Mark Twain -anti-war short 1904

One of the greatest anti-war pieces was written by Mark Twain in 1904. How little things have changed in the patriotic wars of America. I first read this in 1969 when we were in the middle of a little vacation in South-east Asia.

from wiki
The War Prayer" wasn't published until six years after Twain's death, in unusual circumstances. World War I had broken out more than two years previously, and in that time had produced unprecedented casualties on both sides, yet with the U.S. still officially neutral, and President Wilson running for re-election on the slogan He Kept Us Out of War. Twain's story appeared in Harper's Monthly, November 1916. Had the attempt been made to publish it five months later, in April 1917, it might ironically have been seen as too unpatriotic for print.


Audio below and note on audio:
Mark Twain wrote The War Prayer in 1904. Since then, every gerneration facing war has found it as fresh and timely as when it was written. This radio drama version was produced and directed by W.D. Sherman Olson and stars Abbie Williams and folk singer/song writer Billy Krause.

-----------------

More public option news--count down--Keith Obermann

This is from last evening's countdown dealing with Public Option movement in congress:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

-----------
a little political analysis from next segment of Keith Obermann's Countdown:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

--------------
Again, I would not hold breath awaiting action. Public Option is "not" single payer, no matter how it is sugar coated and doomed to failure in the long run. Some versions of public option are little more than massive "bailout" of insurance industry.

Sad truth is that healthcare companies and concerns will not be able to substain their massive profits unless they big time stick it to the consumers. That is a sure fire way for failure.

Yes, they have failed now to deliever adequate economic healthcare for the nation.

Public option lives--healthcare Rachel Maddows show 2-17, 2010

In case you missed this last evening, you might find of interest that some do not believe the public option dead in the senate.

Alas, the public option is no where close to single payer healthcare. Some say it might be a start, but not in our lifetimes:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

---------------------------
This is Keith Obermann on same topic yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

----------------------------
One wonders where Senator Claire is on this position?

Medicare for All: Still the One Feb, 2010

I participated in the Monday Healthcare-Now teleconference. It was very informative.

This is the link to the conference in full. About 70 minutes.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/notes-from-medicare-for-all-still-the-one/



--------------from the site: Explination of the Public Option:

If you missed last night’s national conference call, “Medicare for All: Still the One,” you can listen to it here. Also, please find a transcript of Kip Sullivan’s remarks below.

We had about 250 people on this call, and we’d like to thank all of you for participating, and donating. This call’s success means that we can keep organizing national conference calls in the future. Thank you for your support!
--------------
further down the page:::

THE ORIGINAL HACKER PROPOSAL
Hacker first proposed what he called Medicare-Plus in a paper he wrote in 2001. He published another version of his idea in 2007. In that second paper, he called his idea Health Care for America. The label “public option” didn’t appear till early 2009.

Hacker’s idea, basically, was to have the federal government create a health insurance company that would sell health insurance to the nonelderly. Hacker assumed this company would enjoy all the efficiencies of Medicare and would therefore be able to undersell the insurance industry. Hacker never used the word “company” or “business” to describe the federal program he had in mind. Instead, he repeatedly described his proposed public entity as a program that would be “like Medicare.” Hacker’s refusal to use appropriate terminology contributed greatly to the confusion that became rampant among PO advocates by 2009.

There is, of course, a huge difference between what Hacker was proposing and Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer program – it’s the only insurer of basic medical services for Americans over 65 and the disabled. Because it is a single-payer insuring such a large population, and moreover a population with above-average medical needs, Medicare enjoys advantages that the insurance industry will never enjoy, including huge size, low overhead, and an ability to induce docs and hospitals to accept below-industry reimbursement rates.

The public company Hacker was proposing would have to compete with 1,500 other insurance companies within the multiple-payer jungle. The public company he was proposing would NOT be a single-payer – it would be just one insurance company among hundreds. It’s therefore far more accurate to refer to what Hacker was proposing as a company, a corporation, or a business that would be set up by the government. It was ALWAYs misleading for Hacker to refer to his proposed entity as a government program like Medicare, and it was EXTREMELY misleading for him and his acolytes to continue doing so after the Democrats adopted a microscopic version of the PO.

However, the early version of the PO that Hacker proposed DID have the potential to become a Medicare-for-all program for nonelderly Americans. In his 2001 and 2007 papers, Hacker said he wanted to give his public insurance company several very important advantages that would have allowed the company to start out with enormous size and to grow even larger early in its life. Hacker proposed five advantages or criteria for his original PO:

(1) It had to be prepopulated (he would have shifted Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees and all or some of the uninsured into the PO);
(2) Subsidies would go only to the PO;
(3) It would be open to all non-elderly Americans;
(4) It would have the authority to use Medicare rates (this was not as important as the first three criteria); and
(5) The insurance industry had to offer the same coverage.

According to an analysis of Hacker’s 2007 paper by the Lewin Group, Hacker’s original PO would have enjoyed premiums 23% below those of the insurance industry and would have enrolled 129 million people, or about half the non-elderly population. According to the Lewin Group, Hacker’s original version of the public company would grow rapidly, from insuring half the non-elderly in 2008 to two-thirds of the non-elderly within a decade. Conversely, the insurance industry’s share of the non-elderly market would shrink from half to 35% within ten years.

In my view, the Lewin Group grossly underestimated how much damage Hacker’s original version of the PO would do to the insurance industry. I think a public insurer with half the non-elderly population and premiums at 23 percent below the industry’s would have quickly destroyed the insurance industry. Twenty-three percent is an enormous differential. To put 23 percent in perspective, consider that HMOs in the 1980s had premiums only 5-10% lower than the traditional non-managed-care insurance companies they eventually displaced. Even though most Americans didn’t want to be in HMOs, employers all over the country pushed their employees into HMOs in order to take advantage of that 5-10 percent premium differential. And that was two decades ago when premiums took less of a bite out of everyone’s pocket. Can you imagine how fast employers would dump their existing insurance company today for a 23 percent cut in their premium, especially if the PO were as kind and gentle as PO advocates say it would be?

It’s hard to believe that someone as informed about health policy as Hacker didn’t know his original PO had the potential to become a single-payer for the non-elderly. Let me read to you a portion of a transcript of a phone conference call sponsored by EPI on January 11, 2007 in which two participants, Ezra Klein (a blogger for the Washington Post) and Bob Kuttner (co-editor of the American Prospect), asked Hacker why he thought his proposal would succeed any better than Clinton’s 1993 Health Security Act. Klein says, “What you’ve proposed here is much more fundamentally dangerous to the actors who killed it [ie, the Clinton bill] the last time around.” Kuttner, who must have seen an early draft of the Lewin report, says, “[Y]ou’re setting in train a gradual process whereby the whole system gradually shifts from 50/50 [meaning, 50 percent are in the public program and 50 percent are insured by the insurance industry] to 60/40 to 70/30. So after a couple of generations, almost everybody is in the quasi-Medicare program. Is that the intent?”

Hacker denied that was his intent. He agreed that the PO would start out at 50 percent, but then it would basically just get stuck there despite its enormous cost advantages over the private insurance industry. Here’s what Hacker said: “[Lewin] did not forecast a huge shift over just a 10-year period. I think it was a shift of two percentage points over that period. So, at that rate, we’d have everyone within Medicare in about 250 years.”

But Hacker was wrong. As I’ve already told you, when the Lewin Group released its analysis of Hacker’s proposed program a year after this conversation took place, they projected a 34% increase in the PO’s enrollment over a decade, not 2%. And as I said, I think Lewin was being way too conservative.

Hacker’s answer to Klein and Kuttner illustrates the strange state of denial Hacker and other PO advocates induced in themselves as they tried to sell the PO as a politically feasible alternative to single-payer even though it would, in its original form, do a lot of damage to the insurance industry and would probably have led to a single-payer for the non-elderly.

But Hacker’s confusion (and the confusion of other PO leaders) over whether the PO would be more feasible than a single-payer was MINOR compared to the confusion that set in when congressional Democrats adopted a microscopic version of Hacker’s original PO. When the Democrats released their draft legislation in June 2009, it was clear they had stripped out four of the five criteria for the public company that Hacker had specified in his original papers.

The only criterion the Democrats kept was the one requiring insurance companies to offer the same coverage as the PO. The other four criteria –
• the one calling for prepopulation of the PO,
• the one requiring that only the PO get subsidies,
• the one requiring that the PO be available to all non-elderly Americans, and
• the one authorizing Medicare’s reimbursement rates
– all four of those criteria were gone. Now it was crystal clear to anyone who understood what Hacker had originally proposed that the PO the Democrats had adopted was so small it wouldn’t affect the insurance industry. The Congressional Budget Office said the Senate version of the PO would insure no one; it said the House version would insure 10 million, and then later scaled that back to 6 million.
Now that the PO had been shriveled down from 129 million people to zero to 6 million, PO advocates faced not only the same old political feasibility problem (the insurance industry and the Republicans continued to scream about the tiny PO as if it were a big PO or a single-payer), but they also faced a huge logistical problem. A PO that represented no one on the day it opened for business wouldn’t be able to crack most insurance markets in the US, and might not even be able to survive.

This is where Hacker’s habit of always comparing the PO to Medicare became extremely misleading. When Medicare commenced operations on July 1, 1966, it represented nearly all seniors. With the exception of a few hospitals in the south that temporarily resisted integrating their facilities, all clinics and hospitals in America immediately began accepting Medicare enrollees even though there was no law requiring them to do so. The reason all clinics and hospitals did that is that Medicare represented an enormous constituency on day one and providers didn’t want to walk away from so many patients and so much money.

The tiny PO the Democrats incorporated into their bills was no Medicare. It would represent no one on the day it opened for business. It would have to do what NO insurance company has done in the last three or four decades, which is to create a new, successful insurance company in every state in the US. In fact, I’m pretty sure no insurance company has expanded into even ONE new market in the last three decades by building a new insurance company from scratch. For the last three decades, insurance companies that wanted to expand their empires have done so by BUYING their way into new markets. That is, they bought an existing insurance company.

But Hacker and other PO advocates blithely ignored this issue. They ignored it because they continued to talk about the Democrats’ PO as if it were the same huge PO Hacker had originally proposed. I might add that the CBO totally ignored this issue as well. The CBO never examined the issue of whether the PO would be able to crack even one US market, much less all of them. I think the CBO was being extremely generous to the House version of the PO when they said it would insure 6 million people.

Nevertheless, as inexplicably rosy as it was, the CBO’s reports on the PO sealed its fate. The poor PO was already hated by the right wing and the insurance industry. It was being promoted by people who cared more about an insurance industry bailout than the PO. And now the CBO was revealing the truth about the Democrats’ version of the PO – that it was laughably small and for that reason was going to save little or no money.

When Democrats throughout Congress, especially those in swing districts, asked themselves why they should vote for something as controversial as a PO when the darn thing wouldn’t save any money, PO advocates had no answers.

To sum up: The PO rose to prominence because powerful Democratic constituency groups thought single-payer was not feasible but the PO was. They were wrong. The PO failed politically, and it failed as a policy idea. Politically, it turned out to be no more feasible than single-payer. As a policy, it was a disaster. The tiny PO adopted by Democrats would have accomplished nothing other than to embarrass all of us who believe government must play a prominent role in insuring the uninsured.


http://www.healthcare-now.org/notes-from-medicare-for-all-still-the-one/

Recess appointments: time for Obama to make them and now

Just got this e-mail. Again, members of political action committee should take note and take action. Obama should do the recess appointment and not wait for an "Era of Good Feeling" to decend upon the senate.

In fact, time for the Obama administration to try a new tactic: LEADERSHIP. Yes, I know this is a novel idea.

-------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, February 15, 2010 7:13 PM
From: Unions for Single Payer HR676

To: SOAR St Louis

Subject: Tell White House to Make Recess Appointments to NLRB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The email below was sent out by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Below
it is a background story from the Washington Post last Friday.

We urge all our readers to call the White House.

Dear union member:

We've just learned that the Senate and the White House cut a last-minute
deal with obstructionist Republicans to approve some of President Obama's
nominees. But guess who was left out of the deal? Yup, that's right:
working people.

Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, highly respected labor lawyers whom
President Obama nominated for seats on the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), weren't included in the deal. Meanwhile, the NLRB, tasked with
protecting American workers' rights, has been handicapped with vacancies
for the past two years.

Enough is enough. Call the White House switchboard today and demand that
President Obama fight Republican obstructionism and use his executive
power to appoint Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to the NLRB during the
Presidents Day recess.

Call the White House Switchboard NOW: 202-456-1111 OR 202-456-1414.

Becker already has received majority backing in the Senate and both won
committee support, but the Republican minority has continually blocked
their appointments.

America's working people are getting short shrift and it's past time to do
something about it. Workers need an NLRB that can enforce the National
Labor Relations Act and protect workers' rights--not an NLRB handicapped
by vacancies.

In solidarity,
Richard L. Trumka
AFL-CIO President


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/afl-cio-urges-supporters-to-co.html

AFL-CIO urges supporters to challenge White House about NLRB
By Alec MacGillis
The Washington Post

In a clear indication that labor unions are running out of patience with
the Obama administration, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka sent out a
sharply worded action alert to its entire e-mail list Friday evening,
urging phone calls to the White House to protest its inaction on two
nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans have called one nominee, Craig Becker, a controversial choice
for the board. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was "the first person
nominated" for the NLRB "who comes directly from a labor organization."
Becker is the associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO and Service
Employees International Union.

After the GOP threatened to filibuster the nomination, senators refused
Tuesday to move to a vote on Becker, killing his confirmation. The White
House has since indicated that President Obama will not appoint Becker to
the position during Congress' recess next week.

That latest news prompted Trumka's e-mail, in which he also objects to the
languishing nomination of labor trial lawyer Mark Pearce to the board.
Larry Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute,
said it was not surprising that the AFL-CIO was taking up arms.

"It is pretty disheartening to see the president not really protecting his
nominees," Mishel said. "People need to see him fighting."

The labor movement has swallowed a lot in the first year of the Obama
administration. Unions had very high hopes after eight years of George W.
Bush, who invited the president of the AFL-CIO across the street to the
White House only once in eight years (when the pope visited).

And organized labor had done a great deal to help elect a Democratic
president and congressional majority, turning out its members to vote for
Obama in key Rust Belt swing states where he struggled with other
working-class voters.

But Congress and Obama have barely budged on labor's biggest priority, the
Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier to organize workers.
The legislation was watered down to pass muster with conservative Senate
Democrats, but the loss of the 60th Democratic vote last month may well
have doomed even the compromise version.

Organized labor's other big agenda item, universal health care, is also in
limbo. Even if a reform bill passes, it's quite possible that it will not
include some of the last-minute concessions that unions won to reduce the
impact on their members. Of the greatest concern is a tax on costly health
insurance plans, a tax that Obama pushed to include in the legislation
over unions' strong opposition.

Distributed by:
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551
Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http://unionsforsinglepayerHR676.org
02/15/10


============================

And we thank our friends the nurses for their leadership once again.


--








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What to Say to Those Who Think Single Payer Advocates Are Wacko

Some of our Soar folks might find the following of interest. From Common Dreams and is excellent

---------------------


Published on Monday, February 8, 2010 by CommonDreams.org


What to Say to Those Who Think Single Payer Advocates Are Wacko
by Paul Hochfeld

What do we say to our more conservative friends, who genuinely think that the Single Payer solution to our health care crisis would be a disaster? Try what follows. In the end, you may simply agree to disagree. That's O.K., but what follows may give them pause to think.

Already, 60% of all our health care dollars come directly or indirectly (because employers insurance premiums are tax deductible) from the taxpayer. The care of our oldest neighbors are financed by Medicare, i.e. the taxpayers. The care of our disabled neighbors is financed by Medicaid. Ditto the care of our poorest neighbors who, because health follows wealth, are also at greater risk of high expense. Fourteen hundred insurance companies, at significant expense, stratify the rest of the population by "risk". Their top-secret formula results in them covering the employed people, small groups, and individuals who can prove that they are at low risk. What about the others? When those who can't afford the premiums get sick, go bankrupt, and can't pay their bills, "we" all pay for it in higher charges. Furthermore, employer-paid premiums are tax deductible which means insurance company profits are subsidized by the taxpayer.

As near as I can tell, this is a big taxpayer rip-off. Additionally, our non-system is fraught with numerous perverse incentives that result in more care, but not necessarily better care. Physicians must share a significant part of the blame here, but that's a different, though important, discussion. Addressing these perversities is problematic because we don't have a Health Care System we have For-Profit Sick Care Non-System that, to extent that it has any design at all, is designed to serve the for-profit insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. Perverse incentives work for those who profit from them. They don't work for patients or those who pay the bills, i.e., taxpayers.

Single payer means one risk pool. You've heard the slogan. Everyone in. Nobody out. We gather all the money that employers and individuals are currently paying for health care. It's not more money. It's the same money, already being spent on health care, but by pooling it, we can save 20% right off the top. Providers won't have negotiate fee schedules with all the different payers. Providers will only have to send bills, electronically, to one place. Furthermore, substantial savings accrue as the system matures. When an ER Doctor in Oregon sees a patient passing through town, he will access her electronic medical record in Iowa, resulting in, not just less expensive care, but better care. None of this is going to be accomplished until we have Public Health Authorities administering a health care system with the goal of health, financed publicly and delivered privately.

This isn't pie in the sky. Check out what the other developed countries are doing, but please don't respond with anecdotes. We have 45,000 new anecdotes every year that illuminate how real or perceived financial barriers to timely, appropriate care cause unnecessary death.

The real question is whose "system" produces the least number of unnecessary deaths and the least suffering for the dollars being spent? Yes, other countries are struggling because of limited resources, but they are dealing with the problems maturely, they are making difficult decisions, and, by recognizing that health is a human right, they are getting a healthier population for less cost.

Is access to appropriate health care a human right? If not, we can agree to disagree. If so, it is a legitimate function of our government to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks. Also, doesn't the government have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the taxpayer is getting value for its health care dollars? Insurance company CEO's have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits even if it means investing large sums of money in manipulating public policy... and that's exactly what they've been doing. It's unfathomable to me that some people distrust "The United States" more than United Health Care. That may be where we end up agreeing to disagree.

In any case, the taxpayer is being ripped off, big time.

Dr. Paul Hochfeld is an ER Doctor, producer of Health Money and Fear [1], and one of the Mad As Hell Doctors who traveled to DC last September. MadAsHellDoctors.com [2]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/08-6

Reposting of Soar 11-3 local bylaws:
-------------------

local soar bylaws We also will submit to the international the following local bylaws for the Soar group: Note, these are not valid until ratified by International.
Bylaws were oked by International (2-07 addition)

proposed bylaws for our group Soar 11-3, St. Louis chapter of Soar.
NOTE; NO LONGER PROPOSED. INTERNATIONAL HAS OKED AS WRITTEN; JUNE, 2006
Preamble
We believe that the welfare of our members is paramount and our organization is dedicated to the advancement of their intrests and the working man's intrests.
Our aim will be to promote and protect the interest of the membership, to elevate the moral, intellectual, political and social conditions of all retired men and women, to assist each other in sickness and distress. Although retired, social and political events have endangered our rights and benefits as retired working persons and our families.
-----
ARTICLE ONE - Terms of Office
a) terms and conditions of office are specified in SOAR manual.

b) Eligibility for Elected Office
Section 1. All other candidates standing for elected office of the Local Union must be members and have been in continuous good standing for ninety (90) days prior to accepting nomination. The requirement for continuous good standing will be effective . This includes members of SOAR 11-3, PACE and Alliance for Retired Americans whom are in the SOAR 11-3 group.
Section 2. No member may run for or hold more than one elected office simultaneously, with the exception of chairs of standing committees. The President shall be member of all committees.
Section 3. For usage "proof" of good standing, sign in sheets provided at the meetings shall constitute proof as well as paid membership in SOAR 11-3.
-----------
Article TWO- Recall
Section 1. A SOAR 11-3 officer, against whom charges have been filed, in accordance with the procedure established by of the International Constitution, may be suspended from office pending the outcome of the trial, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote at a membership meeting
--------
Article Three - General
Section 1. All Local Union officers (Soar 11-3), committees and other members handling funds or other property of the Union shall at the completion of their duties, turn over all papers, documents, funds, and/or other union property to the properly constituted Local Union officers.
-------------------------------
Article Four- Death of member/Next of Kin of member
Section 1. A bible will be provided to the surviror of the next of kin in the event of the death of a current SOAR 11-3 member or their immediate next of kin residing with the member.
--------------------------

Article Five - Emergency Fund
Section one a) A minimum of $5.00 ($5) per member shall be kept in the local emergency fund.
b) Monies paid out of the emergency fund shall be paid only to or on behalf of SOAR members
c) A Notice of Motion shall be posted for 7 (seven) days in all units before a vote on any withdrawal of more than $ 300 ( 300 dollars) from the emergency fund.
d) the president can authorize expenditures of less than $100 (100) dollars for expenses one his own authority for SOAR meeting expenditures and emergencies upon consulation with the executive board. Between membership meetings or membership votes, the Executive Board shall be the highest authority of the Local and shall exercise general administrative authority and shall be empowered to act on behalf of the membership to the extent urgent business requires prompt and decisive action, subject to subsequent membership approval, but the Executive Board may not take action affecting the vital interests of the Local Union without prior membership approval
--------------------------------------------

Article Six - By-Law Changes
Section 1 a) Local union by-laws may be amended by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote at any meeting providing that Notice of Motion giving details of the amendment has been posted at least sixty (60) days prior to the vote, admendment changes can be proposed at a local level in writing to the president of the local chapter of SOAR for submission at next meeting (s). Posting shall be done on Soar website in event of such submission.
b) All provisions of all chartered local union by-laws not contained herein shall be of no effect until approved in writing by the national executive board nor shall they conflict with federal, state or local laws.
c) The national constitution shall take precedence over these by-laws.

--------------------------
Article Seven- Additional duty of Treasurer
Section 1) The treasurer will, upon request of the individual Soar 11-3 member or spouse submit due payments to the international. Appropriate records shall be kept of such transaction.
----------------

with elections next month and with our accepting nominations at the breakfasts across the state, keep in mind that only members in good standing can run for office and only "due" paying members in good standing can vote. If you owe, please submit to SOAR payment.

----------------------
Note: We have political action comittee, but the insurance committee is currently in limbo. We have "Reunion committee" currently working on reunion of folks from the varied plants

Soar standard bylaws--2010

Below is the current bylaws for Soar "locals". At Soar 11-3 we have an additional "local bylaw" in addition to these. Those local bylaws are posted elsewhere in the blogs we maintain:
---------------------------

SOAR CHAPTER - STANDARD BYLAWS

Amended and approved by the United Steelworkers Executive Board, December 18, 2006

Article 1. Name

This organization shall be known as: SOAR - Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees, Chapter _________________.

Article 2. Purpose

1. The organization shall concern itself with and deal with the social, economic, educational, legislative, and political developments and concerns of its members and spouses, the United Steelworkers and the labor movement. In addition, the purpose of this organization is to better the communities in which said members live, to advance in every way the policies of the United Steelworkers, and to engage in political and legislative action directed at bettering our nations and safeguarding and enhancing the economic security and general wellbeing of all its members and older and retired persons in general through educational, legislative, political, civic, social, community and other activities.

2. To unite in this Chapter, regardless of race, creed, color, sex or national origin, all retired working men and women who are members of the Chapter and who are within the jurisdiction of this Chapter.

Article 3. Membership

1. Membership in the Chapter shall be open to any and all persons who meet the requirements for obtaining a retiree’s honorary membership card from the United Steelworkers and who live in the geographic area covered by the Chapter. In order to obtain a retiree's card, an individual must retire from an enterprise, public or private, or any other place within the jurisdiction of the Union, including service as an employee of the Union, and at that time be a member in good standing of the United Steelworkers. An individual who retires from a supervisory position with an employer represented by the United Steelworkers may be a member of the Chapter if that individual had been a member in good standing in the bargaining unit at any time prior to accepting a supervisory position.

2. The spouse or widow/widower of said retiree shall be eligible for full membership in the Chapter.

3. Any member who for any cause shall cease to be a member of the Chapter shall forfeit all rights and interests in the Chapter.

4. Membership can be transferred from this Chapter to another by obtaining a transfer






certificate from the International SOAR.

Article 4. Dues

1. Dues shall be as set by the Executive Board of SOAR as provided in the SOAR Bylaws and may be supplemented by dues assessed by the Chapter after notice to, and a vote by, the members of the Chapter.

2. Financial records of the Chapter shall be available for periodic review by Chapter Trustees and International SOAR.

Article 5. Executive Board

1. The government of the Chapter shall be vested in its Executive Board.

2. The Chapter Executive Board shall be composed of up to six (6) officers: President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, and three (3) Trustees. The Chapter may decide to add an office of Financial Secretary and/or to separate the office of Secretary and Treasurer.

3. The Chapter Executive Board may adopt rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the Chapter, provided such rules are consistent with these By-Laws.

4. The Chapter Executive Board shall provide periodic reports on the activities, condition and progress of the Chapter.

Article 6. Elective Offices

1. Elective offices of this chapter shall consist of the following: President, Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, and three (3) Trustees and if provided for, Financial Secretary.

2. Nomination of officers shall be held at a membership meeting during the month of
October 1992 and nomination and election of officers will be held in November of 1992 and
every four years thereafter. Each term of office shall be for a period of four (4) years
commencing with the month of November, 1992. No member shall hold more than one (1) office in a Chapter however Chapter officers shall be eligible to serve on the SOAR Executive Board or as a District SOAR Coordinator.

3. Members in good standing as of the date of the nominations and election of officers shall be eligible to hold Chapter office.

4. Vacancies caused by ineligibility, death, or resignation shall be filled by appointment
by the remaining members of the Chapter Executive Board until the next election provided that if
the vacancy is in the office of the President, the Vice President shall serve as President for the





remainder of the term. In the performance of their duties all officers shall conform to the policies and directives of the International Executive Board of the United Steelworkers and the International Executive Board of SOAR.

Article 7. Duties of officers

1. The President of the Chapter shall preside at all meetings of the Chapter and the
Chapter Executive Board. The President shall perform all duties incidental to the office and
advise the Chapter Executive Board on such actions as may be deemed likely to increase the
usefulness and effectiveness of the Chapter. The President shall be ex officio member of all
committees.

2. The Vice President of the Chapter shall assist the President in the performance of the President's duties and shall work under the direction of the President.

3. (a) The Secretary-Treasurer shall perform such duties as may be assigned by the
President or the Chapter Executive Board including but not limited to, providing periodic reports
to the Executive Board of International SOAR on the financial and operational status of the
Chapter.
b) The Secretary-Treasurer shall receive all monies due to the Chapter from the International SOAR, which shall provide a receipt.
(c) The Secretary-Treasurer shall make a detailed financial report at least once a month at a Chapter meeting, covering the receipts and expenditures of all funds of the Chapter.
(d) The Secretary-Treasurer shall examine all bills presented for payment and all claims and determine that they are satisfactorily established.
(e) The Secretary-Treasurer shall record the proceedings of the Chapter in a book kept for that purpose, read all papers, and perform such other duties as required by the International SOAR and as the Chapter may assign.
(f) The Secretary-Treasurer shall receive all communications and issue all notices and correspondence pertaining to the function of the Chapter and present same to the Executive Board of the Chapter for action.
(g) The Secretary-Treasurer must be present and record minutes of all regular meetings or special meetings called for the entire membership by the President of the Chapter and render copy of same to the President within reasonable time after such meeting.

4. (a) The Trustees shall be in charge of all property of the Chapter, subject to the
direction of the Chapter membership, and perform such other duties as the Chapter may assign.
(b) The Trustees shall audit the Chapter books and records of account quarterly. They shall make an audit report to the membership for each quarter of the calendar year at the meeting following the completion of their audit.
(c) The Trustees shall be solely responsible for the membership attendance book at regular and special meetings. They shall sign the book, noting the number of members attending the meetings.






(d) The Trustees shall assist the Chairman in preserving order at meetings.






Article 8. Committees

l. Each Chapter shall have a Pension and Insurance Committee, and a Legislative and Political Action Committee with at least the following responsibilities:
(a) The Pension and Insurance Committee
(i) It shall generally be comprised of not less than three (3) members appointed by the President and approved by the membership. The members of the committee shall select a Chairman of this committee. A majority of members of this committee present at a meeting shall constitute a quorum.
(ii) The committee shall meet at least monthly and at the request of the Executive Board, the President, or the membership to deal with any matters relating to the pension and insurance programs and problems of the members.
(b) The Legislative and Political Action Committee
(i) The Committee shall consist of the three (3) members appointed by the President and approved by the membership.
(ii) The Committee shall recommend for endorsement to the membership, candidates for city, county, state or national office.
(iii) Under no circumstances shall the Committee endorse a candidate for public office without the approval of the membership.
(iv) A candidate for public office shall be permitted to address the membership at a regular meeting, if it has been requested in writing, requested by the Legislative and Political Action Committee, or approved by the membership at a regular monthly meeting.

2. Other Committees

Each Chapter may have such other Committees as it deems necessary such as a Health and Welfare Committee, and a Civil Rights Committee appointed by the President and approved by the membership.

Article 9. Compensation for services

1. Salaries and/or expenses for officers, committee members and employees of the Chapter shall be as follows:

In no event shall the reimbursement for expenses be in excess of the standards used by the International SOAR.







2. All tax requirements in connection with the above payments shall be complied with.

Article 10. Meetings

1. The Chapter shall hold a general membership meeting at least once every month unless the Chapter Executive Board with approval of the membership had adopted another schedule. Regular meetings shall be held on the ___________________of each month unless holidays or other matters of vital importance to the Chapter would necessitate a change in the meeting date. Regular monthly meetings shall be called to order at ___________________.

2. The meeting place will be at ________________________________________.

3. The President of the Chapter shall have the right to call the Executive Board for emergency meetings on instant notice.

4. ''Roberts Rules of Order" for parliamentary procedure shall govern the conduct of all meetings.

Article 11. Amendments

1. Proposed amendments to the By-Laws must be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer, in writing. The Secretary-Treasurer shall submit such proposals to the membership for approval. The proposals must be presented at two (2) consecutive Chapter regular meetings and passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the membership at the next regular meeting.

2. Amendments to these By-laws by Chapters must not conflict with such standard By-
laws and must be submitted to the International SOAR for approval before being placed in effect.

Article 12. Agenda

1. Call meeting to order

2. Roll call of officers by the Recording Secretary

3. Reading of the minutes of the previous meeting

4. Reading of Communications

5. Report of Officers

6. Report on SOAR activities






7. Report of Special Committees

8. Reports of Standing (or Permanent) Committees

9. Unfinished Business

10. New Business

11. Good and Welfare

12. Adjournment

-----------------------

Note: I am the vice president and chair of the political action committee. We will be having another meeting shortly (after some of the politics shake out in Missouri).

So far, we have endorsed Carnahan for Senate. Blunt is a bozo and has so seldomly voted for something we believe it is a media event when he does.

We need members of the "insurance committee". Ralph cannot do all the work himself
Yes, we do have the problem of "multiple" insurances and since some of the insurance companies refuse to send us data; our members are denied benefits.

Sarah Palin and the teabag convention

In case you did not shell out all that money to attend, below is the Sarah Palin speech at the teabag convention in Tenn last weekend. I fear if I visited Nashville, I might have missed the teabaggers.

I am not a Palin fan by the way, but she does give a good speech (even if it lacks certain things--like facts or informed judgement, that sort of thing).
-----------------------
Sarah Palin Keynote Speech at National Tea Party Convention

NPR teaparty and younger voters.

Folks following politics might find the following audio of interest.

If the GOP, tea party and anyone else makes inroads with younger voters; they could win many an election in several key states.

Historically, younger voters generally stay out of politics; but they are credited with putting Obama over the top in several swing-states in the 2008 election.

Alas, the tea baggers seem to have read "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer (1951). Short book and one I recommend folks whom follow politics read.

From wiki: "Hoffer argues that mass movements such as fascism and communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties' fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either.

The book also explores the behavior of mass movements once they become established (or leave the "active phase"). With their collapse of a communal framework people can no longer defeat the feelings of insecurity and uncertainty by belonging to a compact whole. If the isolated individual lacks vast opportunities for personal advancement, development of talents, and action (such as those found on a frontier), he will seek substitutes. These substitutes would be pride instead of self-confidence, memberships in a collective whole like a mass movement, absolute certainty instead of understanding.

Hoffer does not take an exclusively negative view of "true believers" and the mass movements they begin. Examples he gives of positive true believers are Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer




-------------------
quotes from Hoffer:

A dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the

An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.

Charlatanism of some degree is indispensable to effective leadership.

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.

The misery of a child is interesting to a mother, the misery of a young man is interesting to a young woman, the misery of an old man is interesting to nobody.

When cowardice is made respectable, its followers are without number both from among the weak and the strong; it easily becomes a fashion.


Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil

Workplace discrimination NPR

Think you have rights after work? Some employers do not seem to think you do and here is a couple of horror stories from NPR.

In Missouri, workers not in a union might find this audio to be true. Nationally, workers have few rights. This audio is only the tip of the iceberg.

In fact, an "at will" employee can be dismissed for about any reason with no reason given by employer.

By the way, an employee trying to form an union can indeed be fired and there are thousands of examples. Illegal? Perhaps, but proving it in most cases cannot be proven even in states and areas that the practice is not permitted. Fines and penalties on companies doing this is a joke and national discrace in a nation that values rights.

Employee Free Choice Act would help, but even the proposed changes do not go far enough to insure worker rights.

The Quants NPR 2-1-2010

This is a story from yesterday on NPR on how geeks did it to Wall Street. Coupled with Wall Street greed this story is a must hear for folks wishing to know what happened to the economy.

Alas, waiting for congress to have hearing to find out what occured might take a long time; if ever.

Seems our leaders do not wish to know the truth and if I was conspiracy guy, would assume the Whitewash and cover-up was done to cover behinds.

Audio and again, well worth the time (29 minutes)

sos advice from the chairman of the board

This is a little message from our friend, the SOS chairman. Seems some in the Obama administration believes this guy's corporate policy the way it should be and should not be changed.

Alas, some dems and the GOP feel this way as well as Wall Street.

------------------------------
from the origninal:

http://www.FreeChoiceAct.org/page/s/y... Think your boss is bad? This CEO think hand sanitizer is healthcare coverage and soda is an employee benefit.

We all know something's out of whack when CEOs rake in hundreds of times what their employees earn, and workers get the boot just for talking about unions.

It could almost be a bad joke if it weren't such a serious problem.

That's why we're hoping you take a minute to join one million people in support of the Employee Free Choice Act after you watch this video we made with the award-winning producers at Brave New Films.

Watch the video, and then sign the petition and help us reach one million signatures at http://www.freechoiceact.org/page/s/y...

The full cast and crew are:

Starring Clint Carmichael as Mr. Bigman
Executive Producer -- Robert Greenwald
Director / Producer -- Christopher Sprinkle
Co-Producer -- Leda Maliga Associate Producer -- Erikka Yancy
Director of Photography -- Michael Totten Production
Designer -- Rachel Payne
-------------------------------------------



--------------------

payday quick loans--scam

This is from CBS last year. Good to know the folks in Jefferson City and DC have reacted quickly for they have yet to address this issue.

I guess healthcare and bank reform took priority. Too bad they did nothing except talk and play politics.

This "North Carolina" story could well be down the street from any of us.

This is the law in Missouri:


Mississippi 75-67-501 et seq. $400 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no check cashing business licensed under this article shall directly or indirectly charge or collect fees for check cashing services in excess of the following: (a) Three percent of the face amount of the check or $5, whichever is greater, for checks issued by the federal government, state government, or any agency of the state or agency of the state or federal government, or any county or municipality of this state; (b) Ten percent of the face amount of the check or $5, whichever is greater, for personal checks; or (c) Five percent of the face amount of the check or $5, whichever is greater, for all other checks, or for money orders. A licensee shall not directly or indirectly charge any fee or other consideration for cashing a delayed deposit check in excess of 18 percent of the face amount of the check.

Missouri 408.500 to 408.506 $500 or less Any person, firm, or corporation may charge, contract for and receive interest on the unpaid principal balance at rates agreed to by the parties. No borrower shall be required to pay a total amount of accumulated interest and fees in excess of 75 percent of the initial loan amount on any single loan.

In Illinois:

$1,000 or 25 percent of the consumer's gross monthly income, whichever is less
No lender may charge more than $15.50 per $100 loaned on any payday loan over the term of the loan.


--------------------

Refund loans on tax refunds--another scam

The vid below shows another "scam" that congress worked on reforms--last year. Nothing done on fed level.

Few states have worked on this and Missouri?

Keep in mind that in St. Louis, Missouri; feds will help fill out taxes for free. Check with local IRS office

St. Louis 1222 Spruce St.
St. Louis, MO 63103 Monday-Friday - 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Services Provided
(314) 612-4002
--------------------------

Chesterfield 1122 Town and Country Commons
Chesterfield, MO 63017 Monday-Friday - 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Open Fri. 1/29/10 until 5:30pm

Services Provided
(314) 612-4002
------------------


Girardeau 137 S. Broadview
Cape Girardeau, MO 63703 Monday-Friday - 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Open Fri. 1/29/10 until 6:30pm

Services Provided
(573) 334-1552
----------
Jefferson City 3702 W. Truman Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65109 Monday-Friday - 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
(Closed for lunch 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.)

Services Provided
(573) 635- 6827





==============

Some are thinking of selling your gold--scam

Folks have asked me about those "buy your gold" offers promoted on television and newspapers in St. Louis, Missouri. The vid below shows the scam in full glory. Beware.

One wonders where our fearless leaders in Jefferson City stand on this scam. Probably with the corporations and businesses scamming folks. After all, Jefferson City crowd thinks the payday loans of 500% are good for the poor.


----------

Michael Whitney Discusses Health Care Reform on The Rick Smith Show

These comments are much the thinking of the folks at Soar 11-3 (retired steelworkers in the St. Louis, Missouri).

Union did not make good deal by rubber stamping tax on healthcare benefits. One wonders if the senate will keep the tax idea and jettison healthcare reform?

From Rick Smith Show late in January, 2010.

In two parts in audio:

------


----------------------------

Krugman on You tube remarks about Fox news and healthcare reporting

This is a little snip from ABC yesterday folks might find of interest.