The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[MikeC]

FWIW, another perspective on the IG firing, pulled from Sacramento Bee articles on the story.

In April 2008, federal agents (meaning Walpin's IG office, it seems, though the reporting is unclear) began investigating the use of federal grant money by the St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit then run by Johnson.

The following month, local law enforcement announced that no criminal case could be made against Johnson, but the federal probe continued.

In September, the federal probe was turned over to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento.

Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."

Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.

US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges. Scott said he had asked Walpin's office to go back and conduct a line-by-line audit to help determine whether civil charges should be filed, implying that Walpin's probe had been insufficiently detailed.

In April, the US Attorney's office announced a settlement with Johnson, which would involve Johnson, St. HOPE, and the other official repaying over $400,000 in grants it received, and would allow him to again receive federal money.

That same month, the new acting US attorney, Lawrence Brown wrote a letter to a federal oversight body for inspectors general, asking it to review Walpin's work on the St. HOPE investigation. According to the AP, Brown wrote: "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent."

So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing.

If that angle is true why didn't the Obama Administration just come out and say it? Instead they went the route of character assassination on a guy that doesn't look too confused or forgetful.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html

The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.

....

More importantly, Walpin's response sheds light on the process by which St. Hope will allegedly return to the government about half of the $850,000 grant it received from AmeriCorps.  Walpin accused the U.S. attorney's office of undermining Walpin's attempt at "suspension and debarment" -- that is, from taking action that prevents an organization that has engaged in misconduct from receiving any other federal money.

So it looks like his attempt to stop them from receiving more federal money was part of the IG's job.

Certainly a different angle on the whole process but one that leaves out some critical information.

[Philberto]

Some context for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.

For instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita

the number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years

Meanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke?  The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.

So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).

If you’re looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don’t pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e  OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up… I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I’m not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.

Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it’s that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I’m sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren’t nearly as bad. In BC’s neck of the woods, it’s 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it’s 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN’s 9.35% buttfucking).

It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.

[Quality Start Machine]

Some context for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.

For instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita

the number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years

Meanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke?  The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.

So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).

If you're looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don't pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e  OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up... I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.

Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it's that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I'm sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren't nearly as bad. In BC's neck of the woods, it's 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it's 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN's 9.35% buttfucking).

It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.

TN's buttfucking comes with no state income tax.

[Philberto]

Some context for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.

For instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita

the number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years

Meanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke?  The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.

So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).

If you’re looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don’t pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e  OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up… I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I’m not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.

Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it’s that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I’m sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren’t nearly as bad. In BC’s neck of the woods, it’s 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it’s 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN’s 9.35% buttfucking).

It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.

TN's buttfucking comes with no state income tax.

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

[Brownie]

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

The income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.

[PenFoe]

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

The fact that it doesn't rain everyday income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.

More likely'd

[Philberto]

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

The fact that it's got a beautiful ocean and gulf to go to and a bunch of fun shit to do fact that it doesn't rain everydayincome and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.

More likely'd

Most likely'd

[Brownie]

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

The fact that it's got a beautiful ocean and gulf to go to and a bunch of fun shit to do fact that it doesn't rain everydayincome and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.

More likely'd

Most likely'd

KD resents the inference, at least gastromically.

[Waco Kid]

Florida is the Austrailia of America

[Brownie]

We send our criminals there?

[CT III]

True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida

The fact that it doesn't rain everyday income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.

More likely'd

Good call, it almost never rains in Florida.

[RV]

Good stuff on health care rationing:

In truth, rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. Even in the United States, the richest society in human history, we are constantly rationing. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of steak and wild-caught salmon.

Health care, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn't. Already, we cannot afford every form of medical care that we might like. So we ration.

Milton Friedman's beloved line is a good way to frame the issue: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The choice isn't between rationing and not rationing. It's between rationing well and rationing badly.

[Brownie]

Yes, we ration lakefront homes and cuts of steak. However, the rationing is done through economic choice.

[Tank]

Yes, we ration lakefront homes and cuts of steak. However, the rationing is done through economic choice.

Economic choice, yes.

A certain amount of economic luck, too.

But that's not really the point. Let's try to move beyond the analogy...

There are three main ways that the health care system already imposes rationing on us. The first is the most counterintuitive, because it doesn't involve denying medical care. It involves denying just about everything else.

...

Research by Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra of Harvard has found that, on average, a 10 percent increase in health premiums leads to a 2.3 percent decline in inflation-adjusted pay. Victor Fuchs, a Stanford economist, and Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist now in the Obama administration, published an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association last year that nicely captured the tradeoff. When health costs have grown fastest over the last two decades, they wrote, wages have grown slowest, and vice versa.

...

The second kind of rationing involves the uninsured. The high cost of care means that some employers can't afford to offer health insurance and still pay a competitive wage. Those high costs mean that individuals can't buy insurance on their own.

The uninsured still receive some health care, obviously. But they get less care, and worse care, than they need. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that 18,000 people died in 2000 because they lacked insurance. By 2006, the number had risen to 22,000, according to the Urban Institute.

The final form of rationing is the one I described near the beginning of this column: the failure to provide certain types of care, even to people with health insurance. Doctors are generally not paid to do the blocking and tackling of medicine: collaboration, probing conversations with patients, small steps that avoid medical errors. Many doctors still do such things, out of professional pride. But the full medical system doesn't do nearly enough.

That's rationing — and it has real consequences.

... Over all, the survival rates for many diseases in this country are no better than they are in countries that spend far less on health care. People here are less likely to have long-term survival after colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia or a kidney transplant than they are in Canada — that bastion of rationing.

Other examples from earlier in the article...

We spend billions of dollars on operations, tests and drugs that haven't been proved to make people healthier. Yet we have not spent the money to install computerized medical records — and we suffer more medical errors than many other countries.

We underpay primary care doctors, relative to specialists, and they keep us stewing in waiting rooms while they try to see as many patients as possible. We don't reimburse different specialists for time spent collaborating with one another, and many hard-to-diagnose conditions go untreated. We don't pay nurses to counsel people on how to improve their diets or remember to take their pills, and manageable cases of diabetes and heart disease become fatal.

"Just because there isn't some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness," as Dr. Mark McClellan, head of Medicare in the Bush administration, says, "that doesn't mean you aren't getting some treatments."

Yes: choices have been made.

Many choices, though, are more structurally determined and made for us, often at least in part via a system of skewed incentives.

[butthead]

Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.

This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.

This. The ballot initiatives in California are ridiculous.