The Kaiser Family Foundation reported health care premiums rose 9 percent in 2011, a report that is likely to generate a lot of talk on if the health care reform act of 2009-2010 had anything to do with it.
The short answer is yes, but only 1 to 2 percent of the total premium increase, according to Kaiser. Premiums would have increased 7 percent anyway.
On the other side of the coin, White House analysts say premiums only went up because insurers overestimated the cost of the new health care reform act. (They produce figures to back it up like health care worker wages were lowest increase in years), and they argue, average health care insurer company earnings exceeded estimates by 45 percent.
There's a solid article on this, giving both sides good weight, in The Christian Science Monitor here.
My own take: I tend to agree that if insuror premiums are way higher than they expected, they built in a little too much cost expectation. Seems plausible.
The only two provisions that the report says impacted the premiums were adding college kids at 26 or under to parent's plans and requirements for some preventative care, both of which should actually help lower costs. (Adding kids because most are extremely health and don't use health care though their parents are now paying extra premiums for them)
Preventive care should help stop a sickness from getting serious and costing more.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Carlson on Bachmann, Republican Tea Party
An interesting blog by former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson on Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party influence on the Republican Party in Congress.
Carlson contends that only 25 percent of Republicans who control the House are Tea Party members, but they have tremendous undue influence, in his mind, over Republican Speaker John Boehner.
He contends Democrats will have field day with this in the election. I'm not so sure.
I do believe the 2012 election will start very early, and be very deep, and actually will engage people more than ever despite polls that generally show people are very disgusted with Congress.
Will they turn their disgust into action or into despair?
Carlson contends that only 25 percent of Republicans who control the House are Tea Party members, but they have tremendous undue influence, in his mind, over Republican Speaker John Boehner.
He contends Democrats will have field day with this in the election. I'm not so sure.
I do believe the 2012 election will start very early, and be very deep, and actually will engage people more than ever despite polls that generally show people are very disgusted with Congress.
Will they turn their disgust into action or into despair?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
MnDot commits to Highway 14 safety
It was good to see that MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel was committed to keeping the Highway 14 project west of North Mankato on track for needed safety improvements. (Story)
News that the project bids had come in 30 percent over estimates was troubling given money is tight all over. But Sorel reiterated his commitment to the project while saying MnDOT would be examining the bids and design to either rebid or possibly change the project's design/build nature so it is less costly.
The project is of particular interest to us here at The Free Press. Reporter Mark Fischenich completed an exhaustive three-day series last year on the safety record of the Highway. An in-depth examination of the safety statistics had never been done.
Here's the series
Our report showed, among other things, that stretch of highway had a fatality rate that was 94 percent higher than the state average. The series prompted MnDOT to take a closer look at putting some money into the project.
Before that, it had not been scheduled for work for some 20 years.
We hope the project can get done, and get done at price that seems reasonable. We all know making that Highway a four-lane to New Ulm will make it much safer.
We appreciate MnDOT and Sorel making the commitment to making that road safe.
News that the project bids had come in 30 percent over estimates was troubling given money is tight all over. But Sorel reiterated his commitment to the project while saying MnDOT would be examining the bids and design to either rebid or possibly change the project's design/build nature so it is less costly.
The project is of particular interest to us here at The Free Press. Reporter Mark Fischenich completed an exhaustive three-day series last year on the safety record of the Highway. An in-depth examination of the safety statistics had never been done.
Here's the series
Our report showed, among other things, that stretch of highway had a fatality rate that was 94 percent higher than the state average. The series prompted MnDOT to take a closer look at putting some money into the project.
Before that, it had not been scheduled for work for some 20 years.
We hope the project can get done, and get done at price that seems reasonable. We all know making that Highway a four-lane to New Ulm will make it much safer.
We appreciate MnDOT and Sorel making the commitment to making that road safe.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Clearing up tax rates for rich and poor
Regrettably, a so called "fact check" by the Associated Press muddies the water when it comes to determining who pays the highest tax rates, the rich or not so rich.
The debate was sparked by billionaire Warren Buffet continuing to proclaim he shouldn't pay taxes at a "lower rate" than his secretary or others in his office.
This statement gets summarized a lot in the media to a translation that he shouldn't pay lower taxes than his secretary which is an entirely different thing than a "lower rate" of tax.
What Buffet was really referring to was the capital gains rate that is 15 percent and a typical income tax rate most middle class couples would pay would be about 28 percent.
The AP article gets to that salient point in the 14th paragraph of a 19 paragraph article.
This AP article does a disservice to the whole debate in my opinion because it deals with "average" tax rates, "total" taxes the rich pay (we know they pay more in total taxes, almost all the time and almost always have, so it's kind of irrelevant).
One can make an argument for "average tax rates" because some wealthy folks pay a lot higher rate and others pay nothing. So, I would expect "on average" wealthy folks will pay a higher rate, also including all federal taxes, as the AP analysis does, though it doesn't say if it includes estate taxes.
That wasn't Buffet's point. It was the "rate" at which people are taxed, which, is really the relevant statistic.
So the AP did a fact check,but they left out the relevant facts to be compared. The big question is: Should we tax capital gains at 15 percent and regular income of the same amount at 28 percent? Most wealthy folks have capital gains, most average folks have "regular income" hence the disparity argument.
So, there you have it, a good argument for your next cocktail party.
And at the risk of sounding like a surly editor, don't argue Buffet should just pay taxes voluntarily if he feels this way, or you will get on my list for a free copy of "How to argue effectively."
The debate was sparked by billionaire Warren Buffet continuing to proclaim he shouldn't pay taxes at a "lower rate" than his secretary or others in his office.
This statement gets summarized a lot in the media to a translation that he shouldn't pay lower taxes than his secretary which is an entirely different thing than a "lower rate" of tax.
What Buffet was really referring to was the capital gains rate that is 15 percent and a typical income tax rate most middle class couples would pay would be about 28 percent.
The AP article gets to that salient point in the 14th paragraph of a 19 paragraph article.
This AP article does a disservice to the whole debate in my opinion because it deals with "average" tax rates, "total" taxes the rich pay (we know they pay more in total taxes, almost all the time and almost always have, so it's kind of irrelevant).
One can make an argument for "average tax rates" because some wealthy folks pay a lot higher rate and others pay nothing. So, I would expect "on average" wealthy folks will pay a higher rate, also including all federal taxes, as the AP analysis does, though it doesn't say if it includes estate taxes.
That wasn't Buffet's point. It was the "rate" at which people are taxed, which, is really the relevant statistic.
So the AP did a fact check,but they left out the relevant facts to be compared. The big question is: Should we tax capital gains at 15 percent and regular income of the same amount at 28 percent? Most wealthy folks have capital gains, most average folks have "regular income" hence the disparity argument.
So, there you have it, a good argument for your next cocktail party.
And at the risk of sounding like a surly editor, don't argue Buffet should just pay taxes voluntarily if he feels this way, or you will get on my list for a free copy of "How to argue effectively."
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Cal Thomas gets a C- for recent column: his job is in jeopardy at Free Press
I agree with conservative columnist Cal Thomas sometimes. I think he sometimes has moments approaching reasonable thought and arguments that hold up the conservative banner well.
Then he lets his political leanings or allegiances or whatever get in the way of a good argument.
Take his Sunday, Sept. 18 column called "Ron Paul was right."
He starts out the column talking about the recent CNN/Tea Party debate (sponsorship between political organizations and news organizations has already been excoriated by me in a previous column), and how Wolf Blitzer's question on a hypothetical situation of a young person without health care somehow showed the bias or Blitzer and raised important principles of personal responsibility for all of us.
Then he says: "Normally, a hypothetical question should not be answered," That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from a journalist. Blitzer's question may have been hypothetical in a literal sense, but the situation Blitzer described, a young person not buying health insurance but then getting treated and having his health care paid for by the rest of us plays out in this country thousands of times every single day.
It's one of the main reasons we have a health care cost and coverage problem.
Thomas gets a C- for lacking the apparent knowledge that this is one of the main problems.
Thomas says it sparked a necessary and controversial answer from Paul, and that's where Thomas veers into the land of odd thoughts.
Here's Blitzer's question: “A healthy 30-year- old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?”
Here's Thomas responding: The question was designed to appeal to the status quo with the federal government picking up the tab, but Paul cut through the question to give a powerful answer: “...what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. ... That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody ...”
Blitzer interrupted: “... are you saying society should just let him die?”
More Thomas:
Some in the audience shouted “ yes.” They must have come from the previous debate where Gov. Rick Perry’s pride in executing convicted murderers was wildly applauded.
Responded Paul: “... We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves.
Paul essentially went on to say in the old days the churches handled people without health insurance. Yeah, tell that to my pastor. Medical bills can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I don't know when the last time Paul was in church or when he last talked to a minister, but the ministers and churches I know would not be shelling out $100,000 to "help out." each of their 20 families that need it.
They'd hold a spaghetti feed
At least Thomas admits a key point here in this whole debate, but he treats it as a minor point.
That is that federal law prohibits any organization from denying someone care at an emergency room because they cannot pay.
Thomas goes on to veer off on another topic about London ministers agreeing to help a jobless family, and if we all did that, our problems would be solved.
It would be nice, and it happens every day in America, but it will not solve the health care problem.
Thomas lack of attention to pertinent facts in this debate is hurting the conservative cause.
Since I make the decision to pay for Thomas's column, I'm considering firing him, and maybe picking up a very sharp conservative thinker in David Brooks of the New York Times.This isn't the first Thomas column that really gives a bad name to solid conservative thought.
Readers. What do you think? E-mail me at jspear@mankatofreepress.com
Then he lets his political leanings or allegiances or whatever get in the way of a good argument.
Take his Sunday, Sept. 18 column called "Ron Paul was right."
He starts out the column talking about the recent CNN/Tea Party debate (sponsorship between political organizations and news organizations has already been excoriated by me in a previous column), and how Wolf Blitzer's question on a hypothetical situation of a young person without health care somehow showed the bias or Blitzer and raised important principles of personal responsibility for all of us.
Then he says: "Normally, a hypothetical question should not be answered," That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from a journalist. Blitzer's question may have been hypothetical in a literal sense, but the situation Blitzer described, a young person not buying health insurance but then getting treated and having his health care paid for by the rest of us plays out in this country thousands of times every single day.
It's one of the main reasons we have a health care cost and coverage problem.
Thomas gets a C- for lacking the apparent knowledge that this is one of the main problems.
Thomas says it sparked a necessary and controversial answer from Paul, and that's where Thomas veers into the land of odd thoughts.
Here's Blitzer's question: “A healthy 30-year- old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?”
Here's Thomas responding: The question was designed to appeal to the status quo with the federal government picking up the tab, but Paul cut through the question to give a powerful answer: “...what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. ... That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody ...”
Blitzer interrupted: “... are you saying society should just let him die?”
More Thomas:
Some in the audience shouted “ yes.” They must have come from the previous debate where Gov. Rick Perry’s pride in executing convicted murderers was wildly applauded.
Responded Paul: “... We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves.
Paul essentially went on to say in the old days the churches handled people without health insurance. Yeah, tell that to my pastor. Medical bills can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I don't know when the last time Paul was in church or when he last talked to a minister, but the ministers and churches I know would not be shelling out $100,000 to "help out." each of their 20 families that need it.
They'd hold a spaghetti feed
At least Thomas admits a key point here in this whole debate, but he treats it as a minor point.
That is that federal law prohibits any organization from denying someone care at an emergency room because they cannot pay.
Thomas goes on to veer off on another topic about London ministers agreeing to help a jobless family, and if we all did that, our problems would be solved.
It would be nice, and it happens every day in America, but it will not solve the health care problem.
Thomas lack of attention to pertinent facts in this debate is hurting the conservative cause.
Since I make the decision to pay for Thomas's column, I'm considering firing him, and maybe picking up a very sharp conservative thinker in David Brooks of the New York Times.This isn't the first Thomas column that really gives a bad name to solid conservative thought.
Readers. What do you think? E-mail me at jspear@mankatofreepress.com
Your taxes, political accountability and random stuff
Big buzz today on political/news wires and twitter is just who is responsible, accountable for predicted property tax increases this year in many communities in Minnesota.
I have in the past agreed with ideas Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, has come up with as chair of the Senate Tax Committee (that we should look at tax breaks to special interest like spending for instance), but I can't agree with her analysis and some of her facts as detailed in a Strib oped published Wednesday.
First and biggest myth to bust, well, as a myth: The Legislature didn't raise property taxes local government's do.
That's generally true, but when the Legislature CHANGES the property tax formula that local governments are REQUIRED BY LAW to use, the Legislature must take at least partial responsibility for increasing property taxes.
Most reasonable people would agree that if the local government does nothing, and the Legislature changes the way it must figure its tax rate, and tax increases happens, it falls to the government that did something (the Legislature) versus the one that did nothing (local governments).
I generally agree local governments are responsible for local property taxes, even if they do have to deal with uncertain state aid. Knowing it's uncertain, they should plan for that. But, when the Legislature changes the law that local governments MUST follow, then the Legislature, in effect, creates an increase in property taxes, all other things being equal.
The Legislature did try to lower property tax rates to make up for the loss of the credit, but as the Star Tribune editorial page points out, that was $30 million in relief, to make up for the lost of $260 million.
One-line takes on the news
Fed to buy $400 billion in long term treasuries, and also some mortgage backed securities
From NYTIMES:
The new effort is an experiment without a direct precedent, although the Fed tried something similar in the 1960s. Essentially, by shifting its money into riskier investments, the Fed hopes to drive down rates without expanding the size of its portfolio, as it has done twice in recent years.
By reducing the supply of long-term Treasuries, the Fed intends to force investors to accept lower rates of return on a wide range of riskier investments.
Economists project that the effort could reduce interest rates by a few tenths of a percentage point, a significant increment when multiplied by the vast extent of borrowing. The forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated in advance of the Fed’s announcement — based on its best guess about the details of such a program — that the Fed’s efforts could add about 0.4 percentage points to economic output and create about 350,000 jobs
COMMENT: Interesting that Republican leaders were threatening that the Fed better not do anything to interfere with markets, which, essentially, is their mandate.
I have in the past agreed with ideas Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, has come up with as chair of the Senate Tax Committee (that we should look at tax breaks to special interest like spending for instance), but I can't agree with her analysis and some of her facts as detailed in a Strib oped published Wednesday.
First and biggest myth to bust, well, as a myth: The Legislature didn't raise property taxes local government's do.
That's generally true, but when the Legislature CHANGES the property tax formula that local governments are REQUIRED BY LAW to use, the Legislature must take at least partial responsibility for increasing property taxes.
Most reasonable people would agree that if the local government does nothing, and the Legislature changes the way it must figure its tax rate, and tax increases happens, it falls to the government that did something (the Legislature) versus the one that did nothing (local governments).
I generally agree local governments are responsible for local property taxes, even if they do have to deal with uncertain state aid. Knowing it's uncertain, they should plan for that. But, when the Legislature changes the law that local governments MUST follow, then the Legislature, in effect, creates an increase in property taxes, all other things being equal.
The Legislature did try to lower property tax rates to make up for the loss of the credit, but as the Star Tribune editorial page points out, that was $30 million in relief, to make up for the lost of $260 million.
One-line takes on the news
Fed to buy $400 billion in long term treasuries, and also some mortgage backed securities
From NYTIMES:
The new effort is an experiment without a direct precedent, although the Fed tried something similar in the 1960s. Essentially, by shifting its money into riskier investments, the Fed hopes to drive down rates without expanding the size of its portfolio, as it has done twice in recent years.
By reducing the supply of long-term Treasuries, the Fed intends to force investors to accept lower rates of return on a wide range of riskier investments.
Economists project that the effort could reduce interest rates by a few tenths of a percentage point, a significant increment when multiplied by the vast extent of borrowing. The forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated in advance of the Fed’s announcement — based on its best guess about the details of such a program — that the Fed’s efforts could add about 0.4 percentage points to economic output and create about 350,000 jobs
COMMENT: Interesting that Republican leaders were threatening that the Fed better not do anything to interfere with markets, which, essentially, is their mandate.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
News that deserves one-line responses
Welcome to a new feature of the Katojoe blog.
It's my Monday morning quarterbacking, Slats Grobnik take on news of the day with my promise to only use one sentence to comment on each story.
For you youngsters, Slats Grobnik was the composite character longtime Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko used to represent the "common man" if there is or was such a thing.
First story from MPR.
Gov. Mark Dayton says he's none too pleased that Republicans in the House and Senate plan to hold hearings to discuss whether Dayton has the legal authority to allow people working for in-home daycare providers to join unions.
Dayton has said he's considering an executive order that would allow for those employees to vote on union membership, but he said he hasn't made a final decision. Dayton said lawmakers' decision to hold hearings before he takes any action is a "political ploy" and a waste of taxpayer money.
"Why don't they start by reforming themselves and recognize that they're a part-time Legislature that has been in session overtime all the way until the latter part of July?"
And he mocked committee chairs for holding hearings across the state on job creation - just weeks after the Legislature left St. Paul following the three week government shutdown.
"They had six months and they did very little on job creation," Dayton said.
"And I'm taking the initiative now, and we're proactively engaged in it as we will be for the three and a half years. So you missed your chance back then folks when taxpayers were paying for your salaries and your per diems."
Comment: Mark Dayton is usually a very reasonable sounding-guy, but this change of pace is interesting, sounds meaner, like Obama recently.
Next story:
From Washington Post
A $16 muffin, government finds extravagant spending at Justice Dept.
At a Justice Department conference, auditors said Monday in a report that doesn’t come close to topping the Pentagon’s legendary $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat but does, the auditors said, expose “wasteful or extravagant spending.’’
Cynthia Schnedar, the Justice Department’s acting inspector general, said in the report that some conferences featured “costly meals, refreshments and themed breaks” and that Justice failed to “minimize” costs as required by federal and internal guidelines.
Among the examples: Beef Wellington hors d’oeuvres at $7.32 per serving; a Cracker Jacks, popcorn and candy snack for $32 per person and coffee costing more than $1 per ounce, making a single cup $8.24.
And the $16 muffins? They were served at a 2009 legal training conference in Washington by Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The report describes the $4,200 spent on 250 muffins and $2,880 on 300 cookies and brownies
Comment: As a taxpayer, I feel they're making progress, only spending $16 on muffins versus $400 on a hammer.
My favorite "Tweet" of the day from former Strib columnist and longtime Twin Cities journalist Nick Coleman.
"10 ways journalists can use Twitter... now, if we could just get journalists to try journalism... http://j.mp/qVEJSs"
As I journalist I'm bowing to all the new waves of technology helping us do our jobs, believe me, but someone has to point out "journalism" is still the main job.
It's my Monday morning quarterbacking, Slats Grobnik take on news of the day with my promise to only use one sentence to comment on each story.
For you youngsters, Slats Grobnik was the composite character longtime Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko used to represent the "common man" if there is or was such a thing.
First story from MPR.
Dayton says Legislature is wasting time and money
Posted at 2:12 PM on September 20, 2011 by Tom Scheck (0 Comments)Gov. Mark Dayton says he's none too pleased that Republicans in the House and Senate plan to hold hearings to discuss whether Dayton has the legal authority to allow people working for in-home daycare providers to join unions.
Dayton has said he's considering an executive order that would allow for those employees to vote on union membership, but he said he hasn't made a final decision. Dayton said lawmakers' decision to hold hearings before he takes any action is a "political ploy" and a waste of taxpayer money.
"Why don't they start by reforming themselves and recognize that they're a part-time Legislature that has been in session overtime all the way until the latter part of July?"
And he mocked committee chairs for holding hearings across the state on job creation - just weeks after the Legislature left St. Paul following the three week government shutdown.
"They had six months and they did very little on job creation," Dayton said.
"And I'm taking the initiative now, and we're proactively engaged in it as we will be for the three and a half years. So you missed your chance back then folks when taxpayers were paying for your salaries and your per diems."
Comment: Mark Dayton is usually a very reasonable sounding-guy, but this change of pace is interesting, sounds meaner, like Obama recently.
Next story:
From Washington Post
A $16 muffin, government finds extravagant spending at Justice Dept.
At a Justice Department conference, auditors said Monday in a report that doesn’t come close to topping the Pentagon’s legendary $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat but does, the auditors said, expose “wasteful or extravagant spending.’’
Cynthia Schnedar, the Justice Department’s acting inspector general, said in the report that some conferences featured “costly meals, refreshments and themed breaks” and that Justice failed to “minimize” costs as required by federal and internal guidelines.
Among the examples: Beef Wellington hors d’oeuvres at $7.32 per serving; a Cracker Jacks, popcorn and candy snack for $32 per person and coffee costing more than $1 per ounce, making a single cup $8.24.
And the $16 muffins? They were served at a 2009 legal training conference in Washington by Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The report describes the $4,200 spent on 250 muffins and $2,880 on 300 cookies and brownies
Comment: As a taxpayer, I feel they're making progress, only spending $16 on muffins versus $400 on a hammer.
My favorite "Tweet" of the day from former Strib columnist and longtime Twin Cities journalist Nick Coleman.
"10 ways journalists can use Twitter... now, if we could just get journalists to try journalism... http://j.mp/qVEJSs"
As I journalist I'm bowing to all the new waves of technology helping us do our jobs, believe me, but someone has to point out "journalism" is still the main job.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Republican debate, tea party, Blitzer
A few quick thoughts on the Republican debate on CNN Monday night.
I promise. They will be quick. It's way too early to be talking election politics.
It's a little troubling to me as a journalist that a fairly credible news organization like CNN would actually sponsor a debate with a political faction - the Tea Party Express in this case.
Would any independent voter view this as a slight crack in the network's credibility? I'll be interested to see if the smarmy Howard Kurtz or any other media critic takes them on in this issue or if this is the wave of the future.
Scary if it is.
CNN was almost branding itself with Tea Party as a kind of combo meal you'd buy at McDonald's. The marketers went over the line.
I hope it troubles Wolf Blitzer, who is a solid, credible journalist and he did a solid job on running the debate and asking some tough questions.
I can't say the same for John King, who just softballed question after question to Michele Bachmann after the debate.
She's a bit desperate, taking off after Rick Perry on the "little girl forced vaccination" issue and John King did nothing to hold her accountable for the outrageous statements she was making.
She even got a little mean, saying even though Perry apologized, that wasn't good enough. Sheesh.
She knows there was an opt out, but kind of said, well, people should be told by government there's an opt out.
.
Well, they kind of were told by the government. It seems Bachmann wanted government to get even more involved saying the opt out wasn't adequate and people need to be told (in my interpretation government needs to hold their hand). That's just contradictory to her usual schtick that people take responsibility for their own lives and not rely on government that she was advocating earlier in the debate
Again, no challenge from King. His interview with her could have been a campaign commercial.
Ron Paul was kind of the comic relief here, and, actually, he makes a lot of sense some times, despite the comedy.
Blitzer nailed on the health care issue. As a doctor, Paul said he was against health care mandates but would not throw people out on the street if they didn't have it and needed care. (thus all the rest of us paying for it, Blitzer said.)
Paul said, in his day, the churches handled it. Enough said there. Hope my pastor was listening.
Romney made few mistakes, and I liked his line about telling Perry that Texas was doing well because when you're "dealt four aces, you aren't necessarily a good poker player."
Perry tried to respond with equal witt, but it fell flat. That's what happens when you have an uppity East Coast politician, former CEO, make fun of the good 'ol boy from Texas.
I still haven't heard an economic theory from any of them that allows people to check it empirically — did this ever happen and can cause and effect be established kind of stuff — and doesn't require them to just have the "belief" about the way the economy works.
Milton Friedman is turning in his grave.
I promise. They will be quick. It's way too early to be talking election politics.
It's a little troubling to me as a journalist that a fairly credible news organization like CNN would actually sponsor a debate with a political faction - the Tea Party Express in this case.
Would any independent voter view this as a slight crack in the network's credibility? I'll be interested to see if the smarmy Howard Kurtz or any other media critic takes them on in this issue or if this is the wave of the future.
Scary if it is.
CNN was almost branding itself with Tea Party as a kind of combo meal you'd buy at McDonald's. The marketers went over the line.
I hope it troubles Wolf Blitzer, who is a solid, credible journalist and he did a solid job on running the debate and asking some tough questions.
I can't say the same for John King, who just softballed question after question to Michele Bachmann after the debate.
She's a bit desperate, taking off after Rick Perry on the "little girl forced vaccination" issue and John King did nothing to hold her accountable for the outrageous statements she was making.
She even got a little mean, saying even though Perry apologized, that wasn't good enough. Sheesh.
She knows there was an opt out, but kind of said, well, people should be told by government there's an opt out.
.
Well, they kind of were told by the government. It seems Bachmann wanted government to get even more involved saying the opt out wasn't adequate and people need to be told (in my interpretation government needs to hold their hand). That's just contradictory to her usual schtick that people take responsibility for their own lives and not rely on government that she was advocating earlier in the debate
Again, no challenge from King. His interview with her could have been a campaign commercial.
Ron Paul was kind of the comic relief here, and, actually, he makes a lot of sense some times, despite the comedy.
Blitzer nailed on the health care issue. As a doctor, Paul said he was against health care mandates but would not throw people out on the street if they didn't have it and needed care. (thus all the rest of us paying for it, Blitzer said.)
Paul said, in his day, the churches handled it. Enough said there. Hope my pastor was listening.
Romney made few mistakes, and I liked his line about telling Perry that Texas was doing well because when you're "dealt four aces, you aren't necessarily a good poker player."
Perry tried to respond with equal witt, but it fell flat. That's what happens when you have an uppity East Coast politician, former CEO, make fun of the good 'ol boy from Texas.
I still haven't heard an economic theory from any of them that allows people to check it empirically — did this ever happen and can cause and effect be established kind of stuff — and doesn't require them to just have the "belief" about the way the economy works.
Milton Friedman is turning in his grave.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Ethical dilemmas of children testifying in murder case
For the first time in my experience in the newspaper business, it is likely we will see a child testifying in a murder case.
Blue Earth County District Court Judge Kurt Johnson ruled Tuesday that one of the three Munt children who witnessed their father shoot their mother will be allowed to testify as to what they saw.
Johnson had interviewed all three children, a girl who was 7 at the time of the killing, a boy who was 4 and a boy who was 5.
The girl will not be testifying after Johnson determined she was "significantly traumatized" and declined to speak to Johnson at all during the hearing, where Johnson says, he asked general questions, not questions about the case.
The younger boy also will not testify after Johnson determined he may not have been mature enough to know everything that was going on or understand the court system.
The boy who was five at the time, may be called as a witness, Johnson ruled. He was able to answer general questions including the one where Johnson asked the children if they knew the difference between telling the truth and lying.
This case poses all kinds of ethical dilemmas for newspaper coverage and judges and lawyers as well. We're talking about a young boy who witnessed a traumatic event.
Will testifying further traumatize him? Will reading about his testimony and the case in the newspaper haunt him for the rest of his life? What kind of questions can appropriately be asked of a child who witnessed such traumatic events?
Defense attorneys have a job to cross-examine witnesses, to poke holes in their credibility. How pointed can questions be when asking a 5 year old? How much can the jury believe?
We will evaluate every question as we report the case and try to be sensitive to this young person's needs. At the same time, we'll balance that against what the public must know about not only this case, but the important ethical issues at stake.
If the boy is called to testify, he will testify in another courtroom away from the jury and his accused father.
That's a reasonable accommodation to what is likely to be another very difficult chapter in this young person's life.
Unfortunately, our court system relies on the testimony of witnesses, however difficult that may be at times.
Blue Earth County District Court Judge Kurt Johnson ruled Tuesday that one of the three Munt children who witnessed their father shoot their mother will be allowed to testify as to what they saw.
Johnson had interviewed all three children, a girl who was 7 at the time of the killing, a boy who was 4 and a boy who was 5.
The girl will not be testifying after Johnson determined she was "significantly traumatized" and declined to speak to Johnson at all during the hearing, where Johnson says, he asked general questions, not questions about the case.
The younger boy also will not testify after Johnson determined he may not have been mature enough to know everything that was going on or understand the court system.
The boy who was five at the time, may be called as a witness, Johnson ruled. He was able to answer general questions including the one where Johnson asked the children if they knew the difference between telling the truth and lying.
This case poses all kinds of ethical dilemmas for newspaper coverage and judges and lawyers as well. We're talking about a young boy who witnessed a traumatic event.
Will testifying further traumatize him? Will reading about his testimony and the case in the newspaper haunt him for the rest of his life? What kind of questions can appropriately be asked of a child who witnessed such traumatic events?
Defense attorneys have a job to cross-examine witnesses, to poke holes in their credibility. How pointed can questions be when asking a 5 year old? How much can the jury believe?
We will evaluate every question as we report the case and try to be sensitive to this young person's needs. At the same time, we'll balance that against what the public must know about not only this case, but the important ethical issues at stake.
If the boy is called to testify, he will testify in another courtroom away from the jury and his accused father.
That's a reasonable accommodation to what is likely to be another very difficult chapter in this young person's life.
Unfortunately, our court system relies on the testimony of witnesses, however difficult that may be at times.
Riding the "goattails" of a national story
It started with an unusual police report heard by the late night editors on The Free Press copy desk. Sometime around 11:30 p.m., a Mankato resident called police to report that two very young girls in their pajamas were walking along Carney Avenue north of Riverfront Drive, and, they had a goat with them.
The story gets better. When police stopped the girls they said they were simply taking their goat out for a late-night walk. They couldn’t remember their address, but they knew how to walk home, so the officer was obliged to follow.
By this time, the story had made all the police radio chatter and there were reportedly several other officers who drove by to see what must have been classic scene: their fellow officer escorting the two young girls and their goat. Apparently many cell-phone pictures were snapped. (This is yet to be confirmed part of the story, but we’ll use a little journalistic license.)
The girls spun their tale thicker as they went on. They were hiding their goat in their closet because mom had bought it but dad wasn’t going to be too happy about it once he found out.
Of course, eventually, police determined the girls had taken the goat from the Sibley Park zoo after hatching the plot earlier in the day when they were at Sibley Park for a birthday party.
As is likely to happen these days with such a bizarre and funny tale of a goat-napping, once the story made The Free Press website, it went viral.
This story was made for the modern-day, multi-platform media world we live in. It likely went viral from The Free Press Facebook site, as the 2,000 or so people who are fans on the site likely forwarded it to their Facebook friends. If 2,000 Free Press fans have 10 friends each, we’ve just expanded our audience for this story by 20,000. If they have 100 friends each, the story expands by 200,000. And then those friends forward it to their friends and hence the “viral” nature of the story is developed.
Our Twitter posting and link to the story was also being “retweeted” around the globe. It was on the Drudge Report and in the Washington Post, as well as other media sites everywhere including USA Today and CBS Radio.
According to the last count, the story had been looked at 78,376 times, by almost 60,000 different users who spent an average of 3 minutes 48 seconds reading the story. And that’s just on The Free Press website. There is no accounting for how many times it was viewed on hundreds of media sites around the world.
The Associated Press picked up the story as well, and people commented on the story on The Free Press Facebook page from Tasmania, Australia to Melbourne, Fla.
The comments varied from readers appreciating the humor and cuteness of the story to those suggesting the parents should be charged with neglect.
Clearly, it’s a story right out of Mayberry R.F.D. and maybe that’s what gives it so much appeal. Nothing horrendous happened to the girls. In an age where we hear and see so much brutality, this story seems to have given people a little bit of hope that there is still innocence in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)