Legal Memo-Random

So fake, it could be true

Sometimes thanks to The Onion and the surreal existence that is the George W. Bush presidency, its hard to tell what is true and what is not.  I mean, doesn't this just seem plausible:

I mean, can't you picture George W. Bush saying something like:

"September 11 taught us that, in our unstable world, we must take bold, decisive action to protect our citizens from threats both foreign and domestic," Bush said. "We must free citizens everywhere from the threat of financial dependence on the government."

Because I certainly can...with CNN mindless repeating it without any sense of irony, Fox News adding a dozen flags and bringing on military experts to talk about our war president and his bold initiative, etc.

Social Security fix secretly also a Medicaid fix???

I was speaking with someone I know in the Colorado legal community regarding medicaid funding (I do not want to disclose name or relationship, as I do not want to jeopardize the person's job/position).

Anyway, we were having a nice chat about state Medicaid litigation, and the (among others) requirement the recipient have virtually nothing in assets (I believe that they are allowed to have $3,000.00 in Colorado in liquid assets or less), before they are allowed to become Medicaid eligible.

Now lets say someone today applies for Medicaid.  If their 401K or other private retirement savings account has a balance, then after factoring for spousal impoverishment provisions (in Colorado, I think the spouse is allowed to retain $90,000.00 in their 401k - but hey, that should carry you for the next 40 years, right?), they must spend down the rest of their 401k to bring themselves into eligibility for medicaid.

With me so far?  I hope so...

Anyway, today, with Social Security, if you are pre-benefits (IE, you are say, 40 years old, and not collecting), you receive no social security income (so that doesn't get factored into your resources), and you also technically have no specific interest in a sum of money held by the government in the "social security trust fund".  So there really is no way for the state (the administrator of medicaid) to go after that money (whereas if you were 70 and collecting defined social security payments, that would factor into your resource calculation).

But...what if we had George W. Bush's private account systems?

Now (in this theoretical world) all individuals have retirement income accounts that, while government regulated, are likely to be somewhat similar to 401K and other accounts.  If you fall into the need for Medicaid otherwise, its possible that any new law will structure the Private Accounts in a manner that will make them vulnerable to either deny medicaid, or force the recipient to spend down the private account (if they are indeed permitted to do so! - it could be that they would not be permitted to spend the resource down quickly to "preserve" the resource, allowing for a catch-22 denial of medicaid benefits) in order to become eligible for medicaid.

In other words, switching from Social Security to some private account scheme would allow medicaid to have yet another resource to factor into denials, and another resource to force you to spend down your resources (good luck, spouse - you have 90k to live on for the next 30 or 40 years!).

"Solving" the Social Security "problem" could solve the Medicaid problem as well!

I mean, if you don't mind our government's policies going back to the dark ages.

Why W. Bush Won in '04

I think we finally know the answer to this question, with this simple statement:

According to a recent report from the Tax Foundation, the average American spent more on lotteries in 2002 than on reading materials or movies, and more than half of Americans play the odds.  (emphasis obviously added)

SOTU first blush

From Atrios' text of the SOTU:

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must
reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs.  Small
business is the path of advancement, especially for women and
minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation
and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits.  Justice is
distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class
actions and frivolous asbestos claims - and I urge Congress to pass
legal reforms this year.

Uhhh...frivolous asbestos claims?  Asbestos, the known carcinogen?

And then there's:

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social
Security will be paying out more than it takes in.  And every year
afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before.
For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to
come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat -
and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than 300 billion
dollars.  By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and
bankrupt.  If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only
solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or
sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government
programs.

In other words, we borrowed the money.  Do you really expect us to actually pay it back?  I mean, we gave THAT surplus to the wealthy, you moron!

Actually, the statement from Bush is so rife with inaccurate statements and claims, one doesn't know where to begin.

Here is why personal accounts are a better deal.  Your money will
grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system
can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over
and above the check you will receive from Social Security.  In
addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in
your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.
And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the
government can never take it away.

Hahaha...personal accounts...This is the biggest fallacy of the SS argument...ever increasing returns.

Actually, by investing your money in the stock market, you are at the mercy of the Enrons and Global Crossings and Worldcoms, who lied on such a scale, stole on such a massive scale, and for the most part, got away with it on a massive scale.

I'm not saying that investing is bad.  I am saying that creating a whole huge new pool to steal from will create new Enrons and Worldcoms.  The whole purpose of SS is a safety net minimal standard of living that we believe the elderly deserve.

Now, if the Media would stop drooling over every word W. says, and actually started applying some critical analysis, people would know the truth.

More tomorrow, when I'm ready to argue again.

State of the Union - a Prediction

In just a couple of hours, W. is going to give his first State of the Union address since his re-election.  Some predictions:

(1) George W. Bush will say that the SOTU is very strong.  Or some words to that effect.  Can you picture a president coming out on live TV saying "I'm dismayed to report that the state of the union is weak, and in need of constant repair and supervision"???

(2) The Republicans will hoot and hollar and give more standing ovations than you know what to do with.  In fact, I predict that there will be at least one standing ovation that occurs mid-sentence without a a complete or coherent thought being articulated (I know, I know...its a gimme...Bush doesn't speak in complete sentences with complete coherent articulated thoughts anyway).

(3) The Iraqi elections prove that we are successful in Iraq.  The courage of the Iraqi election is a tribute to, well, me (Bush).

(4) Iran, we are watching you.  The groundwork will be laid for our next military intervention.

(5) Freedom is on the March.  Apparently, not knowing international borders, Freedom is just a day or two away from marching into the rest of the Middle East, and the new domino theory will take hold.

(6) Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, our other valuable and undemocratic friends.  We will be pretending to watch you.  Please start to hold elections that are elections in name only.  No need to change power, give women the right to vote, etc.  Just please try to look more democratic.

(7) The Social Security Pooch is screwed.  Not a word of private accounts or privitization.  The word is personal accounts.  Media, you will fall in line (and predictably, they will...you watch...they will fully adopt every word he uses - We'll see Wolf Blitzer say "oh, but these are personal savings accounts - which are different from private accounts...how can you heartless...I mean...how can Democrats possibly oppose this??").

(8) The economy is doing fantastic.  Jobs are everywhere, if you don't mind the risk of being beheaded in Iraq by religious fanatics.

(9) Religion, religion, religion.  W. will play on the public (and media) perception of Democrats out of touch with religion.  At least 1, maybe 2 references to faith based programs.

(10) There will be some out-of-the-blue "money for aids in Africa" type program that will be proposed, but Bush will never act on.

Etc.

You know, I can probably just give the speech for him.  I mean, sure, I'd sound insincere and sarcastic, but that shouldn't stop me :)

Still valid, 150 years later

"This unnecessary war was unconstitutionally commenced by the President, who may be telling us the Truth - but he is not telling the Whole Truth.  He has swept the war on and on, in showers of blood.  His mind, taxed beyond its powers, is running about like some tortured creature on a burning surface."

- Abraham Lincoln (as cited from The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee)

Condi is going to be pissed

What is happening with Condi's husband?

Condi's husband?

As you may recall, there was a bit of, well, humor, when Condi accidentally almost referred to W. as her husband.  But what to make of this picture via CNN?

Making the rounds on Rather

Important question making the rounds today: Why is CBS having its feet held to the fire for believing in fraudulent documents when the President based an entire war, resulting in tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and over a thousand dead Americans, on fraudulent documents, and has yet to really hold anyone accountable?

I, also, am a Uniter, not a Divider

Well, I guess technically, file this one under Dick Cheney, if I had a different category, but since they are both heads on the same evil monster, lets give credit to George W. Bush where he deserves it.

Remember, the Bush-Cheney campaign of 2000? I'm a uniter, not a divider? Bringing seriousness, respect and dignity back to Washington DC?

Well, if that's what you thought, then go f*ck yourself. Here is how the Uniters, not Dividers respond to criticism:

According to congressional aides, Leahy said hello to Cheney following the taking of the Senate group photo on the floor of the chamber.

Cheney, who is president of the Senate, then ripped into Leahy for the Democratic senator's criticism this week of alleged war profiteering in Iraq by Halliburton, the oil services company that Cheney once ran.

Leahy and other Democrats have called for congressional hearings into whether the vice president helped the firm win lucrative contracts in Iraq after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein.

During their exchange, Leahy noted that Republicans had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic because they are opposed to some of President Bush's anti-abortion judges, the aides said.

That's when Cheney unloaded with the "F-bomb," aides said.

Story via Reuters.

There's your f*cking dignity and respect in DC! Suddenly I feel like getting a pretzel with mustard and hailing a NYC taxi cab.