Latest News

State Unemployment Commissioners Implore Congress To Reauthorize Benefits Extensions

2009-12-07T19:24:24Z

Labor commissioners and unemployment-agency officials from several states joined a coalition of labor and advocacy groups Monday to implore Congress to reauthorize unemployment benefits extensions set to expire at the end of the year. If Congress doesn't act before its Christmas recess -- and it might not -- one million jobless workers will run out of benefits in January.

"There's a profoundly human dimension to job loss, especially in this kind of economic recession," said Pennsylvania Labor & Industry Secretary Sandi Vito at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "I have policymakers and people ask me all the time, 'Do people really need all these weeks of benefits?' The answer is yes."

The National Employment Law Project and the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report (PDF) with a state-by-state breakdown of benefits exhaustions from January to March. In all, 3.2 million people who would otherwise be eligible for extensions will lose their benefits over a three-month period unless Congress acts. The report stressed that economists consider unemployment benefits the most stimulative part of the stimulus bill.

"You have state labor officials, commissioners, heads of departments of labor who've joined with national organizations in urging congress and the administration to act on what we think is the most pressing and compelling need right now for the country," said Wade Henderson of the Half in Ten Campaign.

"If Congress is not listening to these issues, and the administration is not listening to these issues, then clearly we have a problem. They are politically tone deaf because the entire country is urging that something be done."

There are measures pending in both chambers of Congress to extend benefits and COBRA health insurance subsidies for laid-off workers, but it's not clear that lawmakers will act before they leave town for their Christmas break on Dec. 18.

On Dec. 3, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she hoped the House could reauthorize benefits and COBRA subsidies before then. In a statement to Huff Post, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Reid is working to extend the programs but didn't say when it would happen.

"Senator Reid recognizes that it will take some time for people to get back on their feet as a result of the economic collapse," the statement said. "He understands the need to continue programs such as unemployment compensation and COBRA which provide a safety net for those who are out of work through no fault of their own. He will be working with his colleagues to find a way to extend these programs and hopes that his Republican colleagues will join him in that effort."

After a delay caused by Senate Republicans, Congress passed a 14-week extension (20 weeks in states with high jobless rates) on Nov. 4. But that extension was to provisions of the stimulus bill which will expire after Dec. 31.

So unless Congress makes a move in the next two weeks, come January, anyone who exhausts their unemployment insurance will be ineligible for the next tier of extended benefits.

Officials said that an interruption in benefits would impose massive administrative costs on state agencies, which would need to start sending letters to some benefit recipients as early as Dec. 19 to notify them that the checks would soon stop.

"The actual deadline for many states is Dec. 19, so not only will you create confusion in the system but there's the possibility of some individuals losing benefits right around the holiday season," said Vito. "So the urgency by which Congress must act can't be overstated."

Attending the Press Club event were state government officials from Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, Arizona, Iowa, and New York, along with representatives of the AFL-CIO, the National Women's Law Center, the Center for American Progress, the Half in Ten Campaign, and the National Employment Law Project, which organized it.

Click here for a PDF of the report.

Jackie Ramos, Bank Of America Employee, Fired After Helping Customers (VIDEO)

2009-12-07T14:40:43Z

Bank of America fired Jackie Ramos after she took a stand against the bank's $15 "convenience" charges and $39 over-the-limit fees so she could sleep better at night.

"There was something inherently evil about my job," the 23-year-old said in a YouTube video she uploaded on Nov. 27, two days after her termination.

Ramos, of Fairburn, Ga., worked as a "customer advocate," which involved calling people who fall behind on credit card payments and either encouraging them to pay or modifying their accounts. But not all customers qualify for modification programs that will help them, and Ramos grew tired of saying no after six months on the job.

"So I stopped denying people," said Ramos. "I helped people get on programs that they didn't necessarily qualify for but who definitely needed the help."

Bank of America declined to comment on Ramos's video but confirmed her account of the firing.

"Ms. Ramos clearly violated some bank policies, particularly around misrepresenting customer information," said spokesman Tony Allen. "Perhaps more egregious, she encouraged customers to misrepresent their information."

Allen said that as of Oct. 31, Bank of America has modified over one million customer accounts totaling $10 billion in outstanding debt by lowering interest rates or modifying monthly payments. He said the bank expects to modify between 1.2 and 1.5 million consumer and small business credit card accounts in all of 2009.

In an interview with HuffPost, Ramos emphasized that she did not make the video out of any bitterness toward Bank of America, and she said that she does not consider her former employer any worse than other credit card companies -- she's angry about the whole system.

"I feel like there's a real credit problem in this country," she said. "Too many people are complacent... Slavery was also legal at one point in time. It was the law. Now we have 30 percent interest rates, $39 late fees and over-limit fees. I want the laws changed. I want the federal government to protect its people and do what it's supposed to do."

YouTube has been an effective venue for bank customers outraged that an industry kept afloat with taxpayer dollars is raising fees, interest rates and minimum monthly payments. Ann Minch of Red Bluff, Calif. won a reduced interest rate after she declared a "debtors' revolt" in September. Her video spawned imitators such as former Bank of America employee Ben Frasier of Douglas, Ore., who said "Bank of America will stop at nothing to turn an insane profit at your expense."

Personal finance guru Suze Orman hailed the "debtors' revolt" and said banks should take notice.

In her video, Ramos said she'd never forget one customer in particular -- a 24-year-old mother with cancer who'd recently lost her mom and husband but still wanted to pay off a $6,000 debt. The woman didn't qualify for any program that would help her.

"She sobbed on the phone telling me she couldn't afford the 30 percent interest... that we had her account on. She couldn't afford the $39 late fee, the $39 over-limit fee. She told me that we were her first credit card when she turned 18, we were her only credit card, and that she was a loyal customer. And given the time to be on this earth a little while longer she would have always remained a loyal customer.

"According to Bank of America, she doesn't have enough income to be put on a program, but she can however keep paying the high interest rates on the account, and fees, because at the end of the day, it is her account, she did rack up the debt, she was late, and she did deserve the 29.99 percent interest rate."

Ramos lives with her fiance and two-year-old son in Fairburn, Ga.

Here's the video:

Consumerist has a rough transcript.

House Travel Spending Is All Over The Map

2009-12-04T20:25:21Z

The amount of money that members of the House of Representatives spend on all manner of office necessities -- especially travel -- vary widely.

Representatives spent a total of $6.8 million on travel from July through September, averaging about $15,800 per office. Some members, particularly those from faraway or rural districts, spent more than twice that amount. But, in a few cases, even members from neighboring districts of similar size spent vastly different sums on travel.

One big travel spender says the expenses reflect the lawmaker's heavy emphasis on working in the home district.

"We put a higher priority on traveling to the district and traveling within the district," said Jessica Gleason, chief of staff for Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.). Hastings' office spent $38,411 on travel in the summer months.

Neighboring Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whose district is similar in size to that of Hastings, spent $22,415. A McMorris Rodgers spokesman said, "We try to go back every week."

Hastings's priority on traveling in the district is evident in the total expenditures for the quarter. Though Hastings spent more than any other Washington representative on travel, his third quarter total for all expenses came to $326,448, the second-smallest sum spent by all nine Washington representatives.

There are similar differences within other state delegations.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) spent $43,466 on travel, more than any of his colleagues in the contiguous United States. His neighbor, Rep. Tom Latham (R), spent only $13,821. The two districts are roughly the same size -- why the difference in travel costs? There's probably a simple answer, but King's office did not respond to a request for comment. A Latham spokesman said he'd let the number speak for itself.

Summer travel for the office of New Mexico's Harry Teague (D) totaled $40,274. His neighbor, Rep. Ben Lujan (D), disbursed just $20,697. Neither office responded to requests for comment.

In other states, differences in travel spending simply reflect size of the districts and their distance from Washington.

Republican Jerry Moran spent $41,999 traveling his district, the largest in Kansas. Neighbor Lynn Jenkins (R), of the much-smaller 2nd district, spent $14,800 traveling in the third quarter. A Moran spokesperson noted that Moran's district is "roughly the size of Illinois" and that the congressman holds 69 town hall meetings a year.

Local Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va.) spent the least money traveling in the third quarter, reporting a modest $208 in travel costs, and only $240 for the year to date. His biggest expenditure was a $45 car rental in September.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) spent almost 100 times what his fellow Virginian spent in the same three months, totaling $19,522.

"Congressman Perriello's district is larger than the state of New Jersey," said Periello spokeswoman Jessica Barba. "It's a huge state to cover, and he is out all the time, every single weekend, meeting with people and staying in touch with his constituents."

Barba also said that Perriello's staff is particularly active in his district and that they held 21 town hall meetings in August.

Unsurprisingly, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) spent the most on travel, totaling $70,829. Young spokeswoman Meredith Kenny explained:

"We do like to send staff back [to Alaska] because it's not feasible for them to come to us. They travel the state mostly in August to hold meetings, although some staff travel throughout the year, but prices are much higher in August because of tourist season," Kenny said.

"Alaska has a horrible road system, so you have to fly everywhere, which is unique to our state. Congressman Young has some payments to security aviation and other private plane companies because when he travels to villages, he has to hire private planes."

Kenny also mentioned that food is more expensive up in Alaska. The cheapest meal in America might be in Tennessee -- the statement of disbursements shows that the office of Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) spent five cents on a meal on Aug. 17. (Davis's office did not bother responding to a request for comment.)

The data is not very precise -- Phil Singer of Congress.org noted that when the House posted the data online for the first time this week, administrators "erased a vast array of details on the expenditures of House Members, making it impossible to determine what much of the money was actually spent on." Many expenditures are listed simply as "Commercial Transportation" or "Travel Reimbursement."

With additional reporting by Laura Bassett

The Sunlight Foundation put the data in a searchable database. See any interesting patterns? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

Greenpeace Asks For Senate Investigation Into Newsweek's Big Oil Forum

2009-12-04T15:10:23Z

On Tuesday, Newsweek hosted a climate and energy policy forum on Capitol Hill with the American Petroleum Institute. Now Greenpeace, which has been hectoring the magazine for weeks over its plans to partner with Big Oil for this forum, has asked the Senate to investigate whether the event was in violation of congressional rules.

In a letter to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Greenpeace director Phil Radford cites guidelines that prohibit the "use of Senate space for any commercial, promotional, or profit-making purpose" and "signs, placards, photographs, brochures or pamphlets displaying a group or company name or logo."

Radford attached to his letter pamphlets and flyers from the event that featured both the Newsweek and API logos.

Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman moderated the panel, which included API lobbyist Jack Gerard with Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

"Credible institutions like Newsweek and the U.S Congress need to stop doing business with un-credible institutions like the American Petroleum Institute," Greenpeace director Phil Radford told HuffPost. "Newsweek is using its advertising to allow corporations to buy access to Congress. It's part of this huge campaign of Big Oil to sap tax dollars for more subsidies when we really need clean energy jobs."

API has spent $5.8 million lobbying so far in 2009, according to disclosure reports.

Here's the Greenpeace letter:

December 3, 2009

Senator Charles Schumer

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

305 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Schumer,

As you may know, on Tuesday, December 1st, Newsweek Magazine and the American Petroleum Institute (API) co-sponsored a controversial "forum" in the Mansfield Room (S-207) in the US Capitol Building. According to the admission of public relations staff at Newsweek and several news accounts, API paid Newsweek enough to make the trade group eligible to co-sponsor an "Executive Forum." As part of API's advertising deal with Newsweek, the group's President, registered lobbyist Jack Gerard, was granted the only non-governmental seat on the panel aside from a Newsweek editor.

After reviewing the Senate Rules governing events held at the US Capitol, I believe this forum violated the guidelines governing events held in the Senate Wing of the US Capitol or in Senate office buildings. I am writing to urge you to investigate this matter and share the findings of that investigation with the public. Additionally, I hope you will consider the greater impact that this type of conduct could have on the public's perception of the United States Congress. The United States Capitol is not a convention center with rooms available to the lobbyist who signs the largest check, nor is it a venue for any private, profit-making company to promote its product.

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration provides clear guidance for events held in taxpayer-funded facilities like the Capitol:

Commercial, Promotional or Profit Making Events

* Booking and use of Senate space for any commercial, promotional, or profit-making purpose is strictly prohibited.

* No signs, placards, photographs, brochures or pamphlets displaying a group or company name or logo are permitted.

* No products or services may be promoted or sold on the premises. No promotional material may be distributed on the premises.

Several members of my staff attended the "forum" and provided the details below that prove that this event was beyond the pale of acceptable conduct within the walls of the US Capitol. You will find attached with this letter documentation of many of the claims made below.

The "forum", which was moderated by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, featured a panel that included Gerard and three members of Congress: Senator Byron Dorgan, Representative Edward Markey and Representative Fred Upton. Other members of Congress and their staff also attended the "forum", which included food, wine, and beer as refreshments, the cost of which was presumably covered by API's package deal. Despite the Senate rule banning promotional materials and company names and logos, the Mansfield room was covered in brochures, signs and other materials that outwardly promoted API, Newsweek and the magazine's advertisers. Examples include:

* At the beginning of the "forum" each seat was covered by an API brochure that featured the group's logo and included the tagline "America's oil and natural gas industry supports over 9 million jobs. One of them may be yours."
* Newsweek provided every attendee with copies of its magazine and other materials that included paid advertisements.
* Posters located at the front of the room and at the entrance to the Mansfield room included both Newsweek's and API's corporate logos.

These materials appear to be in clear violation of the rules banning promotional material in the Senate wing of the Capitol and Senate office buildings. I hope you share my shock that API was permitted to pay Newsweek for the opportunity to directly influence members of Congress and their staff with brochures and other information just steps from the Senate floor. It is equally disturbing that Newsweek was permitted to use the room in the first place and to distribute copies of the publication, which included numerous advertisements.

As you and your colleagues debate energy and climate legislation that could put our nation on the course to a new clean energy economy, I hope you agree that it is critically important to ensure that no lobbyist or interest group is able to buy special "pay-to-play" access to influence members or their staff. This "Executive Forum" clearly violated the "letter of the law" governing events at the US Capitol and it threatens to undermine Congress's credibility as faithful stewards of the public trust.

Finally, it is worth noting that members of my staff attempted to ask Mr. Gerard on camera about API's financial relationship to Newsweek regarding this event and he repeatedly refused.

I hope that your three committees will investigate this matter and inform the public about these troubling violations of Congressional rules and ethics laws.

Sincerely,
Phil Radford
Greenpeace Executive Director

Encl: Two Photos of Newsweek and API promotional materials

Former Employers More Likely To Allege Misconduct By Laid-Off Workers Than In Past Recessions

2009-12-03T20:28:56Z

Laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits today are almost twice as likely as their counterparts during the recession of the 1980s to be accused of misconduct by their former employers.

From 1980 to 1982, when the unemployment rate crept toward 10 percent, employers told state unemployment insurance offices that laid-off workers seeking benefits had been fired for misconduct between 5.9 and 7.1 percent of the time, according to Labor Department data compiled by the National Employment Law Project. In 2008, after climbing steadily for the past 25 years, the rate of misconduct claims reached 13 percent.

More than 22 million people filed unemployment claims in 2008. For 2.8 million of them, employers said it was the workers' own fault.

"If you're fired from a job and they can establish that you were fired for misconduct, you can get disqualified from an unemployment benefit," said NELP deputy director Andrew Stettner. (Workers who quit voluntarily are also ineligible.) "There's a big incentive."

Employers have an incentive to see former workers disqualified because businesses pay an unemployment tax that varies depending on the amount of benefits collected by ex-employees. (Unemployment tax rates, as well as eligibility requirements for benefits, vary from state to state.) And that savings is big money for third-party companies that are paid by employers to process appeals of unemployment claims. The biggest company is TALX, a wholly-owned subsidiary of credit bureau Equifax. TALX reportedly removes "over $6 billion in unemployment claims liability annually."

Kate McHugh learned about TALX in February after losing her job at a Washington, D.C. clothing retailer where she'd worked for a year and a half. In May, after she'd been drawing $359 a week in unemployment benefits, she received a notice from the government that her former employer wanted to block the payouts because McHugh, 26, had been fired for misconduct.

"It was a bit of a life crusher," McHugh said. She called a lawyer.

The retailer must not have expected McHugh to fight back. Forced to prove her misconduct to an administrative law judge, the company claimed that she stole 10 minutes of company time by showing up late to work one day in January, and that she "falsified" her arrival time on a malfunctioning punch clock. That was it.

The judge essentially laughed the retailer out of the courtroom, writing in his decision affirming McHugh's benefits that her former employer provided no evidence that she'd attempted to falsify her arrival time. Even if she had, the judge wrote, "A single alleged incident of incorrectly reporting arrival time, creating a discrepancy of five to ten minutes, does not rise to the level of misconduct for purposes of the unemployment compensation statute."

The retailer outsourced its appeal of McHugh's benefits to TALX. According to a press release, the company's Unemployment Cost Management program "lowers unemployment costs by streamlining day-to day unemployment claims processing, conducting benefit charge recoveries, and assisting with the hearing and appeals process."

A TALX spokesperson declined to provide details about how much business the company has been doing in the unemployment arena, but did say that business is up as employers try to cut costs.

"We have had an incremental increase in the unemployment business, but it's not as a result of employers getting more aggressive," the spokesperson said. "It's simply that the load is getting so big at this point that they need help with it so that nobody falls through the cracks."

Doug Holmes, president of an organization called UWC Strategic Services, which represents businesses in unemployment matters, stressed that it's the state that determines whether a person receives benefits and that there's nothing nefarious about employers providing information. Companies like TALX, he said, smooth the process.

"[Workers] are not entitled to be paid until a determination has been made that they became unemployed through no fault of their own," he said.

"At a time when many employees are economically dependent, they don't have income, they can't hire a lawyer, there's no legal service provided to them, they will be overwhelmed by such an allegation and not contest it," said McHugh's lawyer, Steve Mercer, who represented her pro bono. "The shame of it is that -- looking at [McHugh's] case as an example -- when an allegation of theft is challenged, look how quickly it falls apart once it's scrutinized."

HuffPost readers: Got a story about unemployment benefits? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

Members Of Congress Lobbying Each Other Astroturf-Style

2009-11-30T22:00:27Z

Democratic members of Congress are lobbying each other Astroturf-style, at least according to an internal House Ethics Committee memo obtained by WikiLeaks.

Astroturfing is the phenomenon by which a political or commercial interest drums up fake-grassroots support on an issue -- but it doesn't usually originate in a congressional office.

On page 16 of the ethics memo, first obtained by the Washington Post, it describes how a staffer from the office of Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) called the ethics committee to find out if a fellow member of Congress broke the rules by encouraging a Loebsack constituent to call his office to influence a vote.

Loebsack's office and others apparently received calls from constituents goaded by other members' offices. The document says that fellow Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley's office "apparently had made the calls." (Though the report initially says the encouragement came in the form of an email.)

The committee advised that trying to get another member's constituents to call the office and demand a vote sounds "like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress."

All members of Congress benefit from a "Franking" privilege that reimburses them for newsletters to constituents. But the Franking rules prohibit members from sending partisan material, solicitations for campaign funds or letters to encourage grassroots lobbying. According to the guidance on the Committee on House Administration website, "all electronic communication content" -- such as a website or email -- "must comply with the Franking Regulations."

Melanie Sloan, executive director of nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed with the committee that emailing a fellow member's constituent is against the rules.

"It's a violation," she told Huffington Post.

The ethics committee declined to confirm the authenticity of the Wikileaks document to HuffPost, though it's entirely consistent with the Washington Post's reporting. Here's the previously-undisclosed Astroturfing tidbit:

-Eric from Loebsack's office called to see if there was a rules violation for a Member to send emails to individuals outside of his district asking theme recipient to contact his/her own Member to ask for a certain vote on a pending bill (Loebsack had received one of these calls). I told him it sounded like it might violate both the Franking rules and the rule that Members should not be providing guidance on how to lobby Congress. A couple of days later, Peg got a call from Braley's office, which apparently had made the calls. Her advice was consistent with mine, but apparently some of the Members who received the resulting calls are not pleased.

Neither Braley's nor Loebsack's offices responded to requests for comment from HuffPost. Here's what we'd like to know: What vote did a Loebsack constituent call about, and who put him or her up to it?

Tips? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

With reporting by Laura Bassett

No Recession Special On The D.C. Power Lunch Menu

2009-11-30T16:13:50Z

There's no recession special on the menu at D.C.'s hottest power lunch spots. At a time of double-digit unemployment, when one in eight Americans is on food stamps, the bistros and steakhouses that serve the Capitol crowd seem to to be doing fine -- with no reduction in business and no fewer fawning media profiles.

In September, the Washington Post offered a peek at the rich and famous powerbrokers who dine at Ristorante Tosca. On Monday, CNN visited the Palm, the Capital Grille, the Monocle, and Charlie Palmer Steak, where the executive chef boasts that every member of the House and Senate has dined at some point.

"You're going to be seen, you're going to see who else is there, and to sort of hobnob and be part of the club," said Washingtonian editor-at-large Garrett Graff. "The private rooms, the private dining is an important thing if you're holding a fundraiser or you're trying to bring together a group to try to have a private conversation."

But is it really elevated hobnobbing that brings the big spenders to these restaurants? Or is that they are the favored places for moneyed interests to quietly exchange favors among themselves and our elected representatives?

At least in part, it's the cold-hearted and nonstop quest for cash. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation obtains invitations to fundraisers happening at places like Charlie Palmer and the Monocle almost every single day -- and Sunlight doubts that the invites it receives constitute the majority of fundraisers happening at any given time.

Here's a sampler of upcoming fundraisers: On Tuesday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is having lunch at Bistro Bis. On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) will have breakfast at the Monocle and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) will dine at Charlie Palmer Steak. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) will be at Capital Grille for a "financial services dinner" later this month.

Lawmakers need so much money to fund winning campaigns that more than 40 such events can take place on a single day, regardless of whether the event interferes with a hearing. The venues are already expensive, but the price of admission for a fundraiser is typically a campaign contribution ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. That's one powerful lunch!

What happens if you show up at Bistro Bis and tell the host you're there to see the senator? The host looks at a schedule and asks, "Which one?"

Tips? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

How Tom Daschle Lobbies In Secret: Influence Laundering

2009-11-25T12:20:20Z

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle will soon move from one big lobbying firm to another even bigger lobbying firm. It's a career boost for a first-rate K Street powerbroker -- just don't call him a lobbyist.

Lobbyists, after all, are required to register with Congress and file quarterly reports disclosing their actions on behalf of clients. The South Dakota Democrat, like a growing number of people in his line of work, has made sure he doesn't have to do that.

"I've not made a call nor made a visit since I left the Senate on behalf of a client. And I don't have any expectation that I'll do that in the future," Daschle told the New York Times recently.

By claiming that he never picks up the phone on his clients' behalf, Daschle is not legally obliged to declare himself a lobbyist, even if all his work for those clients falls under the general definition of "lobbying activity." That means he can keep his clients' identities and how much they pay him entirely secret.

At the Huffington Post, we've coined a new phrase for this tactic: influence laundering.

In December, Daschle starts his new job as a "senior policy advisor" at DLA Piper, a massive law and lobbying firm that represents a range of corporate and foreign government clients. He has said he plans to focus less on health care, his main issue since losing his 2004 re-election bid, and more on international issues.

Even if Daschle refrains from directly contacting former colleagues on his clients' behalf, however, that doesn't mean DLA's lobbying clients won't receive the full benefit of his contacts and expertise, and that those assets can't be used to influence legislation.

For instance: clients of Alston & Bird, the firm Daschle joined in 2005, said this summer that Daschle sometimes advised them "indirectly" through the firm's registered lobbyists. So whatever news Daschle picked up on his many visits to the Hill or to the White House he could pass on to a client by telling one of his colleagues at Alston.

And one might well say Daschle indirectly lobbied his former colleagues when he promoted home health care during a panel on Capitol Hill in July. The National Association for Home Care and Hospice, an Alston client since 2003, has paid the firm $230,000 so far this year.

"We can provide low-cost good quality access in part through home healthcare. Home health is by far the most effective way to start producing wellness promotion and primary care," Daschle said during a roundtable discussion hosted by the American Association for Homecare, for which he earned a speaking fee. The association was an Alston client that paid the firm $280,000 from 2004 to 2006, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress.

A spokesman from the American Association for Homecare told HuffPost that since it terminated its lobbying relationship with Alston, the group has had no relationship with the firm or with Daschle except for the July event.

The benefits of Daschle's association with the Alston probably spilled over into the lobbying arena. Alston's lobbying revenue, much of it from health-industry clients, nearly tripled the year Daschle joined the firm.

And behind closed doors, who knows what happens? The Government Accountability Office audited lobbying firms last year to check the accuracy of their disclosures. The GAO found that while most firms could back up income statements, only 35 percent could provide written documentation of who acted as a lobbyist for a particular client.

In August, Daschle faced a wave of criticism after Business Week detailed his work for UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest insurers in the country.

Reporters Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein wrote that Daschle "advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades."

Daschle told the magazine that the folks at UnitedHealth "just want a description of the lay of the land, an assessment of circumstances as they appear to be as health reform unfolds."

Congressional disclosure forms contain no information about Daschle's relationship with UnitedHealth. The company is not a lobbying client of Alston & Bird's.

Other former politicians have found their way to non-lobbyist gigs at DLA Piper, including senators like Mel Martinez and George Mitchell, who, like Daschle, is a former Senate majority leader. In January, the Obama administration appointed Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East.

At the beginning of the Obama presidency, Daschle, too, seemed destined to be the top health-reform adviser in the White House -- and secretary of Health and Human Service to boot. But his nomination crashed and burned when it came out that he hadn't paid more than $140,000 in taxes over three years on a luxury car and driver. But many observers were even more unsettled by how blatantly Daschle cashed in after leaving office, earning $5 million in just four years, much of it from the health industry.

Neverthless, Daschle remains one of Obama's mentors, visiting the White House 11 times in the first six months of this year, according to recently-released visitor logs.

Another unregistered lobbyist who spent a significant amount of time at the White House has been accused of breaking the rules. This month, conservative groups asked the Justice Department to investigate whether labor boss Andy Stern, who visited the White House 22 times and Tweeted about fundraising activities, was acting as a lobbyist. But a spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that Stern spent less than 20 percent of his time contacting government officials -- below the legal threshold for whether a person must register.

Daschle's work fits squarely within the legal definition of "lobbying activity," which includes "preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others."

But a person must register as a lobbyist only if he spends more than 20 percent of his time for a client on lobbying activity and makes more than one "lobbying contact" seeking to influence legislation, rulemaking, grant-awarding, or a nomination on behalf of the client.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist with Public Citizen, tells HuffPost that while Daschle may not be violating the letter of the law, he's certainly violating its spirit.

"He gets paid a fortune, he spends more than 20 percent of his time on lobbying activities and he's regularly meeting with covered government officials," Holman told the Huffington Post. "That guy is just flouting the law."

Julian Hattem contributed to this report.

Correction: This article originally reported that the American Association for Homecare remained an Alston & Bird client after the firm reported the relationship terminated in 2007. The group has not been an Alston client since then.

Unemployment By State In October (MAP)

2009-11-20T19:16:31Z

Unemployment rates are up from this time last year in all 50 states, but recently the situation improved somewhat -- employment increased in 28 states from September to October, the government announced on Friday.

In six states, there were statistically significant gains -- including Michigan, which still has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 15.1 percent (down from 15.3 percent in September).

The overall picture is still bad -- here's a chart from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics with the breakdown:

For a larger version, click here (it will open in a new window).

Click here for the state-by-state unemployment report from the BLS. And click here to see some of HuffPost's stories on people dealing with unemployment and its consequences.

HuffPost readers: Got an unemployment story? Losing your health insurance? Bank kicking you while you're down? Email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

CREW Files FEC Complaint Over Landrieu's $25,300 'Donation' To The U.S. Treasury

2009-11-20T17:17:34Z

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commision over a mysterious $25,300 "donation" to the U.S. Treasury by Senator Mary Landrieu's campaign committee. The Louisiana Democrat's campaign made no announcement when it donated the funds in August 2008.

"We all know politicians don't give up campaign contributions -- much less $25,000 -- without a very good reason," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan in a statement. "It appears Sen. Landrieu's reason may have been to avoid a scandal or, even worse, a federal investigation into some of her contributions."

Marc Elias, a lawyer for Landrieu's campaign, wrote in an e-mail to the Huffington Post: "This is a silly complaint. Unfortunately FEC rules don't prevent frivolous complaints; nonetheless, it will ultimately be dismissed."

CREW first noticed the donation and wondered if it had something to do with an ongoing inquiry by the Senate Ethics Committee. The committee was investigating whether Landrieu violated Senate rules when she sought $2 million in earmarks for a company whose executives donated $30,000 to her campaign.

Elias emphatically told the Huffington Post last week that the donated funds had nothing to do with the investigation. But that was all he would say.

"When questioned about the expenditure by the press," the complaint says, "a lawyer for the campaign refused to explain why the campaign disgorged the funds to the Treasury, stating only the contributors 'are private citizens who in most instances may not have done anything wrong.'"

The complaint cites regulations that forbid campaigns from donating dirty money to the Treasury unless the contributor is under criminal investigation, indictment, or has been convicted. By not giving the $25,300 back to whoever contributed it, CREW says Landrieu's campaign broke the law.

Last week, almost two years after CREW filed its complaint over the $2 million earmark, the ethics committee cleared Landrieu of wrongdoing.

Landrieu's campaign will have 15 days to respond to the complaint after the FEC provides its formal notification.

Click here for a PDF of CREW's complaint.

HuffPost readers: Want to scan through Landrieu campaign's contributors and look for people who've been convicted or indicted? Click here for the FEC data. Send tips to arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

Senate Health Care Bill Offers Less Immediate Help Than House Version

2009-11-19T18:55:14Z

If the Senate has its way with health insurance reform, Sandra Ingram, a 63-year-old cancer patient undergoing intensive chemotherapy treatments in Iowa, would lose her health insurance next July.

That's when the temporary health benefits she gets from her former employer will expire. Ingram, who knows no private insurer will sign up a cancer patient at an affordable rate (if at all), will have to wait half a year before she can apply for a temporary public insurance plan, and it'll be another year after that before she's eligible for Medicare.

"The metastasis has reached the bone, the liver and what they're doing is keeping me alive as long as possible," Ingram told the Huffington Post. She said she'll keep doing one chemo treatment or another until either the cancer is gone or she's tired of fighting it. She doesn't know what to expect in six months -- but for now, she's not giving up.

"I'm fighting this booger," said Ingram, who lost her job in January. "I hate cancer. It's a monster."

Ingram wouldn't lose her benefits under the House plan. While the Senate bill does not extend health benefits for laid-off workers, the House version would keep Ingram covered through next year and until 2013, when the big reforms -- the exchange, through which people can choose from a range of affordable policies, including a public option -- are up and running. The bill allows any laid-off worker who continued his or her employer's health care plan under the government's COBRA law to keep that coverage until the exchange is in place. (The Senate bill pushes the start date of the big reforms back to 2014.)

COBRA gives fired workers 18 months during which they can pay full price for their policy under their former employer's group plan -- not very affordable, but typically less than it would cost to buy insurance on the individual market. The stimulus bill provided for 65 percent reduced COBRA payments, and it's likely that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to renew that benefit for another year before the Christmas break.

Ingram said her reduced COBRA payment is $270 a month. There is a program in Iowa for people who've been denied insurance, but she said she thought it would cost more than $800 a month. Under the House plan, she'd get a much better deal.

"The Senate is selling us out," Ingram said. She's been calling Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who opposes the bill altogether, and urging him to flip his position.

Both bills create a $5 billion temporary public insurance option for people who have been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The Senate bill gives the Health Secretary 90 days to set up the "high-risk pool," whereas the House bill wants that pool ready for swimming on New Year's Day.

And the Senate bill is stingier about how soon some people can jump in.

Mary Duffy is a 60-year-old three-time cancer survivor in California whose COBRA benefits will expire in December. Under the House version, Duffy will be eligible for the high-risk pool as soon as a private insurer refuses to cover her or offers her a bad deal -- she does not also have to wait six months. Under the Senate version, a person must both wait six months and have a pre-existing condition to qualify.

Audit The Fed Effort Wins Support From An Unusual Coalition

2009-11-19T12:38:04Z

An unusual coalition of progressive economists, labor leaders, and bloggers has decided to fight back against a congressional amendment that would allow the Federal Reserve to continue operating in secrecy.

In a Thursday letter to the House Financial Services Committee, economists like Dean Baker and Rob Johnson, author Naomi Klein, and such labor luminaries as the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka and the SEIU's Andy Stern, urged committee members to shoot down an amendment by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) that would essentially allow the Fed to keep the lights off while it throws money around.

Watt's amendment, which could see a House vote today, is a direct attack against a separate measure by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). That measure, known as the "Audit the Fed" bill, has been gaining momentum in Congress for months.

"A vote for the Watt amendment is a vote for more secret bailouts," the letter says.

The letter notes that during the financial crisis of the past two years, the Fed's role has shifted from simply setting monetary policy via interest rates to rapidly acquiring "a wide variety of private assets and extend[ing] massive secret bailouts to major financial institutions."

Among those bailouts, critics argue, was the Fed's funneling of cash to AIG counterparties. Earlier this week, a government watchdog issued a blistering report that blamed the Federal Reserve for withholding details of its massive rescue of AIG last fall. In particular, the report blamed the Federal Reserve for paying for botching its private negotiations regarding the price AIG's rapidly souring derivatives investments, a secret move that cost taxpayers at least $13 billion.

Watt's office on Wednesday circulated a letter from what it called a "political cross section of prominent economists" who supported the amendment. All but one of those economists are currently or have previously been on the Fed payroll.

The committee will take up the Watt amendment on Thursday.

Here's the letter:

November 18, 2009
House Financial Services Committee
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and Members of the Committee,

During the past two years, the Federal Reserve dramatically changed its operating procedures. Instead of simply setting interest rates to influence macroeconomic conditions, it rapidly acquired a wide variety of private assets and extended massive secret bailouts to major financial institutions.

There are still many questions about the Fed's behavior in these new activities, including potential cronyism and favoritism in its distribution of many trillions of dollars. As the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program recently wrote about their bailout of AIG, the Fed's "strategy to pursue concessions from counterparties offered little opportunity for success, even in light of the willingness of one counterparty to agree to concessions."

The Federal Reserve balance sheet expanded to more than $2 trillion, along with implied and explicit backstops to Wall Street firms that could cost even more. Who received the money? Against what collateral? On what terms and conditions? The only way to find out is through a complete audit of the Federal Reserve. That's why we support the Paul-Grayson amendment requiring a complete audit.

The Watt amendment does not repeal the existing provisions that prohibit a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. In fact, it adds entirely new additional categories of restrictions. Instead of opening up the Fed's secretive activities to public inspection, the Watt amendment cloaks it in further secrecy.

A vote for the Watt amendment is a vote for more secret bailouts. We urge you to support Paul-Grayson instead.

Sincerely,

Dean Baker, Economist, Center for Economic Policy Research
William Black, Professor of Economics and Law
Tyler Durden, Blogger, Zero Hedge
Thomas Ferguson, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Boston
James K. Galbraith, Economist, University of Texas
Leo Gerard, President, United Steelworkers Union
Jane Hamsher, Blogger, Firedoglake.com
Rob Johnson, Economist
Naomi Klein, Author, No Logo and The Shock Doctrine
Yves Smith, Blogger, Naked Capitalism
Andrew Stern, President, SEIU
Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO
L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics, Center for Full Employment and Price Stability

One Million Will Lose Unemployment Benefits In January Unless Congress Acts

2009-11-18T21:55:53Z

One million people will stop receiving unemployment benefits in January unless Congress makes a move before the Christmas recess, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project.

Two weeks ago, after an epic delay by Republican senators, Congress passed a 14-week extension for all states, with an additional 6 weeks for states with unemployment above 8.5 percent.

But it turns out that extension was built on the extended benefits authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which does not allow for additional extensions after Dec. 31. So for people currently collecting unemployment, there will be no new extensions of benefits after New Year's Day unless Congress acts.

The extension that passed Congress on Nov. 4 was designed to help the thousands of unemployed people already exhausting their extensions every week. Those thousands would be a trickle compared to the tidal wave of people whose benefits would dry up in January.

Congress also needs to decide whether to extend a 65 percent subsidy of COBRA health benefits and an extra $25 per week in unemployment checks.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) said Democrats would at least deal with unemployment and COBRA benefits. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said, "I think clearly we need to move on the unemployment insurance and the COBRA."

It might seem like a no-brainer, but the similarly obvious 14-week extension languished in the Senate for six weeks after it passed the House.

"Any delay reauthorizing the ARRA will have devastating consequences not just for workers and the struggling communities hardest hit by the recession," said National Employment Law Project executive director Christine Owens in a statement. "By early December, state agencies that administer unemployment benefits will be forced to notify workers that the program will be shut down by the end of year, as required by federal law. If Congress doesn't reauthorize the programs as soon as possible, this ARRA deadline will create total chaos for the state agencies and workers facing an uncertain future."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

How Retired Military Officers Make Bank As Pentagon 'Mentors'

2009-11-18T17:10:08Z

The revolving door is spinning rapidly for retired admirals and generals, more than 125 of whom have been re-hired by the Pentagon to serve as "senior mentors" despite financial ties to companies seeking contracts from the Defense Department, according to an investigation by USA Today.

Participants in mentorship programs for various defense agencies are hired as independent contractors, thereby dodging ethics and disclosure requirements that apply to government employees:

"Mentors are not barred from lobbying the same officers they are advising, from advertising their military adviser role on company websites, or from taking commercial advantage of insights gleaned through their government work," USA Today reported.

Good-government groups say that while such arrangements are legal, they look real bad.

"You just don't know to what degree these mentors are really representing what's in the best interest of our national defense versus advancing capabilities that their companies are working toward," Mandy Smithberger, national security investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, told Huffington Post.

A POGO investigation from 2004 documented the revolving-door phenomenon and found 291 instances of high-ranking officials leaving government to serve as lobbyists, board members or executives at contracting firms. In seven years those firms spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign donations, in turn receiving hundreds of billions in federal contracts.

"A contracting system where current and former public servants use their positions for private gain means powerful private corporations can rig the system in their favor," said the report. "This skewed process costs taxpayers, limits or eliminates competition from businesses that may be the best for the job, and results in flawed policies and bad procurement decisions.

Several retired officials interviewed by USA Today said they'd never use their mentoring position to peddle a product from their private-sector employer. But mentor Maj. Gen. Waldo Freeman told the paper he though that argument was "baloney" and said, "I think it's absolutely wrong for somebody to have one foot in both camps."

In some cases the mentorships pay double an officials' salary during his career -- and that's on top of six-figure pensions.

POGO's Smithberger said there is definitely need for further investigation, perhaps by the Defense Department's Inspector General. The DoD's Inspector General's office and the Standards of Conduct Office told Huff Post they saw nothing to investigate.

For Some Uninsured, Health Bill Benefits Would Kick In Right Away

2009-11-17T20:30:37Z

A common complaint about the health insurance reform legislation moving through Congress is that the uninsured won't see any help until 2013.

While it's true that major provisions of the bills don't take effect until 2013, some important reforms would be immediate.

Sandra Ingram, 63, of Iowa, is one of the people eagerly awaiting the legislation's passage.

After a battle with breast cancer, Ingram's doctors declared her cancer-free in January. Then she lost her job and in September, her cancer returned -- this time in her bones and liver.

Ingram still has insurance, because she kept her employer's health benefits through COBRA Continuation Coverage. But that coverage is set to expire in July.

If reform derails in the Senate, Ingram will be out of luck come Independence Day, as her pre-existing condition would make her pretty much uninsurable.

If legislation like what passed the House is signed into law, Ingram will see her COBRA insurance extended until 2013, when an "exchange" is in place where she could choose an affordable insurance policy from a variety of options.

Or she might be eligible for a temporary government-run program for uninsured people with pre-existing conditions -- via an "interim high-risk pool" -- until the exchange is available. The $5 billion high-risk pool would be established on Jan. 1, 2010. The COBRA extension would go in effect as soon as the bill is signed.

So Ingram has been emailing and calling one of her senators, Chuck Grassley (R) -- who cooperated with Democrats at first but changed his position over the summer -- to encourage him to support the bill. And she's been reaching out to local media so people know her story. "I think the way things are with insurance companies -- people need to understand what kind of a grip they have on our throats."

When asked if she took insurance reform personally, she said, "My dear, it could happen to you!"

Another person with a personal stake in reform is Mary Duffy, 60, whose COBRA benefits will expire at the end of next month. Like Ingram, Duffy is a cancer survivor who would benefit from the same two provisions -- either the COBRA extension or the insurance policy for people in a high-risk pool. She's been speaking out, too, talking to reporters and telling her story at town halls.

Duffy, who lives in California, has been trying to get a job since her layoff earlier this year, and she's been trying to get insurance, too. When she calls insurance companies to ask about a policy and tells them she's a three-time breast cancer survivor, "you can almost hear the laughter," she said. She said the best offer she's gotten has been for an $898-a-month policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

As much as a health bill would help her, Duffy opposes it in the form it passed the House, because of its restrictive abortion provision, which she hopes won't survive in the Senate. "I don't understand why the price of insurance is to set women's rights back 50 years," she said.