Gilbert Slams Staples On Food Safety

One of the most hotly contested races on the Texas ballot in 2010 is the race for Agriculture Commissioner. East Texas cattleman Hank Gilbert is trying to unseat the Republican incumbent, Todd Staples. Gilbert believes one of Staples' worst failings as commissioner has been his failure to address food safety in the state -- a responsibility that effects not just farmers and ranchers, but all Texas citizens. Here is what Gilbert has to say:

"Minutes after he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, he said food safety was a top priority for him. I'd like to know, if food safety was a top priority for Todd Staples, how badly his lesser priorities have faired under his reign."

"He said in 2004 that Texas was a soft target for agroterrorists, but to date he's done nothing about it. He said food safety was a top priority but his agency has expended relatively little time, effort, and money to make our food supply more safe."

"His reign as Commissioner has been nothing but a long line of broken promises to the people of Texas. It is, in fact, the only consistent thing about his tenure."

"How is food safety your top priority if less than 20 percent of the grants you award-in a program you tout as being so key to a food safety initiative-have to do with food safety. It simply numbs the mind."

"I don't see any TDA inspectors at the Port of Houston, and I doubt many make it down to the Mexican border to look at commodities coming from Mexico, Central, and South America because they don't even have enough inspectors in the agency to even keep gas pumps properly inspected."

"He's blustered and deceived Texans in a vain attempt to make himself look good for the last four years. Now, all of the sudden, with food recalls in the news and people concerned about the safety of their food, he's nowhere to be found. Texans realize all he's done these last four years is hand out novelty checks and told Texans to go eat out more, because he damned sure hasn't been on the forefront of food safety issues."

"He's just the biggest empty pair of khaki pants in all of state government, and Texans should be scared for the safety for themselves and their families because Todd Staples is the absentee landlord of the Texas Department of Agriculture. He may be showing up at work, but he's not doing anything for Texans."

"No wonder his own employees call him 'Tater Salad.' He's done about as much for food safety in Texas as a bowl of potato salad left out in 100 degree heat surrounded by horse flies at an August picnic in Llano."

Object In Mirror

Political Cartoon is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

A Message For Republicans

If the Democrats were smart this would be one of the main campaign issues. From the site of Pavlovian Obeisance.

Executive Salaries Are Way Out Of Line

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been keeping up with the economic news that corporate executive salaries and compensation are way out of line, especially when compared to the salaries of workers in the same company. And it does not seem to matter whether those executives are successful or not. Those who oversee company failures make millions of dollars -- even the ones who are forced out of their jobs (but you can bet that no ordinary company worker is given any "golden parachute").

One would think that a company that has had to lay off thousands of workers (a sure sign the company is having trouble) would also cut the salaries of the executives running those companies. But that has not happened. In fact, it's beginning to look like those workers were laid off so the executives could keep their enormous salaries.

According to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in their annual report on executive compensation, the "CEOs of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crises took home nearly $12 million on average in 2009." These companies laid off 531,363 people while reporting a 44% average profit increase in 2009.

But whether a company is in trouble or not, corporate executive salaries have been skyrocketing while the salaries of workers have been depressed by those same executives. The IPS says:

"[A]fter adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century.

American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s."

There is no logical reason for executive salaries to rise that much while worker salaries have gone down. All employees are valuable to the success of a company (or they wouldn't be working for the company). Why shouldn't worker salaries rise at the same rate as executive salaries? Shouldn't all company employees, regardless of rank, share in the company success they helped to create?

Another way of looking at the outlandish salaries of American corporate executives is to compare them to the salaries of Japanese corporate executives -- a country where corporations have been exceptionally successful. According to the IPS, American executives make 263 times the average compensation of their workers (up from 30 to 1 in the 1970's). Note that is the average compensation, not the minimum compensation of workers. In comparison, Japanese executives make only 16 times as much as their average worker.

Many American corporations would like for us to believe they have to pay these outrageous salaries to executives while laying off workers and depressing worker salaries. They claim they could not get top executive talent otherwise. That's simply a giant load of horse manure! The Japanese don't seem to have any trouble attracting good executives. Their corporations are performing at least as well (and sometimes better) than American corporations.

Don't get me wrong. Japanese executives are well paid for their efforts. But so are their workers. They simply believe that all employees should share in a corporation's success, and not just the executives. And that formula has worked well for them and created a company loyalty among all employees -- a loyalty that furthers the success of the company.

American executives have simply abandoned the idea of fair treatment of their workers. They have bought into the "greed is good" philosophy and are grabbing every dollar they can -- even if they have to abuse their own workers to do it. This is not just unfair, but has been a big contributing factor to the huge income disparity in America between the top 5% and everyone else, setting up the conditions for our current recession (and future recessions if it is not fixed).

Since it has become obvious that corporate executives and corporate boards are either unable or unwilling to rein in corporate salaries (and institute a more equitable and reasonable worker-to-executive salary ratio), the federal government should step in and place a limit on that worker-to-executive salary ratio. What that ratio should be can be debated, but it is necessary to put a limit on it. It is necessary for the health of the overall economy.

I know that many will scream that is "income redistribution" and income redistribution is bad -- some would even label it as socialism. What these people fail to realize (or are unwilling to admit) is the fact that income is being redistributed every day in America (and in all countries under all economic systems). The problem is that in our largely de-regulated capitalist system this money is being redistributed from workers and ordinary citizens to the richest among us, creating a wildly unbalanced and unhealthy income and wealth distribution.

I'm sure this limiting of worker-to-executive pay ratio will be fought by the corporate interests. That is because they are today only interested in short-term profits, and not the long-term health of the country and their companies. The truth is that the corporations would benefit from a more equitable income distribution as much as workers would. While they might have to pay their own workers more, they would reap the benefits of all the nation's workers having more money to spend -- which means more money to buy the corporate products.

"Income redistribution" is not a bad thing. It happens every day. It just needs to happen in the right way -- a way that would be positive for everyone.

This Is The Nation We Should Be Building

Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe in The Denver Post.

Diabetes Drug May Also Be Cancer Drug

Could getting a mild case of Type 2 Diabetes, while something anybody would want to avoid, actually be a blessing in disguise for some people? It looks like it could be true, especially for people with a family history of cancer. This story hits home with me, because I'm one of those people.

For those of you that don't know me, I'm an older guy. Like a lot of other people my age, I let my weight get out of control and developed a mild (at least so far) case of diabetes. My doctor demanded I lose some weight and prescribed a drug to control the diabetes. That drug was Metformin, which I take twice a day. I have since lost about 45 pounds and the drug is keeping my blood sugar down to acceptable levels.

It did not really surprise me that I developed diabetes. Both of my parents developed the disease later in life and controlled it with medication. But my family also has a history of an even scarier disease -- cancer. My father died of lymphoma and my mother had breast cancer (from which she has recovered and is now cancer-free). I've always been surprised that I have never contracted cancer. Now I discover there may be a medical reason for that.

It seems that Metformin, currently only used for diabetes, is effective in preventing cancer. The evidence is strong enough that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is currently organizing clinical trials using the drug in patients without diabetes but who are smokers. Others are testing the drug for breast and prostate cancer.

An oncologist for the NCI, Dr. Phillip A. Dennis, says, "The epidemiological evidence in diabetic humans is convincing and strong. It is real, and the reduction in risk ranges from 30% to 70% (depending on the type of cancer)." This was first noticed in a 2005 observational study by British doctors, who noticed that those taking Metformin had a 40% lower incidence of cancer.

Dr. Dennis and his NCI colleagues have performed tests in mice. They injected three groups of mice with NNK, the carcinogen in cigarette smoke. In the control group 100% of the mice got lung cancer. In the group that took Metformin orally, at least 33% did not develop cancer. And in the group that got injections of Metformin, around 70% did not develop cancer.

Reachers say that while the evidence is not yet strong enough to prescribe Metformin to people without diabetes, it should probably be considered the drug of choice for those with the disease because of its oncological effect. Metformin is currently one of the most widely used diabetes drugs (40 million prescriptions were issued in 2008). It is also "off patent", which means generics are available and the drug is cheap.

This is very good news for those of us with diabetes.

NOTE -- The picture above is of the chemical structure of Metformin.

Obstructionism

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

One And The Same

The truth is exposed by Pavlovian Obeisance.

Another Democrat With Ethical Problems

What the hell is going on in the Congressional Black Caucus these days? It seems like some of them have decided that if White Republicans in Congress can enrich themselves in ethically dubious schemes, then so can they. It started with Rep. Charles Rangel (D- New York) receiving corporate gifts (and performing other ethically-challenged maneuvers). Then we had Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) putting pressure on the government to bail out the bank that her husband owned stock in (and was on the Board of Directors there).

And it doesn't seem to have stopped there. Now we have Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) making her bid to join the Congressional Hall of Shame. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gives scholarships to deserving young people. But Rep. Johnson saw to it that more than $25,000 of this scholarship money went to members of her family (two grandsons and two great-nephews) and to the family of one of her aides (Rod Givens).

None of the recipients of the money lived in the district she represents or a district represented by any member of the Congressional Black Caucus. The scholarships also violate the rules of the Foundation that prohibits nepotism. The scholarships in question were given out by Rep. Johnson between 2005 and 2009.

Rep. Johnson said, "While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process. To rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week." She does need to reimburse those funds, but that will not rectify the situation. She broke the rules. And if she did not know the rules, she should have checked on them before giving out the money. There is no excuse.

I expect she will survive this ethical blunder. She has already won the Democratic primary and the chances of a Republican winning her district are nonexistent (and it will all be forgotten when she runs again in 2012). But the Democratic Party didn't need another ethical faux pas with an election coming up. While her seat is safe, she (and Rangel and Waters) could well cost another Democrat a seat in a closely-contested race.

I have already called for the resignation of Rangel and Waters. I think Johnson should also resign. But I don't expect any of the three to actually do the right thing and resign. They have all been in Congress a long time and feel entitled to their seats.

This is starting to get sickening. The Democrats promised us a cleaner and more responsible government in 2008, but it looks like we're just getting more of the same from some members of Congress.

If Beck Was Around In 1962

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

Jobs Being Created Are Not Good Jobs

George Bush, with his policy of accelerated Reaganomics, made a real mess of the United States economy before he left office. It was not bad enough that he presided over a massive outsourcing of good American jobs, but his deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and deficit spending created the worst income distribution since the 1920s and kicked off a serious recession resulting in the loss of millions more jobs.

In his entire eight years in office Bush only created about a million jobs (while his predecessor, Bill Clinton, created 23 million in his 8-year stint in office), and more than lost those in his recession (which started in the last part of 2007). President Obama is already poised to have created more jobs in his first two years in office than Bush did in eight years. That is a good thing, but not as good as you might believe.

The problem resides in just what kind of jobs are being created. This is not a new problem. Even back in the Bush administration, while good jobs were being sent overseas (where wages could be cut to less than minimum wage levels), the new jobs being created were low-wage jobs that would not allow a man/woman to support a family. Unfortunately, the problem is persisting under the current administration.

The chart above is indicative of the problem. The chart shows the five fastest growing jobs in the United States. Only one of those jobs (registered nurse) is above the median wage in America. The other four (food preparation and serving, home health aide, warehouse stock clerk, medical assistant) are well below the median wage and approaching the minimum wage. The problem is even worse when you consider the median wage has been depressed for the last twenty or more years and won't buy nearly what it once would have bought.

While the cost of nearly everything has climbed sharply for the last twenty years, the wages of the bottom 80% of Americans have been stagnant. This alone would have accounted for the pain being felt by middle and working class people, but it was made even worse by the millions of jobs lost by the Bush recession. Now the new jobs being created are lower-paying jobs than the jobs that were lost. It's hard to rejoice in the creation of these kind of jobs.

President Obama has said he wants to give tax cuts to companies that don't outsource jobs (and hopefully bring good-paying jobs back to the United States). That would be a good start, but much more needs to be done. This recession will not be ended by the creation of minimum-wage jobs (even a lot of them). That would just continue the pain being currently felt by ordinary Americans. And it would set the country up for another, possibly worse, recession or depression.

The vast difference in both accumulated wealth and income distribution between the richest 5% of Americans and the rest of America was the real cause of this recession (while the financial mismanagement by Wall Street was just the trigger). The only real cure for our current economic woes is to find a way to more equitably distribute the nation's income.

The nation's health is not determined by how rich the richest 1-5% can get. No matter how hard they try, this small number of people just don't have the purchasing power to keep an economy as large as ours growing. While the Republicans (and the rich) don't want to admit it, America has always seen its best times when the working and middle class people have had adequate purchasing power to live a decent and comfortable life. When these people have the money to buy, everybody benefits -- even the rich and the corporate interests.

Minimum wage jobs may be fine for high school students, but they won't support a family. And they won't lift this country out of the recession.

Those Who Live In Glass Houses . . .

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Swinford Resigns - Will Go For The Money

Republican State Rep. David Swinford, House District 87 representative from the Texas Panhandle, had already announced that he would not run for re-election. He did not run in his party's primary last Spring and was set to retire when his term expired in January. He will be replaced by either Democrat Abel Bosquez, Republican Walter Price IV, or Libertarian James Hudspeth.

But those dollar signs just kept getting bigger and bigger in his eyes and he finally couldn't stand it any longer. On August 26th, Swinford sent a letter to Governor Perry in which he said he would retire on August 31st. He said in the letter, "After much discussion and consultation with District 87's leaders, community leaders and good friends, I have decided the greatest parting gift to my constituents would be to retire early."

I won't dispute that his retirement is indeed a gift to the residents of the Panhandle, but that's not why he's retiring early. In a word it's -- MONEY. He was set to take a lobbying job (after all, there's only 1500 lobbyists in Austin), but now he's also been offered a job as a consultant. He's still trying to decide which one he wants to take, but you can be sure it'll pay 10 or 15 times his salary as a state representative (at a minimum).

Swinford has spent 20 years representing the Panhandle in Austin and has made a lot of political friends. He could be very valuable to someone wanting something from the legislature, and he's planning to get the big bucks while the getting is good.

Frankly, this sort of thing shouldn't even be allowed. It has a definite stink of the unethical. Representatives (and senators) in the state legislature should not be allowed to become lobbyists or "consultants" for several years after they leave their elected legislative job (10 years sounds about right to me). These legislators were elected to serve the people of their district, not to set themselves up for a high-paying influence-peddling position.

Swinford was also playing party politics with the early retirement. He was hoping to get the governor to call a special election to fill out the remainder of his term -- a special election that would be held on the same day as the general election in November. Since the same person would probably win both the special election and the general election, that person could be sworn in early and would have about two months seniority over other freshmen legislators elected in the general election.

But to my surprise (and to his credit), the governor is not going to call a special election. His spokeswoman says "the timing and the circumstances of Swinford's resignation don't merit it." I have to agree with the governor. A special election held on the same day as the general election would just be an exercise in silliness.

Good riddance to Swinford. Now we just have to see if we can elect someone better to replace him.

Fuel For Arson - Hate, Bigotry, Ignorance

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.