that he had no choice but to agree to a waiver when asked directly for one. The discussions, involving lawyers for both sides, were midwifed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Miller testified at his trial that on a Tuesday in July, 2003, Libby told her about Valerie Plame. That effectively eviscerated Libby’s claim that he only learned of Plame when he spoke to Tim Russert that Thursday, two days later. Russert, for his part, also provided damaging testimony, saying he never told Libby about Plame.

Miller’s assertion that the waiver was genuine reflected her claim to cameras upon her release from jail that “We won,” because she said her sacrifice established that only “genuine” waivers from sources could be used by reporters to agree to testify. That was untrue; the only legacy from her venture was a unanimous opinion in her case by the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia that First Amendment scholars and press advocates agree remains a setback for reporters relying on confidential sources.

4. In her "Journal" op-ed, she referred to recent articles in "The Times" about the problems of handling old ordnance containing sarin nerve gas in Iraq.


One article, she wrote, was about, “5,000 inoperable chemical munitions made before the first Gulf War that Saddam claimed to have destroyed. Not until 2014 would the U.S. learn that some of Iraq’s degraded sarin nerve agent was purer than Americans had expected and was sickening Iraqi and American soldiers who had stumbled upon it.

“By then, however, most Americans had concluded that no such weapons existed.”


Well, no. Most Americans may have concluded — from strong evidence — that no recently-manufactured or usable such weapons existed. No one doubted Saddam had earlier manufactured and possessed nerve gas weapons. It was well known that he had used them on his domestic opponents — Miller even wrote about it years earlier during the period when she produced much admirable coverage of chemical weapons.

A "Times" piece she referred to went to great lengths to explicitly say that the unearthing of the sarin-laced shells had nothing to do with the pre-war debate about whether Saddam was building WMD’s.

So, why does she mention this at all? It seems designed to stir in some confusion for information-loaded readers who probably remember that Saddam did not, in the end, have the WMD’s that were used to justify the war. But those readers might also now note her comments about the sarin shells and believe there is some doubt about what it all means. If they think about it at all, they might conclude it’s not really a settled issue.


What are we to make of the attention paid to her campaign? In the end, it might not be so dismal an exercise after all(.) Most of the commentary and book reviews have been unreservedly critical. Perhaps some events cannot be rewritten and some reputations cannot be revived.

(Neil Lewis was a "New York Times" correspondent for 24 years. After retiring in 2010, he taught at Duke Law School and was a fellow at the Kennedy School.)

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Got Drugs?  Happy May Day*  (CIA Coke Rules?)  ALEC=NC  (The Violent Bear It Away)  Commies Cool To Right?  (Rich Man's Rehab)  Education Debt Flood  (Deep-Sixing the U.S. Post Office Is A Pleasure To Right)



"Cornel's the real thing."
- Chris Hedges in "Days of Revolt"

Ralph Nader's (@RalphNader) new book, Return to Sender, is must reading for citizens who want to understand what's going on in their names right now in government.

(Go to GlobalTradeWatch.org to learn how to fight the fast-tracking of the TPP.)


Once again.

Is this a joke?

Or a very good example of how if U.S. citizens had known what was going on at the top level of U.S. law enforcement a long time ago, the events reported below would probably never have happened.

Because it ain't Annie's (the lead CIA agent in "Covert Affairs") game.

Two CIA Agents Arrested by Minutemen while Crossing Mexican Border with 1300 Pounds of Cocaine

April 23rd, 2015 | by Barbara Johnson

Two CIA Agents Arrested by Minutemen while Crossing Mexican Border with 1300 Pounds of Cocaine

El Paso| A group of minutemen watching the Mexican Border for illegal migrants and drug traffickers, have proceeded to the citizen arrest of two men in an SUV, carrying 1300 pounds of cocaine. The volunteers were completely astonished when the two arrestees pulled out CIA ID cards and explained they were actually carrying the drug as part of their duties and that the cargo belonged to the Central Intelligence Agency.

The incident took place last night, in the Chihuahuan desert, near the Texan city of El Paso. A group of seven minutemen saw a large black SUV drive rapidly across the border. They chased the vehicle in their own trucks and achieved to immobilize it after a chase of more than 15 miles.

The vigilantes arrested the two men on board and called the border patrol, who proceeded to search the vehicle. They discovered dozens of packages of cocaine, totalling an incredible 618.4 kilograms (1363 pounds).

minutemen2

The search of the vehicle revealed 36 packages of cocaine, all marked with the symbol of the Sinaloa Cartel, representing a black scorpion.

The two men claim to be CIA operatives based in Mexico and explained that the drug was actually part of an operation of the agency. They presented identity cards that seem to validate their claim, but the CIA spokesperson, Dean Boyd, has officially denied any link between the organization and the two men.

“The CIA doesn’t take part in drug smuggling operations at the US-Mexican border” said M. Boyd. “I do not know, for now, if the men are actually affiliated to the agency in any way, but I can tell you the cocaine doesn’t belong to the CIA.”
Both the border patrol officers and minutemen seem unconvinced, however, and many of them seem to believe that the Secret Service agency is hiding something. The U.S. custom services have even announced a thorough investigation to try and verify the two men’s story.

“Both of them had valid accreditations and a receipt for their cargo” says Shawn Francis Miller, spokesman of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the El Paso sector. “What drug dealer in his right mind, demands a receipt for 1300 pounds of cocaine? There is really something strange about these guys, and we believe the CIA possibly knows more than what it is ready to admit.” 

minutemen3

The custom services have confirmed that the two men, who can’t be identified due to the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982, did carry valid CIA identifications and that the vehicle was indeed registered as a service vehicle of the organization.

The two men remain under the custody of the custom services at the moment, and are still being interrogated in a facility near El Paso. They are facing charges of possessing, trafficking and importing illegal drugs, and could face other criminal charges once the investigation is over.

Both the FBI and the DEA have announced that they would collaborate with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on this case, which (h)as already attracted a lot of attention in Southern Texas.

ALEC rules North Carolina under the dubious leadership of Gov. Pat McCrory and the right-wing-dominated General Assembly?

(No doubt about it.)

And we're treated to new depths of depravity daily.

ALEC-Tied Politicians Push North Carolina To Gut Its Environmental Protection Act


by Samantha Page
Posted on


It only took two weeks for the Republican-led House in North Carolina to introduce and pass a bill gutting the state’s environmental law.

The House passed the SEPA Reform Act on Wednesday after allowing total of one minute of public comment. Two of the three bill sponsors have ties to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

The bill will largely dismantle the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), opponents say. Under SEPA, a 1971 law to “encourage the wise, productive, and beneficial use of the natural resources of the State without damage to the environment,” any project that uses state funds or state land is subject to an environmental assessment progress. The SEPA Reform Act changes the trigger for review at $10 million of state funds.

But environmental advocates say a $10-million threshold still effectively wipes SEPA off the books, and state representatives know that.

It was stated on the floor that $10 million would rarely if ever be triggered,” Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Mary Maclean Asbill told ThinkProgress.

The proposed bill originally set the threshold at $20 million but was amended to the lower number and the review process for public parks was exempted. Lawmakers also clarified a section that would have created uncertainty for federal grant-funded water programs.

“I still feel that this is a near repeal of SEPA,” Maclean Asbill said in an email.

The bill was sponsored by three Republicans, Rep. John Torbett, Rep. Mike Hager, and Rep. Chris Millis. Both Torbett and Hager have attended ALEC’s Annual Meeting, and Hager was paid $1,000 to speak at an ALEC event. Nationwide, including in Congress, Republicans have introduced a number of bills recently that would repeal environmental protection laws or defund environmental agencies.

Opponents of the bill also said the House process lacked transparency and the bill was not adequately justified. In addition to the rapid progression of the bill through the House, it came with little to no supporting evidence.

There was “no report, no evaluation, no assessment of the [SEPA] program,” Molly Diggins, director of the North Carolina Sierra Club, told ThinkProgress. “Where are the stories of how SEPA has caused a problem? Who has been harmed?

Diggins said her group is not opposed to the state doing analysis on the effectiveness of the more than 30-year-old law. But, “that’s what should have happened before it was brought to the committee.”

Diggins was the only person who was given time to speak against the bill at a meeting of House Environment Committee last week. She was allowed one minute, and the Committee went on to approve the bill 8-0. No supporters of the bill testified.

The North Carolina Chamber of Commerce is publicly supporting the bill.

“Under current law, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires a review process in addition to federal approval that can add years to the development of new economic opportunities. This lengthy review process exposes businesses to frivolous lawsuits aimed at tying up capital investment projects and impeding job growth,” the group says on its website.

Neither the Chamber nor bill sponsor Rep. John Torbett responded to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment.

The bill will now go to the State Senate for approval.

Apologies to Flannery O'Connor.

And a wave of dark laughter washes in from Alicublog:

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Violent Bear It Away

Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:


Believe it or not, the article is about charter schools. Liberals don't like them, and some of them say it's because they're a racket but the real reason is liberals are communist tyrants:

The Left’s heart is still in East Berlin:  If people want to leave your utopia and have the means to do so, then build a wall. If they climb over the wall — as millions of low-income parents with children in private schools (very commonly Catholic schools) do — then build a higher wall. If they keep climbing – and they will — then there are always alternatives.

Also liberals are George Wallace:

But then, standing in the schoolhouse door when the poor, the black, and the brown want to enter is an ancient tradition for Democrats.
And you know what else is CommieWallace?
It’s a funny old world when being “pro-choice” means that people who object to abortion will be forced at gunpoint to pay for them. But that’s progressivism:  a purportedly secular movement with a whole lot of “Thou Shalt” and “Thou Shalt Not.”
In rightwing world, some of the brethren endeavor to advance arguments to which outsiders (or at least credulous editors who wish to be considered even-handed) might respond. But there seem to be fewer of these all the time. Maybe it's because that particular budget is all eaten up by high-end, big-ticket pundits like George F. Will and Peggy Noonan; maybe organizations like "National Review" no longer believe the arguments can travel very far outside their own circles. Whatever the reason, Williamson represents the future of the movement:  Not evangelists, but jeerleaders.

UPDATE. Speaking of which:


Well, at least it's a nice break from them calling him Hitler.

_________________

From Rock the Truth:

Sunday Globe Special:  Rich Man's Rehab


Found in a rich man's paper:

"New rehab facility caters to high-end patients. If you want drug treatment in Massachusetts and are willing to pay $500 a day, a new facility has you covered" by Priyanka Dayal McCluskey, Globe Staff  March 22, 2015


Mornings start with yoga and meditation. Then there’s breakfast, the first of three gourmet meals a day. After dinner, a massage helps to calm the mind and muscles before bed.

This isn’t a resort vacation. It’s rehab.

As the heroin epidemic has grown in Massachusetts, so has the number of addicts with deep pockets looking to kick their habit. And to tap into this market, Spectrum Health Systems Inc., a Worcester-based addiction services provider, next month will open a residential treatment facility that offers such amenities in this Central Massachusetts town. The new facility will serve people who want to escape a life of drugs and can pay as much as $500 a day to do it.


I'm sure they want to do good work, but I'm no longer liking the motive for treatment -- and it tells you a lot about the cavalier attitude toward the whole thing. Where it's coming from (Afghanistan) and who is bringing it into the country (CIA) is never discussed because of the ultimate beneficiaries (black money for black budgets and the bottom line of money-laundering banks). Compassion is brought to bear for those who need recovery while a big stink is made over marijuana usage.

Spectrum is one of many companies — both nonprofit and for-profit — looking to boost their bottom lines by catering to this lucrative end of the market.

The fact that it is seen as some sort of lucrative market is sick, and how ob$cene is it that ADDICTION to MONEY is NOT considered an ILLNE$$?

The $35 billion drug treatment industry has attracted for-profit heavyweights such as the Boston private equity firm Bain Capital and spawned companies such as Tennessee-based American Addiction Centers Inc., which launched a successful initial public stock offering in October.

I've seen their ads on TV, and Bain is only getting in because Bo$ton is getting out(?). Too many tax breaks for rich real estate developers and the like must be why the school budgets and such are $o $trained.

Another industry leader and publicly held company, Acadia Healthcare Co. of Tennessee, saw its revenues rise 41 percent last year, to $1 billion.

And who would want to kill the goose with the golden needle, 'eh?

“It’s a profitable business,” said Paula Torch, a senior analyst at Avondale Partners LLC in Nashville. “There’s so much demand. There’s a lot of people who need help and not enough beds for treatment.”

Uh-oh.


For Spectrum, a nonprofit with locations across Massachusetts, revenue from its new 36-bed treatment center will help subsidize care for people on the other end of the income scale, addicts whose treatment is funded with taxpayer dollars, said Charles Faris, Spectrum’s chief executive.

“We want to respond to the opiate demand,” Faris said. “We’re going after some of the private market that will allow us to continue serving the public market.”

Founded in 1969, Spectrum operates a variety of inpatient and outpatient treatment centers in 13 Massachusetts communities. Spectrum’s earnings have slid in recent years. The company earned $1.6 million, on revenue of $51 million, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, the most recent year for which data are available.

And they $ee this as a new injection or revenue, huh?

A monthlong stay in the new facility, called the New England Recovery Center, will run about $15,000, six times higher than what the state pays for inpatient rehabilitation. With the higher price tag come perks such as yoga and meditation classes, a fitness center, laundry service, housekeeping, and, for an added cost, massage therapy and personal training. Residents here will get more personalized care. The program also includes services to help their families cope.

It really is becoming (and has been) that two-tiered society that scum John Edwards once talked about long ago. Think that had anything to do with his downfall, the stupid $hit?


The New England Recovery Center bears no resemblance to Spectrum’s lower-end facility across the street, with its dated brick facade, cramped rooms, and dark hallways. The new building is bathed in light and painted in bright blues and reds and yellows. The focal point is a common room with a high ceiling and wood beams, almost like a ski lodge.

Maybe white powder isn't the best theme for.... never mind.

“We want it to feel state of the art,” Faris said. “The environment matches the quality of care we’re providing.”

The building, set on a quiet street here, 30 miles west of Boston, cannot compete with the super-luxurious spa-like rehab centers on the warm beaches of Malibu and Fort Lauderdale — which can run $50,000 a month or higher. But Spectrum executives believe it will appeal to financially well-off addicts who want to get treatment close to home. Staying in Massachusetts for residential treatment means it will be easier for patients to continue meetings and counseling once they transition to outpatient treatment.

“That aftercare plan is vital to recovery,” said Kristin Nolan, Spectrum’s vice president for outpatient services.

Heroin use and overdoses have become such a scourge in Massachusetts that then-governor Deval Patrick declared a state of emergency last year, and lawmakers later passed a law to tackle the problem through a variety of measures, including strengthening requirements that insurers pay for addiction treatment.

Many addicts first get hooked on prescription painkillers, such as oxycodone and morphine, then switch to heroin because it’s a fraction of the price of pills.

Another reason the source of problem is treated with shallow superficiality. Certain intere$ts are threatened.

The state Department of Public Health estimated there were about 980 deaths from opioid overdoses in Massachusetts in 2013, a 46 percent jump from 2012. The department has not released figures for last year.

That is astonishing to me.

Spectrum and other drug abuse treatment providers have noticed a change in the profile of their clients. For years, the people seeking treatment tended to be poor and jobless. They had criminal records and lacked supportive families. But now the population includes many educated young adults from well-off suburban families. Their parents are desperate to do — and pay — almost anything to get them healthy.

Is that why it is finally getting "attention," and who benefits?

“The opiate crisis has really reached middle- and upper-middle-class America in a way that perhaps didn’t exist five or 10 years ago,” said Raymond V. Tamasi, chief executive of Gosnold on Cape Cod, another nonprofit addiction services provider.

Gosnold serves a range of patients, including those who pay $16,000 a month for a program that offers perks similar to what Spectrum is planning.

For those who can afford it, places such as McLean Hospital, part of the Partners HealthCare network, offer more luxurious surroundings, services, and amenities. McLean opened a new rehab facility last week in Camden, Maine , that is priced at $2,250 a day — or $67,500 a month.

The Camden facility, which has just eight beds, is set on a hilltop estate with private ocean-view bedrooms, a bowling alley, a movie theater, and a beauty salon.

I should start doing heroin so I can get a trip to this place. Wow. Some rehab! No AA there!

“They’re able to get a richer therapy experience,” said Philip Levendusky, senior vice president of business development and communications at Belmont-based McLean. “In the self-pay market, we can build in therapeutic strategies that are above and beyond.”

Richer -- in more ways than one!

Insurance companies typically cover the costs of outpatient services — such as clinics that provide methadone, a common treatment for opioid addiction — but they usually don’t cover residential programs that last weeks or months.

As a result, most of Massachusetts’ rehab beds depend on public funding. The state pays $75 per person per day for these programs — well below what it costs Spectrum to provide them, Faris said.

Yeah, no money in treating poor, jobless, homeless, hopeless. Better off they die, 'eh?

That’s why the company needs to pick up more paying customers, he said — it’s about the survival of the business. 

And what does that ultimately mean? An increase in heroin addicts. 

$eems like a conflict of intere$t to me, if you know what I mean.

In addition to the New England Recovery Center, Spectrum is constructing another facility on its Westborough campus that will offer added services to some program residents at a higher cost.

“That’s the reason we’re doing this,” Faris said. “We want to serve both ends of the population.”

While $erving themselves!

I've read in many places that private universities like Harvard and Stanford have billions for investment from their donors' funds. I'm guessing that in these difficult economic times that even very well-endowed public universities turn to greater indebtedness for what's become a habitual need for more growth (that seems to ensure more future students and more cash flow) even though the economics of higher education have profoundly changed in the last decade.


The Chemical Manipulation of Humanity Series
Posted by
_____________________________

EDC's in the Great Lakes Region - Wastewater, Waterways & Fish - Chemical Manipulation of Humanity


(I have placed links back to older posts related to the topics discussed in this news item.)

Great Lakes waterways are contaminated with known endocrine disrupting compounds; scientists warn fish are at risk (It ain't just fish at risk!)
Mercury … PCBs … these are still problems. But there’s a lesser-known class of contaminants, which have insidious and concerning health impacts on aquatic creatures.

Barber, a research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, was looking for, and found, hormone-disrupting compounds – called alkylphenols - making it through wastewater treatment plants and contaminating rivers and fish in the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi River regions.

The compounds pervade the Great Lakes basin waterways that receive wastewater treatment plant effluent.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a large urban wastewater plant, a mid-size city wastewater plant or individual septic tanks,” Barber said. “These chemicals are present.”

Wastewater treatment plants were not originally designed to handle these compounds, widely used both commercially and residentially in products such as detergents, cleaning products and adhesives.
Operators are scrambling to keep up with the hormone-mimickers gushing into their plants.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wonder why the U.S. Post Office has gotten so inefficient and nothing seems to work right there anymore?

It's not a mystery. It's been captured by the 1% who were sure it would work more effectively (for them, anyway) if it were privatized.

Yum. Yum. They love those public funds, don't they?

And hate any good national infrastructure that works for the average citizen's benefit.

Epic Fail for the Postal Service:  The Wrong Model and the Wrong BOG

Dan Crawford


Guest post by MARK JAMISON

via Save the Post Office



In 2001 Postmaster General Bill Henderson submitted the first blueprints for a transformation of the Postal Service into a sleeker, more efficient business entity.  To justify the transformation, the rhetoric has repeated one mantra:  the problem with the Postal Service is its outmoded and defective business model.

A great deal of our speech with public policy is often coded — for example, “makers and takers” can often sound a lot like “black and white” — but in this case Henderson and his successor Jack Potter were pretty clear about their goal.  The way forward for the Postal Service, they said, would include cuts to the workforce, post office closings, a smaller postal infrastructure, and a general retreat from the idea of the Postal Service as a universal service provider.

The big mailers talk about the “failed business model.”  Postal commentators going back to Murray Comorow and through Alan Robinson have talked about the ‘failed business model.” The folks in Congress, Republicans particularly but also Democrats like Tom Carper, all bemoan the “failed business model.”

In focusing on the idea of a “failed business model,” these voices were able to elude facts like the billions siphoned out of the Postal Service to support payments to the Retiree Healthcare Benefit Fund that were essentially unnecessary.   Any discussion of rationalizing rates in ways that didn’t involve simply handing over postal revenues to narrow interests in the mailing community was avoidedThe idea of supporting universal service and postal infrastructure with modest budget contributions from the federal government was rejected.

Instead, everyone seemed to agree that the nation’s postal infrastructure must be totally self-sufficient.  That was the preference of postal management as well, since money from Congress never comes with no strings attached.  Management takes every opportunity to remind people of thisAt the end of every press release is this sentence:  “The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.”

The real problem

Assertions that the postal business model had failed reflected nothing other than a wish to apply a corporate model to a basic government service and function.  It didn’t matter that we had the most effective postal system in the world, a system that delivered more mail to more addresses at cheaper rates than virtually anywhere elseIt didn’t matter that our network of postal plants and post offices were the hearts of American communities.  It didn’t matter that the Postal Service provided 800,000 good jobs with good benefits, or that the income from these jobs flowed throughout local communities, supporting businesses large and small.

The sad fact is that none of the things that did matter to the average person mattered to those who set postal policy.  They had imbibed from the well that had transformed the American economy from an engine of shared growth and prosperity to a shell game that enriched the few at the expense of the many.

In a little more than two generations we have watched as all the burdens of the economy have been shifted to those who work for a living.  We have seen the end of defined benefit pension systems, deteriorating access to employer-paid health insurance, and the rise of a model that eschews full-time work for part-time contract laborA successful postal business model has thus come to involve cheap labor, reduced service, and the privatization or outsourcing of public infrastructures.

But here’s a thought.  What if the problem with the Postal Service isn’t a failed business model at all? What if the real problem is a corporate structure that is ill suited to manage a fundamental infrastructure?  What if the problems of the Postal Service lay in a hidebound incestuous postal management system that has little accountability or oversight?  Could it be that our problems are related to a failure to properly distinguish between the management of government and the management of businessWhat if the supposed failures of our postal system really reflect the failure of our society to value people, community, and basic public goods and infrastructures?

The chimera of the hybrid model

Our notions of what our economic landscape should be have been driven by a series of preconceived ideas that confuse the words efficiency and efficacy, and the problem is that we can’t think beyond our preconceptions.  As the historian Barbara Tuchman has observed, “Preconceived, fixed notions can be more damaging than cannon.”

Our discussions of economics generally and the postal system specifically genuflect to a conventional wisdom that we accept without question.  Yet, as the renowned engineer Henry Petroski observed, “All conventional wisdom has an element of truth to it, but good design requires more than an element of truth — it requires an ensemble of correct assumptions and valid calculations.”


The assumptions that support the idea of a postal infrastructure as little more than a corporate business enterprise are deeply flawed. The calculations that reduce people to nothing more than industrial inputs, while elevating profits above both ethics and efficacy, are simply wrongMore specifically, the management and oversight structure of the Postal Service is poorly designed.  It fits a corporate model that fails to recognize and take advantage of the value of infrastructure.

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 remade the Post Office Department into the USPS.  The impetus for reorganization was essentially politicalThe upper echelons of postal management, as well as many postmasters, were political appointees, and Congress was on the hook to support universal service and pay for raises in workers’ wages.  Politicians back then often had the same aversion to responsibility that they show today, and they wanted the monkey off their back.

For many observers and stakeholders, postal reorganization offered the possibility of a long held dream of privatizing postal services. They wanted reorganization to follow closely to the findings of the Kappel Commission, and when they didn’t get what they wanted they complained vociferously.

Murray Comarow was the executive director of the Kappel Commission and an acknowledged expert on postal affairs. In his paper The Federalist Papers and Postal Reform, Comarow decried the new structures created by the PRA.

Comarow essentially believed in privatization.  He didn’t like the oversight provided by the PRC, he was unhappy with binding arbitration, and he didn’t feel that the Board of Governors had enough power. Overall he felt that the structure created by PRA was doomed for failure.

Comarow was badly mistaken in his vision of how postal service should be administered.
  His views presaged our present day disdain for labor and the elevation of corporate laissez faire to a form of religious worship. But Comarow was right in arguing that PRA created a chimera, a beast that could not survive.

The Board of Governors

As we have discussed in several posts here on STPO, the PRA created a semblance of a corporate structure through the Postal Board of Governors. The BOG was to be comprised of nine members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The BOG was responsible for appointing the Postmaster General and Deputy PMG, who then became members of the board. The presidential appointees were expected to have backgrounds in business and public policy.  They could not have connections with the business of the Postal Service.

Initially BOG members were appointed for a term of nine years, and the statute created a staggering system for terms.  Currently terms are set to begin on December 8th and run for seven years.  A member may also serve up to one additional year as a grace period at the end of their term.  The period between when a nomination (or renomination) is made and when the Senate confirms the appointment counts towards part of the nominee’s term.


The BOG was modeled on the boards that run corporations, and it usually consists of corporate types, often corporate heavyweights, as well as former Congressional staffers and political operatives.  (There’s a list of the history of BOG members here.)

Members of the BOG are paid $30,000 per year and receive a per diem of $300 for up to 42 days per year of service, although nothing precludes the board from meeting more than that.  Members are reimbursed for “travel and reasonable expenses incurred in attending annual meetings of the Board,” according to the statute (the OIG audits board expenses).

The annual salary for Board members is a pittance compared to what private sector corporate board members receive, and there have been a few calls to raise the compensation.  The same goes for senior postal executives, whose salaries are limited by law, although some retirement benefits can subvert that law, as discussed in this post.

The argument for increasing BOG compensation and the salaries of postal executives is that in today’s environment you have to pay competitively in order to attract talented people.  But this is just another way of jumping on the bandwagon of corporate excess.  One of the biggest problems with corporate boards is that they are often a collection of corporate cronies captured by a company’s senior executive management.  We see the result in ballooning CEO pay that defies reality or common sense.

While the salaries of postal executives have been prevented from skyrocketing in the same way, the USPS BOG is still a prisoner of a postal management system that is highly flawed and itself filled with cronyism and a lack of real accountabilityLittle thought has been given to another approach:  Do away with a management structure that doesn’t suit the circumstances of a public institution.

The BOG and postal management

The current version of the BOG has operated without a quorum for several months. President Obama has recently resubmitted several nominations to the new Congress, but it may be some time before they are confirmed. In the best of times the BOG is reliant upon — if not captured by — senior postal management.  At the moment that is doubly true.

The BOG has no independent staff or advisors, only a secretary who is a postal employee.  The BOG has no independent legal counsel, which certainly became an issue during both theKessler and Bernstock affairs when the advice and conduct of USPS General Counsel Mary Anne Gibbons was called into question.

Considering that the BOG is a government entity, it is strangely reticent, secretive, and isolatedThe Board does not request or commission independent studies.  It does not typically meet with mailers, labor organizations, or stakeholders.  It does not issue policy statements (aside from Postal Service publications).  It does not publicly discuss its responsibilities to universal service or articulate its vision for the national post.  Minutes of the BOG’s meetings indicate that occasionally members dissent on votes, but individuals are not identified, and the press releases from the Postal Service merely indicate that a majority of the Board has voted for something, like a rate increase.

Most of the Board’s decisions are predetermined by officials in L’Enfant Plaza.  In a very real sense, the BOG is a prisoner — or a lapdog — of postal management.  That becomes even more problematic when one considers that the last several PMGs have risen through postal ranks and are products of the management system.

From top to bottom, the management culture of the Postal Service is seriously problematic, and it has rightly come in for significant criticism.  I’ve discussed the issue in several posts,here and here, and there are no end of articles about the subject, like this one by Jess Stoner that details the abuses that everyday postal workers encounter from local managers.  Steven Musacco’s “Beyond Going Postal: Shifting from Workplace Tragedies and Toxic Work Environments to a Safe and Healthy Organization describes the long history of a failing postal management culture.

Ultimately the folks at the top bear responsibility for the problems with postal management, but products of the system like Bill Henderson, Jack Potter, Patrick Donahoe, and now Megan Brennan have largely ignored those problems or papered over them with manipulated systems like Voice of the Employee. The executive management of the Postal Service is supposed to be accountable to the BOG, but given the Board’s construction and lack of independence and their willingness to act as a rubber stamp for the senior executives, it really isn’t a wonder that nothing ever changes.

These problems aren’t limited to employee relations. Lisa Bowe, who blogs at Intellisent, has written several posts about her frustrations with the Mailers Technical Advisory council (MTAC) and the way the Postal Service treats mailers.  The PRC has recently remanded the latest rate case back to the Postal Service not once but twice. The reasons cited were sloppy preparation and lack of necessary data.  Anyone who has followed the performance of the Postal Service in some of the N-cases like network rationalization and load leveling knows that testimony from senior managers can be evasive or misrepresentative.

The BOG stands responsible for all of that. The thing is, this isn’t a result of government gone awry. The lack of accountability, the failure to follow through, the willingness to promote incompetents, all mirror what have become standard corporate practices.

Take Erskine Bowles, for example, famous for the Simpson-Bowles Commission. During the run-up to the financial disaster, Bowles sat on several corporate boards, including Merrill Lynch. He and other corporate board members in several major financial institutions failed to do anything to mitigate the crisis, and in many cases they egged corporate executives on. And yet Bowles gets to head a government commission.

Boards at Enron, Adelphi, Tyco, and MCI all failed to meet their responsibilities. Today corporate boards across the spectrum enrich themselves and executives at the expense of workers, consumers, and even shareholders.

The idea that the Postal Service would benefit by being more corporate is simply risible.

If anything, the suggestion would seem to be generated by the $67 billion in postal revenues and the $340 billion in pension funds, numbers that must be glaring and galling to the wolves of Wall Street.

Obama and the Postal Service

On March 15, 2015, President Obama announced several renominations to the Postal BOG. All of the names had been submitted to the previous Congress.

The personal and professional details of the men (they’re all men) that have been nominated are not nearly as important as the fact that Mr. Obama has chosen to follow fairly standard patterns in his selections. Among his selections is a lifetime Republican operative, a well connected Democrat, a retailer who excels at coming up with marketing schemes, an academic whose writings on postal issues follow the conventional neo-liberal talking points, and an unreconstructed Reaganite who has argued for the privatization of the Postal Service for decades.

We’ll get more into their backgrounds in a minute but the important point is that as a group these men represent the sort of revolving door elite that plagues government today. Despite the fact that labor and employment are key postal issues, not one of the nominees to the BOG has a background in labor. The two individuals with any public policy credentials tend to represent the views that have created and fostered economic inequality and the elevation of the one percent.

Since his re-election Mr. Obama has spoken often about economic inequality and reshaping the rules that send most of the benefits of our economy to few hands.  In a recent interview with Politico, the President was quoted as saying this: “Unfortunately, what we’re seeing right now is a failure to invest in education, infrastructure, research and national defense. All the things that we need to grow, need to create jobs, to stay at the forefront of innovation and to keep our country safe.”

While the President thus acknowledged the need to attend to infrastructure, he does not seem to care much about the postal infrastructure.  During his administration, we’ve lost more than 200,000 good postal jobs, and postal infrastructure has been rolled back on every front. The sad fact is that the administration has either wholly ignored postal issues or has favored policies that hurt those who are served by and those who work for the Postal Service.

One indication of where the administration stands is suggested by an op-ed written for Bloomberg Business by Peter Orszag, the former director of OMB under Mr. Obama. The title of the piece says all you need to know: “Best Fix for Postal Service Is to Take It Private.”

The latest nominations to the BOG


Aside from the PMG and Deputy PMG, the Board of Governors currently has three members, all of them appointed by President George W. Bush.  Acting chairman James H. Bilbray is an attorney and former Republican member of the House of Representatives from Nevada. Louis J. Giuliano was the Chairman, CEO, and President of ITT Corp. Ellen C. Williams is formerly with the Kentucky Public Service Commission.


President Obama’s latest nominations to the BOG will do little to improve things.
  They represent a betrayal of infrastructure, they insult workers, and they ignore the millions of Americans who rely on the postal network.

Here’s a rundown of the latest list of nominations.

Mickey Barnett: Barnett is an attorney and former legislator from New Mexico. He is a former aide to New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. His resume on the Postal Service website reads like that of a typical conservative political operative. There is nothing in his background that would indicate expertise in postal issues. In his previous service as chair of the BOG, he mainly endorsed the policies of PMG Donahoe.

David Shapira: Shapira is the former CEO and now executive chair of the Giant Eagle grocery chain. This article from the "Pittsburgh Tribune" ’s website suggests that Shapira’s experience at offering grocery store specials like two-for-one deals will bring much needed retail sense to postal operations. (Perhaps the Postal Service will start offering two Forever stamps for the price of one.)  Shapira served on the corporate boards of Mellon Bank and EQT, a natural gas producer.  He is also involved in several civic institutions in his hometown of Pittsburgh (also the hometown of former PMG Donahoe). There are no indications of Mr. Shapira’s political affiliations.  His political contributions favor mostly Democrats, but he has also donated to Republicans, including George W. Bush.

D. Michael Bennett: Bennett is an attorney and a senior vice-president of information systems at BAE Systems, a defense contractor.  He previously worked for Northrop Grumman, which has consistently been one of the Postal Service’s major suppliersIn 2014, the Postal Service did over $154 million in business with Grumman.  The company has also has been embroiled in lawsuits with the Postal Service over the flawed FSS automated mail system.  Bennett’s political contributions are exclusively to Democrats.

Stephen Crawford: Crawford is an academic whose CV can be found here.  He received his PhD in Economic and Political Sociology from Columbia University in 1985. He was a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, and he has been a Democratic candidate for Congress.  Crawford has one postal-related scholarly publication, Towards a New Business Model for the United States Postal Service.  In an editorial on Postal Reporter Blog back in 2012, when Crawford’s name was first submitted for consideration to the BOG, Clint Burleson of the APWU discussed this publication.  Burleson cited several passages that appear to show Crawford’s acceptance of the idea that reducing the cost of labor is an integral part of any solution to postal problems.

Dr. Crawford’s paper is pretty standard fair.  For the most part it accepts the conventional wisdom with respect to the future of the Postal Service.  It follows the current narrative that the Postal Service is a technically challenged organization that would benefit from acting more like a competitive business. Crawford largely avoids the concept of the postal network as national infrastructure and instead trots out the tired suggestion that the Postal Service must innovate more, as if the word were some sort of magic pixie dust, without any sort of concrete meaning or process. Crawford’s suggestions include eliminating universal rates for letter mail and replacing home delivery with (free) post office boxes.

James C. Miller III: Miller is perhaps the most interesting of the current nominees.  He received his PhD in economics in 1969 from the University of Virginia and spent much of the next forty-plus years in government or working for conservative and right-wing think tanks like AEI, the Hoover Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

Miller served in the Nixon Administration, migrated to AEI during the Carter years, and returned to government service during the Reagan years.  He worked on the Reagan transition team, the Federal Trade Commission, and eventually as director of OMB, where he advocated for the privatization of the Postal Service.

In an oral history project conducted by the University of California at Berkley, Miller relates the following discussion with President Reagan: “’Mr. President, I think that the Interstate Commerce Commission played a role. Arguably, it was a role that was not warranted — restrained competition, etcetera — but there’s no reason for it anymore.’ He said, ‘That’s a good idea, Jim.’ I sat there and I proposed that the budget include demonopolizing and privatizing the Postal Service. He said, ‘That’s a good idea, Jim,’ and only later did I find out in his own hand, one of his radio programs, was about that.”

In a 1985 paper written for the "Cato Journal," Miller argues for ending postal monopolies and moving toward privatization. In 2011 Miller testified before Congress to the same effect.  Reading over Miller’s testimony, one is struck by his willingness to repeat many of the same shibboleths that conservatives use to argue that the Postal Service is failing and the postal network ought to be privatizedHe argues that arbitration is unfair to the Postal Service, primarily because the Postal Service didn’t get what it wanted.  He slides over the damage created by the RHBF payments when it is convenient to his narrative.

Miller was Chairman of the BOG for most of the period from 2005 to 2011. In contrast to most members of the BOG, Miller took an active role in promoting Jack Potter’s Strategic Transformation Plan, the document that has served as the blueprint for dismantling the Postal Service. Miller portrays himself as an academic and devoted to data, but his public statements are those of a committed ideologue. He readily admits to be a devotee of Milton Friedman, public choice theory, and Reagonomics.

On the whole President Obama’s nominations are at best disappointing and, as in the case of Mr. Miller, an insult to postal customers and postal workers. The law requires that appointees be equally divided between the political parties so the nomination of a political empty suit like Barnett may be a fact of life. Surely, however, the President could have found someone who is less of a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite and ideologue than Mr. Miller.

Mr. Shapira and Mr. Bennett appear to have been selected as a matter of political payback. They are a reflection of a system that treats public service as a revolving door for political and economic elites. This leaves a permanent imprint of the one percent on government and may be one of the primary reasons for cynicism in the electorate.

Dr. Crawford is probably the best of the lot, but that isn’t saying much. His writings seem to endorse current neoliberal models that treat average folks, both consumers and workers, as an afterthought.

Rhetoric and reality

Mr. Obama’s rhetoric about economic inequality and the problems that result in redistribution of wealth upward in our current economy is often not matched by his policies or his appointments.  That is nowhere truer than in the case of postal issues.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s latest appointments to the BOG will not help solve anything. Instead, they’re part of the problem. The basic structure of the Postal Service is flawed. In a typical corporation, the board of directors is ultimately accountable to shareholders.  Boards are often not as responsive as they should be, but at least the shareholders serve as a check.

The USPS Board of Governors is accountable to no one.

It has the power to determine national policy for an essential infrastructure, but it has no accountability to the general public.


The two great pieces of postal legislation — the PRA of 1970 and the PAEA of 2006 — have reshaped the post office into a corporate model, as if that’s the solution to everything. But for the average American, the corporate economy has stopped working.

Worse yet, the statutes that govern the Postal Service, the management that guides it, and the systems that regulate it, all fail to recognize the postal network as public infrastructure. Over the last 45 years since PRA, the Postal Service has done a credible job in delivering more mail to more addresses at more reasonable prices than any postal system in the world. But it has done this in spite of rather than because of its management.

The sad reality is that the managers of the Postal Service, in conjunction with politicians, have worked to undermine the effectiveness of a public infrastructure that is capable of producing broad economic and social benefits.

The latest bunch of nominees to the BOG will take us further down the path into the darkness of privatization.  We will inevitably see further degradation of the network, more job losses, and greater deterioration of serviceIn the end, it’s not just the Postal Service that will suffer but the American people.



Mark Jamison is a retired postmaster.  He can be contacted at markijamison01@gmail.com.
Comments
* (This was the May Day essay, but due to a Blogger blowup . . . please forgive. I have to.)