Skip to main content

Cross posted at our new beta site Voices on the Square and the Stars Hollow Gazette
Ever since last weekend, I've been seeing Paul Ryan's mug everywhere and it is all anyone can talk about. I can't help but think this constant attention elevates him a little, even though as Elliot Spitzer said, if he turned his budget to the SEC he would be fined for turning over fraudulent documents. I also don't believe Ryan helps the Romney ticket at all, except for the pretense by the corporate owned media that he's an intellectual instead of someone who just likes crazy immoral Ayn Randian ideas and terrible mathematical projection fantasies.

Regardless, there are too many negatives and a lack of anything at all for Romney to run his campaign on. It won't be a contest, in my opinion, when you look at electoral votes(though the media will have fun playing up the head to head match-ups as if the popular vote still matters) and the President is lucky he doesn't have an opponent who excites the base at all. He's lucky because his record is a mediocre one at best when it comes to what should have been pursued in what many are now calling a depression(economic inequality and private debt overhang is on par with the Great Depression).

This isn't the 90s. He shouldn't have hired people from the 90s that helped crash the economy. He wasted this crisis, which conservatives never do when they get a chance to exploit one, ruining any chance for real reform and stability. It's really not OK because the opportunity only comes once every 20 or 30 years and he blew it. There will be more financial panics and bailouts in the nearer than you think future because of this wasted crisis.

History shows that Dodd Frank will not stop implicit bailout guarantees, specifically, with the massive political power, the biggest power, of TBTF banks. Our safety net is not safe even if Democrats win this election. The banks own our government, so we must be on guard when the lame duck period comes after next November.

I hope there is a major moment of self reflection for a party I'm having trouble recognizing by the second so I'm asking these questions to spur one. I'll give my take on each of them, but you all can answer them for yourself.

  • Q: Is a Democratic Global War on Terror rendering the 4th amendment dead that President Obama and Mitt Romney agree must continue worth it, and if so why?

    My take: No, it's not worth it at all. It upsets me just as much as when Bush was in office. Benjamin Franklin was right. Those that would trade their liberty for security deserve neither. It's really sad that we had people just pretending to hold these 4th amendment principles. Otherwise we might see this BS war on terror end, because it is ill defined, impossible to win, an excuse for civilian deaths, and used to take away all of our privacy rights rendering Al Qaeda more victorious than we thought.

  • Q: Do you feel safer with the National Security State George W. Bush created, because it’s run by a Democrat?

    My take: No. It's pretty stupid. Republicans are not the only ones controlled by fear of terrorism. Many Democrats laughed at soccer or security Moms in 2004, but they now accept this in which they should be ashamed of themselves because they don't stand for anything whatsoever. At least the security Moms had some consistent standards.

  • Q: Since we spend more on our military budget than all other nations combined, is it not insulting that we are told by our Democratic leaders that we must share sacrifice with the 1% to balance the budget?
  • My take: It's as if the hundreds of thousands of war contractors left in Iraq and still in Afghanistan don't have enough blood money. Now we have to pay for their subsidies with our blood here at home. They will be in Afghanistan and Pakistan long after we're gone, if we ever leave, which is doubtful. Too bad there is no intellectual curiosity to learn from this, so we have to pay for it and "share sacrifice?" That's kind of like cutting off our nose to spit in our face.
  • Q: Is it not insulting that we are even talking about the right way to balance our budget during a jobs crisis of demand when there simply is no deficit crisis except the fake deficit crisis in their heads?

    My take: Yes, it's very insulting, because wanting to balance the budget is an idiotic errand for those that know national accounting and the need for deficits right now. It shows a delusion about how wonderful the nineties were and why. It either shows divine Rubinite dangerous ignorance or total indifference to people suffering in this economy. The balanced budget of the late 90s helped make this recession inevitable.

  • Q: Is a nicer Democratic form of austerity acceptable with this level of real unemployment that's going to take massive deficit spending in these economic conditions?

    My take: No, because voters respond to politicians that stand for something and prefer an axe(bold move) to a scalpel showing Democrats needs to oppose the idea altogether(bold move absent). Second of all there is no need for austerity at all specifically with the double dip failures to point to in the Eurozone. But we have to listen to delusional crap pretending the 90s balanced budgets brought on the promised land instead of 2 recessions.

  • Q: Does it worry you that after President Obama and members of a Democratic Congress that are reelected they don’t have to care what you think about any of this?

    My take: Yes, it worries me a lot. Particularly because many here are going to be be shocked when Democrats go after SS and Medicare with impunity, but not me. Congress will buckle in front of this White House like they did on the public option. That will be a moment of sad truth unless Congressional Democrats remember they are Democrats and stop it.

  • Q: Does it worry you that Nancy Pelosi supports pursuing Simpson Bowles after the election even though it cuts Social Security?

    My take: Yes, it worries me a lot, because even the original Simpson Bowles had the chained CPI metric for SS which is a cut. Yes, it amounts to a cut, unless you don't understand that a lower metric means a lower measurement which means lower SS income. Also her statement on it being clear that "we must enter into an era of austerity" shows just how dangerously naive she is.

  • Q: Does it bother you that both campaigns in this election are accusing each other of coddling the poor while touting the merits of welfare reform?

    My take: Yes, given the human toll of this effective depression, to have a contest on who's more icky for supporting the poor while touting Bill Clinton's welfare reform as the metric is insulting. Especially since the word "poor" has become a dirty word in this campaign.

  • Q: Does it bother you that the foreclosure fraud sellout touted as a success is a failure that ended any serious attempts to help those drowning in private debt overhang from the housing bubble?

    My take: Yes this fake mortgage task force and foreclosure fraud immunity with foreclosures picking up this year with the million underwater in mortgage debt is an immoral and economic sellout of the highest order. It will continue to be even though so many want one of the biggest economic problems we have via debt deflation to go away. Well it's not going to go away even though our leaders shamefully are ignoring it.

  • Q: Does it bother you that our feckless Attorney General let Goldman Sachs off the hook for selling shitty subprime mortgage deals to their clients they laughed at in emails calling them Muppets among other kinds of fraud?

    My take: Yes, its' embarrassing that even the Bush Justice department had a better record of prosecuting financial crimes and this was an easy one. At this point it's embarrassing to defend Eric Holder's record. He should be fired.

  • Q: Do you think a financial system where fraud and financial crime becomes the new normal works for anyone but the .01% and the politicians they own?

    My Take: No and the historical record proves this all across the world. The only use of this financial system is for the Robber barons who own and control it.

  • Q: If Democrats do not properly respect the Democratic Party Platform defined by the New Deal and the Great Society, are they still Democrats?

    My take: No, they are not. Some may have a problem with all of this I bring up, but they cant tell me to go away because though they can decide to not care about this stuff, what they can't do is consider themselves real Democrats if one reads the party platform. It doesn't matter if the third way to economic hell is paved with delusional good intentions.

  • Q: If one is inconsistent on their stated positions on all issues depending on which party is in power, can they really claim to have the same principles?
  • My take: No. They can't claim to have the same principles. There's no ifs, ands, or "I have principles, BUT" about it."
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (28+ / 0-)

    ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

    by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:15:55 AM PDT

  •  ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, auron renouille, pfiore8

    Q: do any of these things matter to my vote, as a citizen of this declining, fatuous and violent empire?
    My take: No.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:27:46 AM PDT

    •  Fair enough so why vote then? (7+ / 0-)


      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:33:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I vote (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98, JoanMar, auron renouille

        because a whole lot of other people -- who do not have that right -- will be impacted (albeit in a very small way, given it is just one vote) by my choice.  

        I vote because whether this empire ends fast or slow will change the level of pain for millions of people.  They count.  A lot more than my sense of righteousness.

        I vote because how it all looks when America is no longer an insane empire will depend in large part to whether we survive this brutal adolescence.  

        I vote because even if you're doomed -- and things aren't looking good for our species at the moment--  how you conduct yourself counts.  Maybe especially if you're doomed.  Is this fatalism?  Maybe.  But if your alternative involves a world where nobody gets to live -- either an empire free utopia or Jesus on a stick or the planet Kolob -- then I'd argue so-called fatalism is the one concerned with the lives we actually get.

        But mostly I vote because right now -- in the forseeable, immediate future -- the outright fasicsts will make this place unlivable.  And there's enough burning the village to save it crap going on right now, don't you think?

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:13:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who counts? (9+ / 0-)

          I hear anecdotes, but nobody I've seen. Nobody I know personally. I've seen people circle the drain and go down in the last four years, I've seen people I know personally go through nightmare months of paperwork for mortgage reduction only to not get it in the end. Jobs, houses, businesses, health insurance--gone. I'm sorry if that makes me seem ungrateful for not feeling like me, my family or friends have counted for squadoodle, but there it is.

          I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

          by triv33 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:30:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't say we should be grateful (1+ / 3-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            Nada Lemming, gooderservice, PhilJD

            Just that it beats the hell out of not voting, voting for the other guy, or tossing your vote away on Roseanne.  

            I think Obama is a centrist and as, basically, a democratic socialist, I think this administration is so far from something that helps people I could puke.  To spite real progress on some fronts (its not single payer, but it will insure my friends and myself) in general we're asked to close our eyes, daily, to world class cruelties and injustices -- most in the name of jingoism or rank.  But I also think -- 80 odd days before the election -- the diarist might as well be a paid right winger.  I don't think there's a world where America suddenly wakes up and adopts reasonable government -- we're split down the middle and hate each other, pretty much.  The vote I would rather give to good government is going to keep Romney from being president.  

            And, y'know, that's enough to get me to stamp and sign my ballot.  Mileage varies, of course, but I think it is a very good reason.

            ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

            by jessical on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 01:28:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and I didn't say I wouldn't vote. (9+ / 0-)

              You see, I am still going to vote, regardless. But people of conscience do ask themselves these things. They do struggle with them.  At least I do.

               It's just that you stated something about changing the level of pain and how "those people count." Well, the level of pain has changed and not for the better. Not that I've seen. Nobody asked you to be grateful, I said sorry for that level of pain making me not seem so. I know those people, I am those people and yes, in the future my husband will have insurance too, maybe he'll even be able to afford to use it. Who knows?

               But I also think that comparing the diarist to a paid right winger for asking  honest and legitimate questions is pretty off base.

              I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

              by triv33 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 04:52:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What do you mean? (7+ / 0-)
              the diarist might as well be a paid right winger.
              He's not.  He has a heart of gold and cares about people.  


              And no, when a citizen shows up at the polling place and votes, voting for anyone who's on the ballot, or even writing in a candidate, is NOT throwing away their vote.

              Just that it beats the hell out of not voting, voting for the other guy, or tossing your vote away on Roseanne.
            •  hr (6+ / 0-)

              For baseless accusation of shillery against a well known and respected kossack who won a scholarship to net roots nation.  This is a bannable offense.  

              ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

              by Nada Lemming on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:11:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I joined you. I thought I'd give that member (5+ / 0-)

                a chance to explain, but granted, they might not be on line right now but didn't want to let that stand too long.

                •  Well then (1+ / 2-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  gooderservice, Nada Lemming

                  I suggest you HR this too and request my banning.

                  It looks just like shillery.  It has the same impact -- to convince people to stay home.  I said it might as well be.  I stand by that, so you can add another donut in good and righteous conscience.


                  ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

                  by jessical on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:55:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What about activism? (5+ / 0-)

                    Our activity does not stop the day after election day ~ if we want to protect Social Security and Medicare from those who are running on platforms of attacking it, we have to be working on that the day after election day no matter who wins, because both major party candidates propose to attack Social Security and Medicare.

                    The Lesser of Two Evils argument, "Why Vote for Evil", "But why don't you want Less Evil?" can run continuously between now and then without every reaching a conclusion ...
                    ... but given that we have a choice between the relatively greater and lesser evil, we also have to work on fighting the evil.

                    And the plan if the President wins is to pursue the attack in the lame duck session, so there is no time to "wait until after the election" to start spreading the word on fighting the attack.

                    Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

                    by BruceMcF on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 08:13:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  No, it really doesn't. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    priceman, poligirl, Nada Lemming

                    And repeating that over and over again doesn't make it so.

                    It looks just like shillery.
                    You have no basis on which to make that accusation.  You're wrong, and your comment is egregious.  Hence, an HR.
                    •  The way I read it... (0+ / 0-)

                      Was to state that this close to the election that saying things that can be taken as fatalistic can be dangerous if read by a true "undecided" I am very new to this sight but if I find that  "jessical" is banned for her comments I may not return.

              •  jess is one of the good ones. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, triv33, poligirl

                she just doesn't know priceman.

                •  I have no issue with her, but the comparison (6+ / 0-)

                  of Price with a paid rightwing shill is worth one of my rare donuts.

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 08:33:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I know that. (5+ / 0-)

                  Of course I do. I can't talk about these things in the abstract, pfiore8, my husband has been without a job and insurance for almost two years. His unemployment insurance is gone. I'm on Medicare--cuts only to waste? Be on bare bones Medicare and tell me that. Watch your sister lose her business and then watch it sell at auction for less than a quarter of what the bank refused to re-negotiate that loan for, then her home after a year of jumping through hoops. Another sister moves home with you and your family to live with your parents. Watch your 77 year old father go off to work every night to drive a forklift. Watch your Governor go after the services your special needs child desperately counts on and that's just my immediate family--I haven't even touched on the wider circle of pain. Then I read how my President is so disappointed that he hasn't gotten credit for being willing to cut Medicare and Social Security.

                  And so when I see jessical saying this to priceman, this might as well be a right winger, I try to tell her it's not about righteousnous or parties, not for priceman or for me. It's about the actual positions these politicians hold and how people haven't counted, millions of people haven't counted very much at all.

                  I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

                  by triv33 on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 08:56:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ah.... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    triv33, PhilJD, poligirl

                    sorry triv. i didn't know your situation.

                    if jess had known priceman, then she would have never suggested it. but she's one who is desperate to do whatever ... no matter how small the measure ... to keep some safety nets in place. so you are both perfectly aligned on this.

                    it is my read that jess really believes voting D gives us more breathing time to figure out some other alternatives. i don't and the two of us have had quite some debate over the last years.

                    hey... i send lots of good thoughts your way. and a long-distance {{{{{{ hug }}}}}}

            •  On this point ... (6+ / 0-)
              But I also think -- 80 odd days before the election -- the diarist might as well be a paid right winger.
              Its always a given number of days before some election. And with an attack on Social Security and Medicare coming up in November/December, there is no time to wait until after election day, take a breath, and then switch gears from adulation for Obama to defense against the policies of depression-inducing deficit reduction that he is proposing in the election.

              Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

              by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You are still pre-betrayal (6+ / 0-)

              if you think Obama is going to save you from anything Paul Ryan proposes between now and November.

              "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

              by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:25:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  hey jess... (5+ / 0-)

              as far as i know, priceman is one of the few authentic voices left (left hahahahah) here.

              and priceman, PhilJD et al, if you don't know jess, let me introduce you to another authentic voice and great mind.

              if you take a look at who's recommended this diary... i believe you will see a list of screen names representing the best of what's left at this site...

              smooches to you jess... and you know i am withholding my vote, refusing to continue to legitimize this corrupt system.

        •  But none of the issues matter (5+ / 0-)

          OK. Whatever floats your contradiction.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 10:33:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So I assume that, if you are voting on ... (5+ / 0-)

          ... whether the empire ends more quickly or more slowly, you'll be voting 3rd party, since that's one point where the two parties are in agreement on stretching out the empire for as long as possible.

          Its awfully brave to take that stand at dkos. Salute.

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This deficit fever is making it (19+ / 0-)

    very hard to choose between the party that wants to cut our safety net and the one that's willing to.

    I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

    by triv33 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

  •  My hope is (10+ / 0-)

    My hope is the "what might have been's" don't tell the whole story about this election.  Unfortunately, caution was used when boldness was called for.  The end result is an election that is far too close for comfort.  

    If the boldness that was warranted by the situation was used, this election would be a mere formality to reelection.  

    We'll never really know.  

  •  Democrats have an honesty problem. (12+ / 0-)

    They're neoliberals masquerading as "progressives," and so there has to be lots of pretend.  Obama is a leftist and so on.

    Republicans, on the other hand, are honest about pursuing policies which lead to ruination.  They have no problem with neoliberalism because they identify with its top 1% beneficiaries.  All they have to do to sell that stuff is pretend that ruination is good for you.  Much less pretend, but still pretend.  As I said in my diary for today: "Global mass suicide, after all, will solve all of our problems."

    "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

    by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:11:45 AM PDT

    •  This is true (5+ / 0-)

      They stab you in the front.

      Ahh, that you did. Tipped and reced and like me, ignored. ;)

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:17:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, this neoliberalism points to ... (4+ / 0-)

      ... a weakness of simple ideological spectra in terms of understanding the range of political possibilities.

      You can be tremendously liberal, on a liberal v authoritarian scale, and tremendously progressive, on a progressive v reactionary scale ... and if you believe the neoliberal story on how the economy works, you are likely to pick more reactionary policies than a moderate on both fronts who has their economic theory grounded somewhere in reality.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 10:59:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My congress critter "the rev" (15+ / 0-)

    had a town hall in which he publicly signed on to Simpson Bowles. I don't even need to ask Sen. Claire McCaskill. She is the one who signed on to gut Acorn without any hearings. My other Senator is Blunt, who is in league with every crazy rethug nutter he can find. So tell me. Where is MY representation? And Cleaver is a member of the progressive caucus! What a crock!

    American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

    by glitterscale on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM PDT

  •  I hear Obama will be freed by re-election (9+ / 0-)

    I've been told that when he wins he won't have to worry about running again and, thus, will be a champion of all sorts of leftwing causes.

    I'm actually confident that that will happen. I hear rumors that super-lefty Erskine Bowles will join the administration and that we might finally be able to pass the progressive dream of gutting Social Security and Medicare.

    Then we have the great liberal hope of war with Iran. I was very much in favor of war with Iran when Jimmy Carter was President, not so much with Reagan or Bush. Now I'm in favor of it again because my President thinks, or might think, it's a good idea. Or at least "sadly necessary" and will be something "not undertaken lightly". Which is good to know.

    •  The Bowles-shit is a'coming (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3rdOption, Shahryar, shaharazade, gerrilea

      A lame duck neoliberal President is a dangerous thing. We won't forget those that excused all of this either. No cognitive dissonance will be powerful enough to deny the gutting of SS and medicare and a new war with Iran.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Occupy and the Tea Party will need to merge... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, chipmo, shaharazade combat the Corporatists.

        The answer to the last question of your diary is that:

        Corruption Trumps Ideology

        Ideology is the costume that the corrupt wear to fool voters into voting for them.

        The driving force of corruption in this phase of our history is Corporatism. The Republican party is 100% Corporatist, with the faux christian "American Taliban" as unwitting lackeys. The Tea Partiers think that they are anti-Corporatist, but their leadership and philosophy were co-opted almost instantly by the Corporatists.

        While 100% of the Democratic leadership is Corporatist, a significant minority of the down-ballot members are not, and that's why party loyalists on this site have false hope, and are repeatedly disapointed by the Corporatist betrayals delineated in your diary.

        While Obama campaigns convincingly as a Proressive Reformer, his appointments and governance expose him as a compassionate Corporatist.

        Just wait for the howls of outrage on this site when Obama wins re-election and appoints Joe Lieberman as the new Secretary of State.

        The loyalists here cannot reconcile this bit of cognitive dissonance:

        How can President Obama be both a Reformer and a Progressive while simultaneously championing Joe Lieberman?

        "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

        by 3rdOption on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:16:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed. (5+ / 0-)

          Of course the down-ballot members are not until they get that phone call to fall in line and support corporate insurance reform and never speak ill of the unitary executive even when eh signs deals and actively kills their legislation.

          That will be tough for even kos to take if Joe Lieberman becomes SOS. This site was practically spawned opposing his candidacy in favor of Ned Lamont.

          Corruption does trump ideology but the question was also aimed at the people on this site that excuse this sort of thing. I don't think they are corrupt, just unprincipled and easily controlled.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:23:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Partisans on both sides are trained to only... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            priceman, Shahryar, shaharazade

            ...see the world on the left/right ideological spectrum.

            Thus, what is wrong with Lieberman, et al, is that they are filthy Centrists.

            This is dead wrong.

            He is corrupt.

            What he claims as an ideology is irrelevant, because he is corrupt.

            Once corruption is found, arguing ideology is pointless.

            Ideology is useful to the corrupt because it muddies the waters, causing critics to argue about irrelevant things, and allowing the corrupt one to point at those critics and screech, "Purity Troll" at the top of their lungs.

            Corruption Trumps Ideology.

            There is no point to pinning someone to a spot on the left/right spectrum when that person is lying about their allegiance to any spot on the spectrum.

            "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

            by 3rdOption on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:39:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, you do know.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, BruceMcF

          that the Tea Party is a corporate invention...

          "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

          by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:58:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A Bowles movement? (nmi) (4+ / 0-)

        "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

        by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, triv33

        And Michael Rectenwald laid this out in clear terms (albeit terms that a majority of Democrats refuse to acknowledge).

        But with the endless attacks on Romney's wealth and wealth-protecting measures -- he's a billionaire who refuses to release more than two tax returns, and who, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, actually paid zero taxes for ten years -- Ryan is a truly preposterous choice. Ryan contributes no electoral viability to Romney. Anyone who still wonders whether or not Romney favors the rich will be left with no doubts now. The choice of Ryan provides the "opposition" with a ready caricature – so ready as to be distrusted as prefabricated. This caricature will be brandished to scare independents into the Democratic column and otherwise disaffected Democrats into the voting booth.

        But the Ryan choice does help both parties redraw their party lines and re-establish the supposed "stark contrast" that true believers are supposed to take as real. That is, the Ryan choice works to legitimate the electoral system itself, a system that really provides no access to political power for the vast majority, but rather contains their choices within a sham opposition. The parties not only kick each other when they are down, but they also pick each other back up, because each needs its opponent in order to continue the farcical show of difference in order to contain real opposition within their bifurcated fraudulence. The object is to contain all differences within the party system in order to keep real opposition from mounting from without.

        The Ryan choice sets up the possibility for "winning" voters to feel that they had a choice, and that they chose the lesser evil. They can now rest assured that less evil things will happen. Meanwhile, they will have voted for the very evil that they believed they were averting. They will breathe a sigh of relief, while Republicans continue to rail for another four years. At the same time, President Barack Obama will proceed to enact austerity measures that Democrats would rail against if enacted by Romney (and which Romney would have enacted had he been elected). The Democrats will sit silent as Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare (to say nothing of his policies of drone bombing, domestic surveillance, secret renditions, and maintaining a list of American citizens targeted for assassination without so much as charges let alone a trial).

        "But what if Romney wins?" cry the Democratic faithful. "His policies would be worse! Millions would suffer because you mistook the election for a farce! We must support Obama to avoid that possibility!"

        That’s exactly the conclusion we are meant to draw.

        Yet the social spending cuts that Obama has promised, and that the Ryan Plan includes to a greater degree, are inevitable. The cuts are inevitable not because greedy Republicans demand them, or because Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing, or because Obama has character flaws, but because along with Republicans, the Democrats voted for every war funding bill, the increased military budget, bailouts to the tune of trillions of dollars, and the tax breaks for the wealthy. We can expect nothing but more service of the corporate, military and imperialist elite by Obama in his second term. His austerity plans will be masked in the rhetoric of FDR-like reform, but they will be not be anything of the sort--any more than ACA is actually a progressive reform and not the gratuitous bailout of the insurance industry that it is.

        “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

        by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 02:56:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Freed to do what? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, shaharazade, pfiore8, triv33

      Its not politics that provides the greatest constraint on what he is able to do, but rather the establishment fiction about how the world actually works.

      Now political victory will free a party of a false world view: rather the opposite, since victory is taken as confirming the validity of the false world view, even if the opposition was just espousing an even more extreme version of the same world view.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:01:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I must disagree with this completely (0+ / 0-)
      Then we have the great liberal hope of war with Iran. I was very much in favor of war with Iran when Jimmy Carter was President, not so much with Reagan or Bush. Now I'm in favor of it again because my President thinks, or might think, it's a good idea. Or at least "sadly necessary" and will be something "not undertaken lightly".

      War is what we get when our leaders can't lead. Whether that failure is from laziness, corruption or greed, it's still failure of leadership.

      You do know that Jimmy Carter was and still IS against attacking Iran, correct?

      Carter warns against war with Iran

      We created the blowback in Iran by overthrowing their democratically elected government and installing a dictator that went on to kill millions.

      NOW it's claimed we "must go in there"? BULLSHIT!  

      I could care less how much lip service is given to the current propaganda that "it will not be undertaken lightly."  

      Just read the damn "recommendations" from the Project For A New American Century PNAC documents.  That game plan that was outlined by Cheney, Kristol, Kagan, et al, is still being implemented.

      If anyone debates this just compare what they stated "needed to be done" internationally and domestically and you'll see it is.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:07:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As far as whether Ryan helps Romney or not ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    triv33, priceman, 3rdOption, shaharazade

    ... I am going to be shortly asking the question in a different way: if we assume that the Ryan pick was made because Romney thought it would help him, what does that tell us about what he sees as the path to victory?

    The answer is not particularly pretty.

    Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

    by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:03:05 AM PDT

    •  No it is not pretty (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, gerrilea, triv33

      Though vice president picks haven't really mattered since LBJ. It tells us the media likes to pretend Ryan knows what he is talking about even though he doesn't. It tells us that a number of Democrats are weak and ineffectual in responding to Ryan in some ways because they are Ryan lite in some ways but in the future, via enter Sen Ron Wyden who bought into his privatized Medicare shit.

      But his poll numbers are not good, and like I said a VP can't save the head of the ticket which doesn't stand for anything.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:14:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only thing Ryan has going for him ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3rdOption, priceman

        ... is appeal to the base of the Republican party. Going to placate the base rather than trying to grab a 1% to 2% advantage in some swing state could well tell us something about what the Romney campaign sees as their primary potential path to victory.

        Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

        by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:49:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Ryan pick tells us one ugly thing: (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans know that they can stop enough brown and black people from voting to guarantee an Obama loss.

      "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

      by 3rdOption on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:26:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Certainly not! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, triv33

        Also have to suppress the youth vote and the senior vote.

        Rather than completely suppressing any one group's vote, they've figured its easier to depress the vote share of a number of democratic-leaning demographics.

        Voices on the Square: Is the Ryan Pick doubling down on Voter Suppression? (there s also a Daily Kos version)

        Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

        by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 11:52:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly. (0+ / 0-)

          Both are true.

          If they can suppress enough of any one demographic, or any combination of demographics, they win by default.

          Especially in specific essential Democratic counties, like those in PA.

          Thus, my point.

          "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

          by 3rdOption on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 12:46:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I still do not believe they can ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... in fact stop enough black and brown people from voting in Pennsylvania for that alone to guarantee a Romney victory:

            The Republicans know that they can stop enough brown and black people from voting to guarantee an Obama loss.
            I believe it gets them only halfway there. Suppressing the vote of students, poor whites and the elderly is critical to getting all the way there.

            Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

            by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 12:50:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See Rachel's analysis of the PA poll hours. (0+ / 0-)

              And the impact of having shortened hours in only two, predominantly black, counties. Those two counties alone can lose PA for Obama, and if he loses PA, there is a good chance he will lose the election.

              But of course, the R's are trying to suppress every demographic they can get away with, in every state that will allow it, making the picture even more grim.

              And making the D's GOTV effort crucial, and more complicated. The D's will now have to identify affected voters, get them the ID required, and get them to the polls early enough to thwart the reduced hours.


              "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

              by 3rdOption on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 01:07:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, 3rdOption

          ( there's also a Daily Kos version)

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 01:27:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Q: Is the Obama Administration involved in (5+ / 0-)

    a massive cover up of the multi-billion dollar fraud that has been exposed in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08)?

    Q. Why was the White House notified by the Department of Labor's Dale Ziegler on 10/18 and 10/21/11 about a state of California EUC08 determination matter? The subject was the whistle blower efforts surrounding California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case No. A0-265448 wasn't it? This case that was won by the whistle blower on 10/20/11, was the subject and Obama was the addressee in memorandum WH9262011-61 and 663175 correct? What does Mr. Obama know about these matters? What does he plan to do about all of this?

    Q. Why did no federal agency step up to their oversight duty and investigate the serious problems with these ARRA stimulus funds that exceed $96 billion dollars for more than 29 million EUC08 claims after the 10/20/11 appeal victory that exposed the problems with them?

    Q. Instead of responding to the whistle blower, why did Todd Yamamoto from the DOL Employment & Training Administration threaten the state of California Labor & Workforce Development Agency Marty Morgenstern with the loss of all EUC08 funds for ALL claimants if Case No A0-265448 was made a precedent on 2/7/12?

    Q. Why did Mr. Yamamoto also ask the State of California EDD and CUIAB to try to appeal and overturn this decision when the Department of Labor has no authority in "state determination matters"? Wasn't this the SAME reason given by Eder Marcus on 2/17/12, that the DOL OIG used in their refusal to investigate the whistle blower evidence and recovery fraud complaint?

    Q. Why did the DOL ETA order the CUIAB and EDD to NOT make this CUIAB case a precedent whether they could overturn the case in superior court or not? Isn't it true that the Chair of the CUIAB, Robert Dresser, who also happened to be one of two presiding judges in in the whistle blower's appeal hearing, replied on 2/14/12, and said that " would not be necessary to pursue further action in court to seek the overturn of Case No. A0-265448"?
    How is this possible if the DOL ETA said that the decision on 10/20/11 violated federal law, but never cited anything other than the non compliant DOL ETA UiPL 4-10 EUC08 guideline Q&As that are part of Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0? The feds wanted NO precedent to be set whether the case could be overturned or not, and also said they would not pay federal funds either way either correct? Pam Harris from EDD and Robert Dresser of the CUIAB confirmed in the joint 2/14/12 response to the DOL, that NO precedent would be set, without proper review, based on these threats by the DOL ETA correct? Doesn't this seem highly unconstitutional and illegal?

    Q. Why has the Department of Labor ETA, the DOL OIG and Recovery Board ALL stopped responding to the whistle blower inquires and requests including FOIA and Privacy Act? Do these agencies intend to violate these Acts in order to delay the whistle blower's investigation? They have all stopped communicating and seem to be in the process of violating the FOIA and the Privacy Act by refusing to respond in the middle of an appeal started on 7/18/12 (the white house has acknowledged a FOIA/PRA request since, but not responded as of 8/16/12 to #12-168 and #12-170). Could anyone from either the DOL Solicitors Office or the White House explain the delays?

    Q. Why is the Department of Labor violating these acts before the general election? Are they trying to cover up any White House/Mr. Obama involvement in this ARRA fraud? Were they involved in the illegal and unconstitutional actions, involving a state determination matter for EUC08, taken by the DOL ETA, California EDD/CUIAB, and DOL OIG on 2/7 through 2/17/14?

    Q. Why me? Why now? Why won't the government respond one way or the other and just do their duty? This is still a democracy right? Are our elected officials exercising their right to legal counsel and the right to not say anything that would incriminate them? What about the millions of EUC08 claimants who have had their "inviolate rights to EUC08" grossly violated by the governments actions and inaction over the past four years? Is protecting yourselves more important than helping struggling workers, families and our weak economy?

    Q. What about all of this evidence Mr. President? What will you do about this with the November Election right around the corner? If nobody has been able to refute what I have exposed, nor the standing decision this is based upon, for over one year now, how come the purgatory treatment? I don't like this news either...but, does that mean it will just go away if we all stick our heads in the sand long enough?

    Mr. President, there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program

    •  Wow, this is truly disheartening....n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Aug 16, 2012 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  makes me sick and sad x 3 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I am hoping Mr. Obama addresses the nation, marching down his, "I just had Osama shot between the eyes for what he did to our country red carpet", and announces that...

        Behind Door #1 - I will do the right thing and deal with this...
        1. He is "firing" a good chunk of the Department of Labor upper management (Gay Gilbert, Dale Ziegler and Hilda Solis BYE BYE),
        2. He is shutting down the data-wonk wet dream waste of money that is called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board,
        3. He will immediately be launching an investigation with the full might of the FBI, US Department of Justice and Treasury to get to the bottom of this shameful subversion of our recovery efforts,
        4. ...and he is going to make sure that those who were denied ARRA emergency designated funds get them back ASAP, while treating those overpaid fairly given the size and breadth of our governments historic implementation errors.


        Behind Door #2 - What problem?  What errors?
        1-9999. Head in sand mode activated. They will keep piling up lawyers until the sun is blotted out, while delaying every step of the way no matter what the future legal consequences are down the road. They will be doing everything they can to shut this down before the election.


        Behind Door #3 - Sandmen coming for me. Run Runner! Run!
        Who knows? Maybe I get a hood throw over my head and wake up in Syria? It would certainly be an easier solution than dealing with this mess. After the year+ I have been through...nothing would surprise me.

        If the current Eric Holder/DOJ "situation" is any indication of how our Democrazy works now, I expect that Door #2 will be the one I must face next. The Feds have gone out of their way so far to delay and subvert everything I have tried to do...without ever refuting my evidence nor overturning my standing decision (they cannot obviously).

        The upcoming FOIA/PRA request I have put in with the White House will reveal what they plan to do next. I really do hope Mr. Obama does not break my heart anymore than it has been already been broken.

        Meanwhile, I am assisting a handful of EUC08 claimants in several states to file their Writs Of Mandate against the improper adjudication of their EUC08 appeal cases. We hope to overturn these cases. This will further prove that in each of these states, the EUC08 determinations, payments and appeals based on the DOL ETA Q&A "Multiple EUC Claims" section errors, have not been made in compliance with Title 20 Chapter V Part 615 of the Code of Federal Regulations (using my CUIAB case as the basis).

        One of these cases has a good chance of going down before the general election...

    •  Nah. These are the fruits of the amateur left. (0+ / 0-)

      The comment above is a very good example
      of how single issue activists can devolve into
      Alex Jones info wars conspiracy theory babble.
      Almost as entertaining as yahoo news story comments.

      mehta snark

      Dontcha know? UN black helicopters are going
      to morph like transformers into killer drones powered
      solely on the blood and bones of starved grannies.

      All controlled by alphabet agencies that make coded
      cyber ciphers unlocked by anagram allusions of injustice.

      On a less opaque note, our POTUS scored only a very few
      percentage points below the green candidate, and above
      the socialist party candidate, in agreeing with my own very
      left of center answers to a recent survey I took.

      I can certainly live with re electing someone who
      agrees with my opinions and values over 90% of
      the time. One who can actually win an election.

      •  fact check away... (0+ / 0-)

        Sad...but true story. All ready to be vetted and proved correct, unlike the conspiracy nutter you compare me to. Any doubters feel free to contact me and be ready to do some evidence reading. It won't take long. Follow the links.

        Thanks for the entertaining fact based dismissal. I stumped the DOL policy experts on the phone last October before I beat their EUC08 errors on appeal in the very real case I won that still stands. While ignoring their oversight duty, they tried to overturn my appeal case and could not. Along the way they seem to have violated many rights, laws and regulations. The Feds have been exposed  trying to cover up this precedent decision and my efforts via several successful FOIA requests. The White House knows "something" about all of this. I have documentation.

        Not what you want to hear?
        That's your right and I understand.

        Got no facts to refute me with?
        Then your plot of sand is all ready...
        plunge on in...
        you won't be alone.

        Black Helicopters running on Unleaded Dead Granny Juice Pro?

        Thank you for the image. My grandmother, WWII nurse 1941-1945, passed away last year at the start of this mess. My close friend and next door neighbor died from HIV related illnesses just a few weeks ago. Millions of struggling workers and families are suffering because of this historic government mistake.

        Would you like to share any cleaver insults about that with the rest of the class?

        •  Yeah. No links. Extraordinary claims (0+ / 0-)

          require extraordinary proof. Not assertions,
          innuendo, and orly taitz word salad verbosity.
          I have an idea. Send all of your evidence to
          this guy, and he may very well share it with
          everybody, everywhere. At least on Saturdays.

          You are free to provide as much of what ever
          you might consider as proof or evidence that
          I was, and am still, ready to read, here and now.
          I am free to mock you, and persuade others that
          you are dishonest, and disingenuous at the least.

          But I don't think you will oblige any of your readers
          with that respect. You made your baseless and spurious
          claims, now back them up, or prepare to face your fate.
          All I have is what you wrote, which, apparently to you,
          is all of the proof that something or the other occurred.

          Digressing to familiar and community woes does not
          prove the truth of anytyhing in your comment, but it
          does sort of detract from your initial claim of exactly what?

          I see a floating spinning vase in your
          soon to be very short future here.

          •  okay...lets do this.... (0+ / 0-)

            Here is my "faked" appeal victory from 10/20/11:

            Case A0-265448 (EUC)
            OA Decision No.: 3761037

            Board Panel Members:
            Robert Dresser
            Roy Ashburn

            Mailed October 20,2011

            ISSUE STATEMENT:
            The claimant appealed from a determination that held the claimant was not eligible for extended benefits under the Supplemental Appropriations ct of 2008, Public Law 110-252, sections 4001(b) and 4002(g), as amended, (June 30, 2008). The issue in this case is whether the claimant is entitled to continue receiving extended benefits.

            FINDINGS OF FACT:
            We adopt the Administrative law judge's Statement of Facts,
            (Case 3761037(EUC)):
            ""The claimant exhausted his parent claim with a benefit year beginning March 28,2010 and qualified for a Tier I extension on his claim. He qualified for 20 weeks of benefits at $450 per week on this extension. He began receiving these extension benefits effective January 1, 2011. Effective March 27,2011, the claimant's 52 weeks on his prior parent claim benefit year beginning March 28, 2010 had run. At that time, based on work he had had during these 52 weeks, the claimant qualified for a new parent claim with a benefit year beginning March 27,2011. The claimant qualified for twenty six weeks of benefits at a weekly benefit amount of $325 and a maximum benefit amount of $8450. At the time of the hearing, the claimant continued to have benefits available to him on his claim with a benefit year beginning March 27,2011."
            Case A0-265448 (EUC)
            We add the following.

            A claim for unemployment benefits for the claimant was filed with an effective date of March 28,2010. After benefits were exhausted, the claimant established a claim for extended benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation [EUC]. On March 28,2011 the claimant became eligible to establish new claim for unemployment insurance benefits and in fact, a new claim was filed for him.

            Because the claimant became eligible for a new claim, the department stopped paying benefits on the extension. The new claim had a weekly benefit amount of $325. The EUC extension mount was $450. The claimant contends that the extension should be exhausted before the new claim become effective.

            We adopt the first and third paragraph of the administrative law judge's Reason for Decision,
            (Case 3761037(EUC)):
            Paragraph 1 -
            "The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-252 (June 30, 2008), 122 Stat 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note) provides for extended benefits for individuals that have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Section 4001(b) of the Act provides for payment of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) to individuals who:
            (1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law or Federal law;
            (2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law; and
            (3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week under the unemployment compensation laws of Canada.
            An individual may be entitled to receive federal-state extended benefits if the individual has exhausted all rights to regular unemployment compensation, has exhausted all rights to EUC, and if California is in an extended benefit period (Unemployment Insurance Code, sections 4001 and 4552(b); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, section 2005(b)(February 17,2009), 123 Stat. 144; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note.)"

            Paragraph 3 -
            "The applicable benefit year means the current benefit year if, at the time a claim for EUC is filed, the individual has an unexpired benefit year, or, in any other case, the individual's most recent benefit year. (Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, section 4006 (June 30,2008) Stat. 2353; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note; Code of Federal Regulations, title 20, section 615.2(c)(2).)"
            Case A0-265448 (EUC)
            We add the following in reversing the decision of the administrative law judge.

            Effective July 23, 2010, section 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-252 (June 20,2008), 122 Stat. 2353, as amended; 26 U.S.C. section 3304 note) provides that if:
            (1) -
            (A) an individual has been determined to be entitled to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit year,
            (B) that benefit year expired after July 23,2010,
            (C) that individual has remaining entitlement to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that benefit year, and
            (D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual's weekly benefit in the benefit year referred to in subparagraph (A),
            (2) -
            a new benefit year, if permitted by State law, shall be established but payment of regular compensation with respect to that new benefit year shall be deferred until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

            "Benefit Year" mens the 52 week period beginning with the first day of the week in which a valid claim for benefits is filed.

            In this case, the claimant exhausted a claim for unemployment benefits and established an extension of EUC. Thereafter, the claimant became entitled to establish a new claim for unemployment benefits. The benefit year of the original claim for benefits expired on March 27,2011, subsequent to July 23,2010. The weekly benefit amount for the new claim is at least $100 less than the weekly EUC claim. As such, the claimant may take advantage of the provisions of section 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act and benefits are controlled by section 4001(g) of that statue.

            On appeal to this Board the claimant had submitted a notice of determination issued subsequent to the decision of the administrative law judge. No have no jurisdiction over that matter at this juncture. The claimant may wish to file an appeal for a hearing before and administrative in that matter.

            The determination is reversed. The claimant is entitled to continue Emergency Unemployment Compensation under section 4001(b) and 4002(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, as amended (* by Public Law 111-205 / HR4213 *).

            Here is my doctored and utterly "made up" recovery fraud complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0:

   Complaint Form

            Please provide as much information as possible. Detailed, complete and accurate information will improve the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’s ability to respond to your allegation. If you do not know the answer to a question, you can leave the space blank.

            Provide details of the alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement. Examples of facts and circumstances to include are (1) a description of the misconduct; (2) how you know about the allegation; (3) how and when the misconduct was discovered; (4) the amount of money involved; (5) how long the alleged misconduct occurred; (6) attempts by the alleged violator(s) to hide the misconduct; and (7) any other information you believe may be relevant.

            (1) Description of the misconduct: 
            The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration and their Unemployment Insurance Division have issued Implementing and Operating Instructions and Guidelines for the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program that distributes Recovery Act Funds via the 53 State Employment/Unemployment Agencies. In the Q&A section of several "changes" in Program Letter 23-08 and 4-10 they refer to "multiple EUC claims, order of payment, paying/augmenting older claims" and give no basis of factual law to back them up. These errors have caused the 53 State agencies think it is "legal" to pay an unemployed claimant,
            " who has previously received EUC08 payments from an initial EUC Account based on an initial regular compensation state ui claim that exhausted funds, and then who subsequently returns to a new state regular Ui claim, that also then exhausts its funds, "
            ANY "remaining" Federal EUC funds from a previous, expired and terminated EUC Account based on the initial benefit year and not the current one. This specifically violates three sections of the Code of Federal Regulations:

            1. the definition of the Applicable Benefit Year (20 CFR 615.2(c)(2)) by making an eligibility determination based on the incorrect initial benefit year from a terminated/expired benefit year and not the current most recent year that the claimant just exhausted funds in.

            2. the definition of the Eligibility Period (20 CFR 615.2(h)(2)), by then paying the claimant from this EUC Account in an earlier terminated and expired Eligibility Period (the initial claim) instead of paying EUC based on the Applicable Benefit Year (20 CFR 615.2(c)(2)), during the current and correct Eligibility Period in the MOST RECENT Benefit Year.

            3. the definition of an Exhaustee found at 20 CFR 615.5 specifically says what is supposed to happen to the EUC Account when the claimant returns to regular compensation again in a new state ui claim, in part 615.5 (2) it says:
            "(2) An individual who becomes an exhaustee as defined above shall cease to be an exhaustee commencing with the first week that the individual becomes eligible for regular compensation under any State law or 5 U.S.C. chapter 85, or has any right to unemployment compensation as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, or has received or is seeking unemployment compensation as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section. The individual's Extended Benefit Account shall be terminated upon the occurrence of any such week, and the individual shall have no further right to any balance in that Extended Benefit Account."

            The 53 State agencies are paying from older EUC Accounts that should be terminated with no further entitlement to ANY REMAINING BALANCE which is also paying from an older Eligibility Period instead of the current one while ignoring the correct Applicable Benefit Year.

            These three specific violations then cause Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) to have an incorrect EUC08 determination, because the DOL and the 53 State agencies are not referring to the correct "Applicable Benefit Year" in this section of the Federal Law. Most claimants who are paid from an earlier Benefit Year and EUC Account by the 53 state agencies will not be able to avoid the "Part Time Penalty" the Bill HR4213/Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) were expressly meant to eliminate (July 24,2010+).

            Claimants are being paid from the wrong and terminated EUC accounts which usually harms them by paying a lesser weekly benefit amount than what they would be otherwise eligible for higher weekly funds based on the most recent benefit year and base period earnings,and further harms them by making them fail the Public Law 111-205 eligibility requirements that avoid the Part Time Penalty EUC claimants face when new state regular compensation claims come up with an even lesser benefit amount due to short term part time work while collecting EUC08. Section 3(g) of this law requires the correct "Benefit Year" to be used and if not then an incorrect and illegal EUC08 determination will be made against the claimant. Other claimants have been paid more EUC08 funds than they are allowed across multiple benefit years, while deferring subsequent EUC08 claims when their is no procedure or mention of this in the law nor regulations.

            These specific violations of law and regulations further cause the claimants to have their rights in their respective State Unemployment Appeal violated because most administrative law judges (ALJs), refer to the same errors in the Department of Labor guidelines that caused the claimant for EUC08 to seek a Fair and Timely Appeal to have their rights restored. Most claimants are not aware of the Code of Federal Regulations and the fact that three sections contradict specifically with what the DOL says in those few Q&As across two of the key EUC08 "guidelines" issued to the 53 state agencies (23-08 & 4-10).

            (2) How I know about the allegations:
            I am an unemployed claimant for EUC08 in California. I became aware of this legal information while I was researching my own forced payment from an older and expired previous EUC Account, that also subsequently caused me to fail the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirements that would have allowed me to continue receiving EUC08 payments while deferring the incoming new lesser regular compensation state ui claim. 

            (3) How and When the Misconduct was discovered: 
            Starting January 2, 2011, EDD began paying me EUC08 funds, $450/week, from my PRIOR and TERMINATED EUC08 Account based on the previous Benefit Year from where it last left off. I began receiving State Ui funds on this new claim (current) in March of 2010. It ran out of State Funds on Jan 1, 2011. EDD paid me from the REMAINING Tier I Balance from the prior state claim that began in March 2009 instead of Applicable Benefit Year which was for the current claim that started in 2010. This would have paid me a fresh 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011, but instead EDD opened the previous EUC Account again (despite 20 CFR 615.5(2)) and started paying me again where the previous Tier I left off in the previous Benefit Year that has already expired.

            I first contacted EDD about paying me from an older Tier I balance from the older claim instead of paying me a new 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011. I pointed out the law and regulations and they ignored me. A short time later on March 26,2011, this second subsequent State Ui Benefit Year ended because the eligibility period is only 52 weeks for state claims. EDD automatically makes a determination to check this base period for any wages from full or part time work during this previous period. In my case I had managed to work part time through my union and then collect state UI funds and then later Federal EUC08 funds when I was out of work. This made me eligible for a New lesser state ui claim for $325/week starting March 27, 2011 (as opposed to my $450/week EUC08).

            Since EDD was paying me EUC08 based on the initial benefit year starting 2009 instead of the year starting this March 2010 that just ended March 2011 ($450/week too...most people are not so lucky), they also made a second EUC08 related Determination, that was also incorrect and violates the law. EDD used the Benefit Year End Date (3/27/10) from the 2009 starting State Ui claim that they paid EUC08 on again staring Jan 2 2011, instead of using the current benefit years BYE of 03/27/11, when deciding if I passed the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirement that the "benefit year" (BYE or Benefit Year End Date) be after July 24,2010, so that the new lesser state claim for $325/week, which is $100 less or 25% than the EUC08 $450/week, would be deferred until I exhausted the remaining EUC08 funds (which is supposed to be from a new 20 week tier I starting Jan 2,2011+ and not leftover Tier I funds from 2009-2010 before this current claim that just ended).

            While I attempted to appeal this violation of the law and my rights as well as that of thousands of others who have the same circumstances as I do (part time work + EUC08 across a first and then second benefit year), from April 2011 forward, EDD denied my rights to benefits pending appeal while I was on the lesser $325 state Ui claim and then further delayed my appeal hearing until June/July 2011 and gave me incorrect paperwork in the form of an Appeal Issue for the outdated 2008 Public Law 110-252 before the first CUIAB Judge, Chantal M Sampogna, in Case 3761037 on July 22,2011 denied my appeal and rights to the higher EUC08 benefits, based SOLELY on the incorrect Appeal Issue (she ignored copies of the Current PL 111-205 I gave her).

            I then appealed to the CUIAB Appeal Board starting August 2011. I also made numerous request to the Department of Labor for clarification up to October 2011. The DOL ETA policy experts then came back to me with a statement in writing that contradicts my evidence from the Code of Federal Regulations used in my appeal that would go in my favor just weeks later. I was again delayed until October 20,2011 by the CUIAB and EDD, after having served out the entire 26 week state regular Ui claim at the lesser $325, when I was mailed the decision that reversed the previous appeal decision against me and reversed both EDD EUC08 Determinations, in CUIAB case A0-265448 (which also contradicts directly the statements of euc08 policy from EDD and the DOL I have been given up to this time):

            1. I now retroactively am paid ONLY from the Second EUC Account based on the 2010-2011 benefit year, which began paying me 20 weeks of Tier I starting Jan 2, 2011 (this reverses EDD paying me remaining Tier I funds from the 2009-2010 Benefit Year). This Decision follows the CFR Title 20, Chapter V, Part 615 sections I have mentioned above.

            2. Because I am now paid EUC08 with respect to the correct Applicable Benefit Year 2010-2011, during the correct Eligibility Period 2010-2011 and the rules for an Exhaustee have been followed with respect to the Termination of the older EUC Account from 2009-2010, I now also retroactively pass the Public Law 111-205 section 3(g) requirement that my Benefit Year be after July 24,2010 in order to defer the lesser state Ui Claim and allow me to collect the continuous EUC08 funds at the higher $450 weekly benefit Amount instead of the lesser $325 State ui claim (deferred until I can no longer collect EUC08).

            3. The result of this Decision has forced EDD to pay me back almost $3000 in back EUC08 funds, now that this benefit year that I have served out the entire 26 week lesser claim on, has been "reset" to correct follow the Code of Federal Regulations and NOT the errors from the Q&As found in the Department of Labor Guidelines that EDD and 52 other State agencies have followed.

            (4) The Amount of Money involved: 
            In my case I was denied EUC08 funds, which were also being paid to me from a terminated and expired Benefit Year and EUC Account and paid a lesser State Ui claim when I should not have been if the government would not have violated the federal law and regulations. The difference owed me over the 26+ weeks it took to process my appeal (a further violation of my rights to a Fair and Timely Appeal according to DOL UiPL 23-08 Attachment A Section 5 Appeals and Hearings), was the amount owed from the $450 weekly benefit amount vs the $325 WBA I was incorrectly paid by EDD. This was approximately $2786 dollars that EDD was forced to pay me back.

            Despite my appeal victory and subsequent attempts to point out to ALL applicable state and government representatives, agents etc, the DOL and EDD and the other 52 state agencies still implement EUC08 the EXACT same way they did with my case: paying older EUC accounts until full exhaustion no matter how many benefit years it takes, and asserting further that the Applicable Benefit Year is this initial year UNTIL the funds exhaust.

            This would affect ANY unemployed claimant in the 53 states who first lost work during an initial benefit year, that subsequently exhausted its funds and then paid EUC08.
            This claimant would then receive EUC08 funds until the end of the 52 week benefit year that the EUC08 Account was based on.
            Then the claimant starts a new subsequent state regular compensation claim, ending payments on their EUC Account due to the eligibility for a new state claim.
            It is when this claimant runs out of funds on their second and subsequent regular compensation benefit year, before the end of the 52 week benefit year, that they again become and Exhaustee for EUC08 purpose and are eligible.


            and the claimant is paid from any remaining balance of EUC08 funds from ANY prior benefit year, ignoring any eligibility to the current and most recent Applicable Benefit Year, which is somehow deferred until the next time the state agency goes searching for EUC08 benefit balances.

            If 3 to 3.5 million people claimed EUC08 funds in California alone (2010-2011 according to the Department of Labor), and a HIGH percentage of them have taken at least some part time work one or both benefit years leading up to the determination point I have described above, then they to will have their rights violated and the code of federal regulations will be violated which leads subsequently, in most case as well, to have them further fail the Public Law 111-205 eligibility requirements.

            Since this has gone on since 2008 before Public Law 111-205 (the paying from older EUC accounts), and then afterwards (paying older from older EUC accounts which then causes PL 111-205 to fail), then you can use the maximum weekly benefit rate allowed by law in California as a base for just the denied funds estimate:

            Take my Case of 26 weeks paid $325 but owed $450 after the Judges Decision in my favor. EDD owed me the difference between $450-$325=$125 x 26 weeks that it was denied (less a few weeks I worked part time)almost $3000. That is a mild case because the Public Law 111-205 cutoff is for state claims that are 25% or $100 less than the Federal EUC08. MANY people I have had contact with and heard of are being forced onto $100 or less state ui claims because they took a very short term part time or temp job and then went back on state ui or EUC08. This is the Part Time Penalty that this law was supposed to avoid and correct. So worst case a claimant like this who might be eligible for the maximum state/federal euc amount of around $450 week has been instead paid $100 week for 26 weeks due to these State and Federal violations of law and the Recovery Act (EUC08 is part of this). That would be $450-$100$350 x 26 weeks denied = $9100 !!! If you even take an estimate that say 10% of the 3 million people were victims in JUST California alone and they had the a WORST Case example of being owed $450 but being paid $100 then thats 3,000,000 x 10% = 300,000 claimants owed up to $9100 each if they suffered 26 weeks or longer, which is likely since it is now March 2012! 300,000 x $9100 = $ 2 730 000 000 !

            Of course there will be levels of denial and levels of overpayment in each of the 53 states within the minimum and maximum ranges of state/EUC08 funds payable. But also consider the Tax Dollars WASTED on all of the thousands of APPEAL CASES these errors have generated for YEARS since 2008. Since March 2011 I have been in touch with dozens of these victims just on a couple of Unemployment Forums on the Internet who have been talking about their denied appeals based on DOL these same DOL guidelines. 

            The amount of money involved is easily in the millions even if you take the least case scenario. It is a FACT that most unemployed claimants have taken part time or temp work or full time work, who then lost this work and go back to state ui or EUC08 funds (or Extended Duration State extended Benefits that are also subject to these violations to to the wrong applicable benefit year being used).

            (4) Amount of Money involved: 
            to REPEAT. MILLIONS of Dollars affecting thousands and thousands of claimants for EUC08 in 53 states along with the untold tax payer dollars spent on the subsequent thousands of state ui appeal cases that have occured due to these errors and violations of the laws by the state and federal government that waste and deny Recovery Act Funds.

            (5) How long the alleged misconduct occurred  :
            see (4) above also.
            Payment from Older EUC Accounts seems to have started in 2008 with the release of Program Letter 23--08 and the first Q&As that talked about "Multiple EUC08 Claims" with giving any basis of law to back them up.

            This got worse July 24,2010 + when the Applicable Benefit Year became vital to making a correct EUC08 determination for Public Law 111-205 section 3(g)+.

            Despite my appeal victory October 20, 2011 and restoration of funds in November 2011, and repeated attempts to show this evidence to the State and Federal Government March 2011 to present, these violations of the Recovery Act have continued to present day, March 10, 2012. Here is a specific CUIAB case, among thousands in all 53 states, that is current, CUIAB case #3999900 (EUC) heard 01/19/12 in Van Nuys and denied based solely on the faulty DOL Q&As the SAME WAY I WAS the year before (the claimant is going to CUIAB board appeal using my evidence, pending...):

            CUIAB APPEAL Response/Decision case 3999900 (EUC):
            ""Pursuant to Department of Labor operating instructions, once a claim for an extension of EUC benefits is established, all benefits on that extension must be exhausted before an extension of EUC can be filed on a second unemployment claim. (Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 23-08, Change 1, August 15, 2008.)

            In this case, the claimant exhausted a state claim for unemployment insurance benefits and established an extension of EUC. Before exhausting all of the EUC extensions on that claim, a new, second state claim for unemployment insurance benefits was established. Upon exhaustion of the second unemployment insurance claim, the claimant filed for a new EUC extension based on the second unemployment insurance claim. However, the priority of claims is established by the statute and operating instructions, which mandate payment of all EUC benefits on one claim before any EUC benefits can be paid on a subsequent claim, regardless of the respective benefit amounts of the two claims. It therefore is concluded the department properly denied EUC on the claim filed on the new unemployment insurance claim.

            If the claimant exhausts all EUC benefits payable on the first claim, extended benefits may at that point become payable on the second claim. If that should occur, the claimant should contact the department.""

            This Decision SPECIFICALLY VIOLATES the Code of Federal, as did my first case, and it is not even quoting the actual Q&A response let alone ANY Definition, Statue or SPECIFIC Regulation. The CFR says 615.5 (2) that the EUC Account from the first benefit year should have been terminated with no further entitlement to ANY remaining balance, yet here again EDD pays out on the OLDER EUC Account despite this which in this case penalizes the claimant with a MUCH lower weekly benefit amount that his eligibility for the current Applicable Benefit Year gives them.

            This is happening to thousands of other claimants in all 53 states since 2008.

            (6)  Attempts by the alleged violator(s) to hide the misconduct:
            I have presented this evidence to EDD by email and phone dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times since March 2010. I have contacted all my state and federal reps, senators, lt gov, governor, attorney general, us attorneys and dept of labor almost every month if not every week since April 2010. I reported to the SF FBI dozens of times. I reported to the Dept of Justice dozens of times. Since April 2010 I have contacted the Department of Labor as well. I sent in service requests and eventually talked several policy experts in October 2011 just before the October 20 appeal victory. They gave me a statement of policy in writing that was an incorrect definition for the Applicable Benefit Year, in an attempt to back up California EDD and defeat my appeal case. I won my appeal and the decision contradicts what they said. I followed up with the DOL, sent them the appeal decision and further evidence that they have ignored, all attempts, weekly since October 2011. They will not respond. I contacted the DOL Office of Inspector General and their agent Eder Marcus told me last week that they will not investigate nor respond further nor even refute my evidence in any way at all. I further followed up with the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General and they also refused this last Friday March 9, 2011 to investigate and instead directed me to contact the Department of Labor again. 

            How can the people who have violated laws and regulations, wasted and denied Recovery Act funds, who have attempted to deny my earlier claims and then ignore the evidence from my appeal decision that proves I am right, commit this fraud and then objectively investigate themselves again? Do the criminals get to run their own investigation without the DOJ nor ANY Office of Inspector General?

            I feel the government is either in complete denial and ignorance or they have violated the law/regulations and intend to cover this fact up. Ether way my credible evidence has been ignored and dismissed outright because the assumption is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the US Government to have made any mistake let alone be involved in deliberate fraud, theft and denial of EUC08 funds that has caused such historic harm, waste and denial. I think that this federal law and these three specific regulations have been violated thousands of times since 2008 because of this.

            (7)  any other information you believe may be relevant:
            Code of Federal regulations, Title 20, Chapter V, Part 615
            (Sections 615.2, 615.4, and 615.5 are the most relevant).


            Department of Labor Employment & Training Authority Program Letter 23-8 and 4-10 Q&As:





            Here is the Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08
            Program Letter 23-08 Attachment A


            and here is Public Law 110-252 and the Subsequent amended version post July 24,2010 Public Law 111-205:


            When did the misconduct occur? If the misconduct occurred over time or is currently ongoing, enter the actual or approximate start date.

            Starting in 2008 53 State Agencies used the Q&A section from Program Letter 23-08, regarding "Multiple EUC08 Claims", "Augmenting Older Claims" to mean that they had the right to seek out and pay from any older, terminated, expired and exhausted Benefit Years/EUC Accounts.

            This continued up to the passing of Public Law 111-205, where the "policy" of paying from older EUC Accounts also caused the incorrect Applicable Benefit Year to be used in Public Law 111-205 Section 3(g) "a Benefit Year". 

            Both errors have compounded and continued through several Program Letter 23-08 Q&A sections about "multiple euc claims", and also through th later 2009+ Program Letter 4-10 that leads to present day March 10, 2012.

            In my case, EDD paid me from an older EUC claim instead of the current one based on the Applicable Benefit Year starting Jan 2, 2011. This later caused me to fail the Public Law 111-205 Eligibility Requirements that my EUC/Benefit Year be after July 24,2010. The Older EUC account was not, but the current one was.

            In July 2011 my first EUC appeal was denied based on incorrect paperwork from EDD in the form of the Appeal Issue, which was for the older unamended version of Public Law 110-252 before the July 24, 2010 Public Law 111-205 passed. I then won my appeal after sending it to the CUIAB Board Level appeal hearing. The Judges reversed the previous decision against me, and on October 20 ,2011 ruled in my favor forcing EDD to reverse both the EUC determination to pay me from the older EUC Account and that I now pass the Public Law 111-205 Eligibility requirement now that I am being paid a full Tier I 20 weeks starting Jan 2, 2011 based on the correct Applicable Benefit Year ending March 2011 (which is after July 24,2010).
            I have reported to all the agencies I have named since April 2011 the same evidence, over and over in numerous forms to present day March 10, 2012. NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN except for denial and dismissal with NO factual basis of law and with no objection examination of my credible and factual evidence.

            Where did the misconduct occur?

            Nationwide, in 53 states, by the State Employment/Unemployment Agencies who based their state law and extended benefits (EUC08) programs on the errors found in the Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration/UI Division EUC08 Guidelines (Q&As).

            Every EUC08 claimant who was paid from an older EUC account and/or had the benefit year from that account used for any subsequent EUC08 determination has had their rights violated, the federal law and regulations broken, that denies them funds, forces them to be paid from a lesser claim when they are eligible for a higher one, or pays them more funds than they should have gotten.

            Identify the primary person or entity who engaged in the alleged misconduct. If +more than one person is involved, enter the additional identifying information in the open box below.

            The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration Unemployment Insurance Division issued the Emergency Employment Program Letters/Guidelines for the implementation of these Recovery Act Funds, and in UiPL 23-08 and 4-10 the Q&A sections they refer to "Multiple EUC Claims" and "Augmenting/Paying Older Claims". These references which are not reflected in the actual Operating and Implementing Instructions, Definitions, have caused the 53 State Agencies and the Policy experts from the Department of Labor to implement a policy that violates the Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Law.

            The 53 State Employment Agencies, including the California Employment Development Department (in my case) have taken these Q&As to be actual law, statue and or regulations. They quote them when denying EUC08 claimants and paying them from older benefit years. They use the same Q&A references in Appeal Documentation. The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ALJs also refer to these Q&A errors when making appeal decisions. The other 52 state agencies act in a similar fashion based on the same errors from the same source.

            Recovery Act Information
            How do you know the complaint involves Recovery Act funds?
            Emergency Unemployment Compensation is part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. Through various amendments under Public Law 110-252 and 111-205 these extended benefits have continued to be available now through most of 2012.

            Federal Agency that awarded, distributed or administered the funds in question:
            The Department of Labor.

            Description of Grant, Contract, Loan or Program:
            Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08 or extended benefits).

            Please list any other Government entities you have notified about this incident (Federal, State and Local):
            Pam Harris Director of EDD.
            EDD Fraud Division.
            EDD Policy Division.
            CUIAB Chief ALJ Alberto Roland, Legal Counsel, Complaints.
            Governor Jerry Brown and Lt Gov Gavin Newsom of California.
            Mark Woo Sam Department of Labor California/Department of Industrial Relations/Workforce Development Agency.
            Kamal Harris Attorney General California.
            California State Audit Bureau.
            Senators Barbara Lee, Diane Feinstein, Boxer, Leibermann, Ellen Corbett, Bernie Sanders and
            Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Pete Stark.
            The San Francisco FBI has been sent evidence, as has the offices in LA, DC, Chicago, and New York.
            I spoke with US Attorneys in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.
            I reported to and spoke with reps from the Department of Labor; Gay Gilbert, Quinn Watt, Bob, Dale Zigla and Eder Marcus among others at the Employment & Training Administration and the Ui Division and their Office of Inspector General for the entire DOL. I have reported to all recovery fraud hot-lines both state and federal as well as sent my evidence to the Department of Justice Criminal and Fraud Divisions as well as to their Office of Inspector General.

            NOBODY HAS ACTED since April 2011 and I can provide a much more detailed timeline of who I spoke to and when if needed. I kept track of EVERYTHING since last year.

            You have all my information and other evidence.
            I can provide any explanation and have much more detailed information I have collected over the past year.

            I am trying to act as whistle-blower on this fraud, waste, denial and harm.
            Nobody in the Government thinks it is possible they have made any mistake.
            If this is the case then please provide me with the factual points of law to back up your claims.
            This is all I ask.
            If I am right thousands of people have been harmed, and millions of dollars have been wasted.
            Is this not worth investigating given how much evidence I have presented?

            And here are the two letters that do not exist, that I discovered in my dreams about FOIA from 2/7 and 2/14:
            February 7,2012

            Employment and Training Administration
            Region 6
            San Francisco
            90 7th Street 17300
            San Francisco, CA 94103

            Mr. Marty Morgenstern
            Labor and Workforce Development
            801 K Street Suite 2101
            Sacramento, CA 95814

            Dear Mr. Morgenstern:

            I am writing concerning an October 20,2011 decision, copy enclosed, by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) awarding Mr. Jerkyspace Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08). This decision is contrary to Federal Law. This case came to our attention as the result of an iquiry from Mr. Jerkyspace. I am writing to request the state to take actions set forth below to remedy this problem.

            BACKGROUND: EUC08 is paid under Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriation Act. 2008, Public Law 110-252 (the "Act"), as amended. Section 4001(b)(2) of the Act conditions EUC08 eligibility upon an individual having exhausted all rights to regular compensation. Accordingly, where an individual, who is receiving EUC08, qualifies for a subsequent benefit year of regular compensation, EUC08 must stop until the individual exhausts regular compensation on that subsequent benefit year. However, section 4002(g) of the Act (added by section 3(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 ("UCA")(Public Law 111-205)) made an exception (the "UCA exception") from this requirement for certain individuals who qualify for a subsequent benefit year of regular compensation at a lower weekly benefit amount. This exception applies only to individuals whose benefit years expire after July 22,2010 (section 3(b) UCA).

            Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 04-10, Change 4, Attachment 1, Section D, copy enclosed, elaborates on the proper application of this exception in two questions and answers:

            "D. Multiple EUC08 Claims/Accounts
            1) Question: An individual has EUC08 accounts with respect to more than one benefit year.
            Which benefit year is used when applying the State EUC08 Options?
            Answer: Only benefit years that expire after enactment (July 22, 2010) of the Extension Act
            may be used. If an individual received EUC08 on or before July 22, 2010, with respect to a
            benefit year that has expired or will expire after July 22, 2010, they may qualify for the State
            EUC08 Option, if otherwise eligible.
            2) Question: A claimant established Benefit Year 1 (BY1), exhausted regular UC on that
            benefit year, and then began receiving EUC08 based upon it. When the claimant established
            a second benefit year, payment of EUC08 on BY1 was suspended, and s/he began receiving
            regular UC on Benefit Year 2 (BY2). The claimant then exhausted the regular UC on BY2,
            and resumed EUC08 based on BY1 (EUC08 claim was never established on BY2). BY2
            now expires after the enactment of the Extension Act, and the claimant has sufficient wages
            to establish Benefit Year 3 at a WBA that is at least $100 or 25 percent less than the EUC08
            WBA. BY1 expired before enactment of the Extension Act which does not meet the first
            criterion threshold. Does the State EUC08 Options provision apply to this claimant,
            allowing her/him to continue the receipt of EUC08 based upon BY1?
            Answer: No. The State EUC08 Options provision only applies to benefit years that expire
            after enactment of the Extension Act. Since BY1 expired before enactment of the Extension
            Act, the State EUC08 Options provision does not apply to it. Although BY2 meets the
            condition of expiring after the enactment (criterion #1), the State Option provision still does
            not apply because the claimant never established entitlement to EUC08 with respect to BY2
            since s/he still has entitlement to EUC08 with respect to BY1. "

            On July 2, 2008 the state of California entered into an Agreement with the Secretary of Labor to administer the EUC08 program as an agent of the federal government.. Article I of this agreement requires the Employment Development Department (EDD) to make EUC08 payments in accordance with the act. Article II of this Agreement requires EDD to perform the functions and duties under the Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and any regulations or operating instructions issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. Article VI requires the EDD to "take such action as reasonably may be necessary to recover for the account of the United States all benefit amounts erroneously paid and restore any lost or misapplied funds to the state for benefits.

            Mr. Jerkyspace Case: Jerkyspace has multiple claims for regular compensation, but never exhausted EUC08 based upon his first benefit year, which expired on March 28, 2009 - before the July 22, 2010 effective date of the UCA exception. Accordingly, the Employment Development Department (EDD) properly denied EUC when Mr. Jerkyspace became eligible for a new regular UI benefit claim. As in the above example, it is irrelevant that Mr. Jerkyspace had a subsequent benefit year that expired after July 22,2010. Mr. Jerkyspace never established entitlement to EUC08 based upon that subsequent benefit year and may not, therefore, avail himself of the UCA exception for receiving EUC08 based upon that benefit year. Rather, before collecting any more EUC08, he must (as required by section 4001(b)(2) of the Act) exhaust his regular compensation based upon the subsequent benefit year. Mr Jerkyspace appealed EDD determination to the Office of Appeals where EDD's determination was affirmed at the first level appeal. The claimant then filed an appeal to the Board.

            Contrary to the above referenced UIPL, the CUIAB overturned the lower authority decision and erroneously awarded EUC08 by applying the UCA exception to a subsequent benefit year (ending after July 22,2010) for which Mr. Jerkyspace never qualified for EUC08 (because he had remaining eligibility on his benefit year ending March 28,2009).

            In accordance with the state's agreement to administer EUC, the state's EUC08 decisions must be consistent with UIPL No. 4-10 Change 4. Since the CUIAB's decision is inconsistent with this UIPL, the agreement requires the EDD to appeal the CUIAB's decision, and if successful, to issue a determination establishing an overpayment of any EUC08 benefits paid to Mr. Jerkyspace before the payment of regular compensation based upon his most recent benefit year.

            If there is no reversal of this decision, then the EDD is not to use the CUIAB's decision as precedent in making future determinations of the eligibility for EUC08. Using this decision as precedent will result in the termination of the Agreement with the Secretary of Labor which will require the end of the EUC08 program in California. In addition, any EUC08 benefits incorrectly paid as the result of no reversal of the decision will result in disallowed costs under any audit.

            Please advise what course of action the state will be taking concerning the CUIAB's decision on Mr. Jerkyspace's EUC Claim within 45 days of the date of this letter. You may refer any questions to Christine Chudd, Regional Director, Office State Systems, by email at or by phone at (415)625-7955.

            Todd Yamamato
            Acting Regional Administrator
            Feb 7, 2012


            February 14,2012

            Robert Dresser CUIAB
            State of California Workforce Development Agency
            California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
            2400 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300
            Sacramento, CA 95833
            Phone: (916) 253-6806
            Fax: (916) 263-6842

            Mr. Todd Yamamoto
            Acting Regional Administrator
            U.S. Department of Labor
            Employment and Training Employment
            Region 6, San Francisco
            90 7th Street Suite 17300
            San Francisco, CA 94103-1516

            Subject: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Matter: Jerkyspace

            Dear Mr. Yamamoto,

            This letter responds to your letter February 7, 2011, letter to Marty Morgenstern, Secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, regarding decision in CUIAB Case No. A0-265448/Jerkyspace. Secretary Morgenstern has asked us to respond to you on this matter:

            Pursuant to our conversation last week with Jamie Bachinski, and in accordance with your letter, we wish to provide you with the following assurances:

            1. The Employment Development Department has not and will not use the decision in Case A0-265448 as a precedent for its determinations under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC) program.
            2. The decision in Case No. A0-265448 will not be adopted by the CUIAB as a precedent.
            3. Any and all benefits paid in error to Jerkyspace pursuant to Case No. A0-265448 will be paid without the use of federal funds.
            4. CUIAB will conduct EUC training so that its judges fully understand the issues and definciencies in Case No. A0-265448.

            We appreciate Jamie speaking with us last week to provide clarification on the DOL's expectations for resolving this matter. It is our understanding that with these assurances it will not be necessary to pursue further action in court to seek the overturn of Case No. A0-265448. Thank you for helping us achieve a satisfactory resolution to this matter.

            Robert Dresser, Chair
            California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

            Pam Harris, Director
            Employment Development Department

            Marty Morgenstern, Labor & Workforce Development Agency
            Jamie Bachinski, DOL ETA Region 6
            Mark Woo Sam, Labor & Workforce Development Agency
            Ralph Hilton, CUIAB
            Sandra Clifton, EDD Legal Office
            Talbott Smith, EDD Unemployment Insurance Branch.

            Here are all the "fake" links you could not be bothered to follow and verify right here on DK:
            Introduction to Unemployment Insurance

            What the DOL ETA has violated at 20 CFR 612 (c)(2), 615.2 (h)(1)(2), 615.5(2):

            Title 20 Chapter V Part 615

            EUC08 Guidelines pre-errors:
            UiPL 23-08 Attachment A Implementing and Operating Instructions (pre EUC08 errors)

            EUFC08 Guidelines post errors ("Multiple EUC" Claims does not comply with 20 CFR 615):

            Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) and Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) Summary data for State Programs

            Lots of other links you seem to have missed:
            Investigate the EUC08 Errors
            Stop the Department of Labor Extended Benefits Mistake Cover Up

            Read First:
            Mr. President, there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program

            Part One:
            If Regulations are Broken in the Forest, and "Nobody" Sees and Hears them get broken...

            Part Two:
            ARRA Fraud in the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Program

            Part Three:
            Mr. President, I hear FOIA calling...

            And finally the people in my life I apparently invented out of thin air (RIP) :

            Grams is dead and was a WII Nurse 1941-1945:
            Elizabeth K Anderson RIP

            Grandpa has passed, and served his country very well:
            Richard P Jury RIP

            One of the best friends I ever had has taken by HIV recently:
            Russ Osterweil RIP

  •  I agree - won't support or vote for Dems who don't (0+ / 0-)

    Jane Hamsher was right as well - start with getting rid of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the progressive caucus that doesn't really stand up for democratic policies, they just pay lip service. We need a real progressive caucus, not one that wants to govern and accomplish anything, one that will stand up and fight for progressive values.

    Wait, there is a party like this - the Green Party.  Yes, let's all go and support the Green Party so that we can be on the right side of every issue!

    Yes, sing with me brothers and sisters!

    To dream the impossible dream
    To fight the unbeatable foe
    To bear with unbearable sorrow
    To run where the brave dare not go

    To right the unrightable wrong
    To love pure and chaste from afar
    To try when your arms are too weary
    To reach the unreachable star

    This is my quest
    To follow that star
    No matter how hopeless
    No matter how far

    To fight for the right
    Without question or pause
    To be willing to march into Hell
    For a heavenly cause

    And I know if I'll only be true
    To this glorious quest
    That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
    When I'm laid to my rest

    To dream the impossible dream!

    Now, where is my pony? where is a windmill to tilt at?

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:29:31 AM PDT

    •  You need to study harder (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruceMcF, triv33

      1. Jane herself did not say that.

      2. The progressive caucus is bigger than the blue dogs but they got what they wanted for the most part, and the history of Congress isn't wrought with your delusional view of what's possible or not.

      3. You can't tell me to go to the green party, but what you can do is leave the Democratic party and the platform you have disdain for. The problem is not with me, it's with the Democratic party platform of which you disdain as a heavenly cause in that poem plagiarized for your pathetic non historical lies.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 06:55:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        I read your FLD link, diary by Jane herself. She complained that the problem is the progressive caucus, that they sound good up front, but in the end they cave and come back to their constituents with platitudes to make the final legislation palatable to them.

        Rather than having a progressive caucus like this, which, as you say, is bigger than the blue dog caucus, the progressive caucus should fight for what's right and not vote for anything that is unacceptable to us.  No more Barney Franks or Bernie Sanders voting for weak sausage and coming back to us telling us that it's okay.

        As Bill Maher said (paraphrasing) - let's get some real progressives in there so when Obama and Reid and Pelosi go negotiate, they have to say "hey, I can't agree to cuts, I have to deal with these crazy motherfuckers".

        I have no disdain for the platform - these are our goals, and we fight for them and work towards them. And when we don't achieve all our goals, we don't cry about it and we don't ask ourselves questions about whether we're real Democrats. If you do - there's the Green party, and that's fine.  

        I don't have a problem with Ralph Nader's voters - they did what they thought was right. But don't tell me that by voting for Nader they helped us reach our goals. Don't tell me that those in the Democratic party who drove an incumbent Lyndon Johnson out did us any favors - we got Nixon instead.

        Push hard yes, but purity gets you nowhere.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 08:52:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree with reality all you want (0+ / 0-)

          It'a DL, I didn't have any links in this diary, and Jane didn't write that diary about primarying Bernie. So you're failing right off the bat for starters.

          Yes, because we did have a massive progressiveness majority in the house and there was no reason to give the blue dogs power or give in to the President backroom deals with big pharma and for profit hospitals. Nor was there a reason to tie a watered down POS for financial reform and no cramdown, but the big banks own the place.

          So Barney Frank did not do us very many favors on that front and much of what Bernie sanders won via community health centers will be cut via austerity. I'm sorry if absolute facts ruin your dream of fake civics and how things really work in the House and Senate, but again, you have a lot of studying to do.

          It's not about not voting for anything that's unacceptable at all, but it is about achieving what has been achieved in the past during a crisis with leverage on our aside if you study history so we get most of what we want when we have majorities and not have people like you who need to study civics and history make excuses and then tell people to leave the party you have no idea about and what's been accomplished in past Congresses.

          Yes, you do disdain the Democratic platform when you profess fantasies about how Washington really works when anyone with a grade school education can tell you otherwise. If you don't care if Social Security AND MEDICARE IS GOING TO BE CUT, THEN you NEED TO FIND A NEW PARTY, NOT ME. You're professing a fairy tale that the Democrats all tried their best including the president, forgetting reconciliation, backroom deals, and buckling under the president(separation of powers is there for a reason) who facilitated all of this. It's fiction and it's elementary like your knowledge of the Democratic platform which is fine if you don't want to have the intellectual curiosity to learn it, but don't tell me to "weave da pwesident alone and Congwess. Thdy did evweyting possible."

          BS. Ralph Nader had nothing to do with alienating the voters the DLC did just in time for the most important election ever in 2000. More professed fiction from you.

          Don't tell me that those in the Democratic party who drove an incumbent Lyndon Johnson out did us any favors - we got Nixon instead.

          Push hard yes, but purity gets you nowhere.

          This is what I'm talking about. Fiction. The Vietnam war pushed LBJ out regardless. Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy realized the Vietnam war was a failure, unlike you apparently, and after LBJ poor showing in New Hampshire, he decided to to run. RFK's assassination was a historical tragedy which ruins your poor historical narrative and out look on why we got Nixon. It was actually a lot to do with Hubert Humphrey not disavowing LBJ's war in time rather than whatever stupid point about purity and ponies you are making.

          So rather than plagiarizing poetry and suggesting people leave the party they understand better than you, like me, you should go educate yourself.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 03:39:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  don't you all think it's a good idea, before HRing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    somebody to take a look at their profile? at least? or ask what they mean.

    i really really really hate the HR and the way it gets exerted. and then the calls for banning. bejesus. we are scary, we americans.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site