By:Robert Laszewski President of Health Policy and Strategy Associates

Any big health care bill will be full of compromises—political or otherwise. But this bill doesn’t even come close to deserving to be called “health care reform.”

As the Democrats make their final push to pass their health care bill many of them, and most notably the President, are arguing that it should be passed because it is the “right thing to do whatever the polls say.”

Their argument is powerful: We will never get the perfect bill. If this fails who knows how long it will be before we have another big proposal up for a vote. There are millions of uninsured unable to get coverage because of preexisting conditions or the inability to pay the big premiums and this bill would help them.

But as an unavoidable moral imperative, enacting this bill would fall way short:

It is unsustainable. Promises are being made that cannot be kept. As President Obama has said many times, we need fundamental health care system reform or the promises we have already made—the Medicare and Medicaid entitlements, for example—will bankrupt us. What few cost containment elements the Democrats seriously considered are now either gone from their final bill or hopelessly watered down—most notably the “Cadillac” tax on high cost benefits and the Medicare cost containment commission.

It is paying off the people already profiting the most from the status quo. Many of the big special interests, that will have to change their ways if we are really going to improve the system, are simply being paid off for their support. The drug deal, the hospital deal, promises not to cut or change the way physicians are paid, all add up to more guaranteeing the status quo rather than doing anything that will bring about the systemic change everyone knows is needed.

Nothing in these bills will fundamentally change our current fiscal course. As the CBO, and every other expert has said, if this bill becomes law we will continue on the same cost trajectory we are already on. Yes, the CBO says the Democratic plan will reduce costs during the next ten years by about $100 billion—but that only means they would be $100 billion less than the $35 trillion they would have been anyway! That is merely a rounding error on the track we are already on.

There is nothing here that will stop unaffordable health insurance rate increases. Lately supporters have said this bill is the solution to the recent big individual health insurance rate increases we have been reading about in the press. But there is little in this bill that will mitigate or control any such increases because so little would be done to impact underlying health care costs.

We often hear the argument, “Let’s get this entitlement expansion bill passed and it will force us to deal with costs later.” If we don’t now have the political courage to face daunting health care costs in the face of exploding deficits how will we have that courage later?

I will suggest that adding 30 million more people to an unsustainable system expecting it will create an even bigger crisis and thereby force real reform is tantamount to reboarding the Titanic in the hopes it will sink faster. It is also hard to see how doing such a thing is the politically courageous thing to do.

Just where is the moral imperative in ramming a trillion dollar entitlement expansion through knowing full well it will make our long-term deficit nightmare even worse—for those now uninsured and for everyone else?

The Democratic health care bill makes little if any systemic changes to the health care system—certainly not at the level we need.

The Democratic health care bill makes promises we cannot keep.

Proponents of the Democratic health care bill make the claim that it will make health insurance affordable, improve our deficit outlook, and make our health insurance system sustainable. None of those claims are even close to being true and everyone who knows anything about this debate knows that.

Heck of a foundation for doing the “right thing.”

Read more of Robert Laszewski at healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com

This blog does not reflect the views of Metro Group Inc, and are solely the opinion of the author

“Addicted to True Blood”

By: Sarah Reynolds

While the temperature is getting warmer and the days are getting longer many people would tell you that it’s a sure sign that spring is on its way.

For my husband and I, we would tell you that means there is only a few more months before the third season premiere of HBO’s hit show, True Blood. While much of the country is addicted to the latest vampire craze, my husband Matthew and I fell into the genre by accident.

I have been raiding the Internet trying to find any spoilers for the approaching season three, which stars Anna Paquin, Steven Moyer and Alexander Skarsgard.

Those who read the Sookie Stackhouse series books could tell you what will happen in the future, but the show’s creator Alan Ball is steering the show in another direction.

The only hints that can be found are by observing any casting the show is doing. So far the show has stayed true the books story line by recently casting the character from the book series Alcide Herveaux as a potential love interest. Joe Manganiello will portray the werewolf.

It is also rumored that we will be hearing more about Sam Merlottes mysterious past.

Many question still have to be answer from a season two cliffhanger. What happened to Sookie’s love Bill Compton. Moments after he proposed to Sookie, a mysterious person appeared and kidnapped him while Sookie was in the bathroom. Will Sookie think he skipped town because of her startled reaction from his proposal?

Could this be the season where a brokenhearted Sookie turns to Eric to mend her broken heart?

As the months wind down and we wait for the June season premiere it is clear that Ball has his viewers attention.

By: Sarah Reynolds

“And the Oscar goes to.”

While the Academy Awards have come and gone, it got me thinking.

While the stars get all glitzed up in various designer gowns and suits, it seems many of the stars lack the sense of grace that Hollywood had back in the 1950s.

One actress though stood out from the rest. She embodies that old Hollywood glamour and has a personality to match. That actress recently won for her performance in “The Blind Side.”

I grew up watching Sandra Bullocks films and adoring her romantic comedies. When I heard that she would be starring in a film about football player Michael Oher, I thought it would be worth seeing.

She portrayed Leigh Anne Tuohy without a flaw, for two hours I even forgot I was watching Sandra Bullock, a movie star. To forget you are watching one of the most recognized faces in the world is a true testament that the actor did their job.

She deserved that Academy Award. Her performance was hearfelt. We often hear about stars and their “personalities,” and Bullock has had a reputation for being the one of the nicest individuals in Hollywood. Talk about icing on the cake. Her speech was humble, thanking the individuals whose lives she portrayed. When time winded down she said a thank you to, “the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from. Those moms and parents never get thanked.”

She paused for moment, tears welling up in her eyes and thanked her late mother, Helga for giving her the proper upbringing, and not allowing her to ride in cars with boys and encouraging her to practice her art.

For a down to earth person like Bullock, she makes the young girls in the world, who give their Oscar speeches in their bedrooms with the hair brushes a sense of hope, that one day they may follow in the foot steps of a good role model.

By Mike Haim

It had been over two months since the Sabres scored more than three goals in a home game. It had also been that long since the club won three straight games.

Both spells ended Wednesday night in a 5-3 win against the Dallas Stars, even if the Sabres did revert to old ways and had to protect a slim lead in the final half of the game.

Buffalo wowed the sellout crowd at HSBC Arena with a three-goal first period, but concerned them too, as that was the same number they allowed.

Thomas Vanek came through to break the tie midway through the second period, and Buffalo clinged to that edge until Derek Roy’s empty-net goal with 17.7 seconds remaining.

The win extended the Sabres’ winning streak to three games, something they had not done since a six-game stretch between December 27 and January 8. The three-goal first period was the club’s first since they netted three in the first 2:11 of a 5-3 win against Tampa Bay on January 6.

Wednesday’s offensive hero was defenseman Tyler Myers, who bolstered his bid for the league rookie of the year award. He netted the game’s first goal and followed that with three assists for his first career four-point game.

“I was feeling good,” Myers said. “I was able to see a lot of opportunities to jump in, and luckily was able to capitalize a little bit.”

The Sabres could have had a lot more, if not for the stellar play of Dallas goalie Marty Turco, who made 38 saves overall and 25 in the last two periods.

“If there’s a four-by-eight piece of plywood and you get that many shots on it, I wonder if five will go through eventually,” quipped Dallas forward Steve Ott. “He let in four goals, he’s human. He’s playing his heart out for us.”

The teams furiously lit the scoreboard in the first period, with Myers and Mark Mancari giving Buffalo short-lived one-goal leads. Jamie Benn put Dallas up 3-2 with 2:04 left, but Jason Pominville got it back 67 seconds later.

“We’re not used to getting five goals in a game,” Myers said. “It felt good, especially to go in after the first tied 3-3. We came out in the second and third and made sure we played a full 60 and were able to get the win.”

“The game was there,” lamented Stars coach Marc Crawford. “We were guilty of turning over a few too many pucks and making the game a little bit more complicated than it needed to be, especially on attack.”

Buffalo goaltender Ryan Miller wasn’t severely tested and made 17 saves in the win. He stopped all five Dallas shots in the second period and turned aside six in the final stanza.

………

Mancari gave Buffalo a 2-1 lead on a one-timer from the slot after being fed by Craig Rivet from behind the goal line. The goal, scored four seconds after a power play concluded, was the second of Mancari’s NHL career; the first came in his second career game last season against the New York Islanders.

The rookie also assisted on Vanek’s game-winner, delivering a crisp pass from behind the net. It gave Mancari his first NHL multi-point game.

“He’s played really well for us,” Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said. “He played well (Sunday) in New York and I didn’t want to mess with Roy and Vanek and him. They were our best line. They could have had even more. He did a lot of nice things. He made some nice plays.”

………

Dallas was making its first visit to Buffalo since December 2005. The Stars have not won a regular season game at HSBC Arena since October 7, 1997 and are now 0-7-1 in their last eight regular season road games in the series.

In that time, however, the Stars did record a win in Game Six of the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, the triple-overtime game clinched when Brett Hull scored his controversial “skate in the crease” goal. Mercifully, there were no “No Goal” signs in the crowd, indicating that maybe Buffalo fans have let time heal that festering wound.

………

The win prevented Crawford from earning his 500th career win. The Dallas coach is 499-386-168 in his NHL career, which has seen stops in Quebec/Colorado, Vancouver, and Los Angeles before landing in Dallas before this current season.

………

www.twitter.com/mikehaim

By Mike Haim

In years to come, I’m sure this current NHL season will not be known as the “year of the headshot,” but the topic has been at the front of conversations this week.

The latest exhibit came Sunday, when Boston’s Marc Savard received a blind-side shoulder check to his head from Pittsburgh’s Matt Cooke. Savard, removed from the ice on a stretcher, hadn’t improved in the two days following the hit and could potentially miss the remainder of the season.

Cooke was not penalized on the play and will not be suspended, as he was earlier for a similar hit on the New York Rangers’ Artem Anisimov.

Cooke’s headshot, the latest in a season seemingly full of them, thus falls under the category of “unsafe but legal.” League general managers, meeting in Florida this week, decided to propose a rules clarification which would make blind-side shoulder hits to the head subject to penalty and suspension.

It’s easy now for general managers to come up with a way to punish players for their misdeeds, but the trouble emanates from that same group. GMs look for players who have that extra snarl to make opponents think twice before taking a run at a star player.

Funny, we saw Alex Ovechkin deliver a solid check to Sidney Crosby in the Olympics and didn’t see some joker try to get equal. Good hard physical play is an accepted part of the game, but in a 30-team league there’s bound to be a good population of yahoos who know they’ll earn their keep by being stupid and not respecting their opponent. The proof: GMs keep giving these guys jobs.

Teams can talk about wanting to play with four quality lines, but the reality is that many fourth-line players aren’t really NHL caliber. Yet we know who they are when they deliver a cheap shot and receive their suspension.

On balance, I’d rather see players like Marc Savard every night over ones like Matt Cooke. It’s too bad the NHL, as currently constituted, treats them as equals. The rule change can’t come quickly enough.

………

Steven Stamkos might not have made a huge impact as a rookie in 2008-09, but he’s sure making up for lost time this season.

Stamkos, who posted all of 46 points last year, already has 41 goals and could possibly become the second member of the Tampa Bay Lightning to record a 50-goal season. Vincent Lecavalier netted 52 to lead the league in 2006-07.

But more impressive of late is Stamkos’ points streak. Tuesday, he recorded a goal and an assist to extend his streak to 17 games, the second-longest in the league this season. He’s also the youngest player in NHL history with a streak of at least 16 games – Stamkos reached that level on Saturday against Atlanta, when he was 20 years and 25 days old.

Crosby, during his 19-game streak in November 2007, reached the 16-game milestone at the tender age of 20 years and 95 days.

By the way, Stamkos has also already set the Lightning single-season record with 17 power play goals.

………

Lightning goalie Antero Niittymaki also notched a neat achievement Saturday night in the win against the Thrashers.

Niittymaki improved to 17-0-0 in his career against Atlanta, an impressive feat to say the least.

But the Tampa Bay goalie is actually only tied for the NHL’s longest current winning streak against one team. Detroit’s Chris Osgood has also won his last 17 outings against, ironically enough, the Lightning.

Niittymaki, as well as Osgood, will have to wait to extend their respective streaks – Tampa Bay has concluded their season series against both Atlanta and Detroit.

………

My vote for “dumb broadcasting comment of the week” goes to the Washington radio announcer – sorry, I didn’t get his name – who made this statement during the Capitals-Stars shootout on Monday night:

“Here comes (Dallas forward) Brad Richards. He knows Washington, since he played against them quite a bit when he was with Tampa Bay.”

The statement may have made sense during the course of the game, but not during the shootout. Richards was facing Semyon Varlamov, a matchup which had never occurred before. The announcer was prophetic, though: Richards scored.

………

www.twitter.com/mikehaim

By Charles Roberts, Sports Reporter

-Credit free agent wide receiver Terrell Owens with living up to his promise to be a model citizen while he was a member of the Buffalo Bills. He did almost everything possible to fly under the radar in hopes of landing one last big contract, ideally on a winning organization. The one thing he didn’t do however was catch the football. Although many attribute Owens’ lousy production in 2009 to a lack of stable quarterback on the Bills, plain and simple, the highly glamorized receiver was dreadful and at times, painful to watch. His mechanics – which have never been anything to write home about – seemed to have regressed even further last year and on plays that didn’t involve him – his body language let the defense know just that. It’s a pretty obvious point to make, but if the Buffalo Bills, one of the league’s most abysmal franchises over the last decade don’t see room for you on their roster, who really should?

-LaDainian Tomlinson’s recent visit to Minnesota should be the only such sit down he participates in. The Vikings were a legitimate Super Bowl contender last season and all signs point to them returning to that form in 2010, assuming their gray-haired, stubble-faced quarterback returns.

-After releasing quarterback Derek Anderson, the latest rumor out of Cleveland is that they are shopping Brady Quinn to a handful of teams. No specific teams were listed, but I would have to assume Buffalo, St. Louis, Oakland, Seattle and Washington were among those the Browns reached out to. It would seem as though new team general manager Mike Holmgren wants to clean house and bring in his own crew, which makes perfect sense. The one thing that has me scratching my head however is why former Carolina Panthers quarterback Jake Delhomme is the first guy Holmgren reached out to for the possibly soon-to-be-available spot in Cleveland. It would seem like you already had a stationary guy with more upside in Anderson. I can see releasing Anderson to avoid that gaudy contract, but why not resign him for less? Drafting Quinn was the public relations move the team had to make a couple seasons ago, being the hometown kid, but now that it looks like they are going to dump him anyway, what’s the difference? And what value does the unproven Quinn really have? A third, perhaps fourth round pick?

-Little Ben gets Big Ben in trouble again. I wish these athletes would smarten up and stop putting themselves in compromising situations, like hanging out in college bars or scantily strip clubs, but it just doesn’t seem like that will ever happen. The saga continues.

By: Nicole Gawel

American Idol Recap of both the men and the women performers and elimination predictions for this week.

American Idol Women:

Katie Stevens “Breakaway”: From the start the song was a trainwreck. I couldn’t stop listening, but I wanted to. I was a fan of Stevens at the beginning, but I’m not sure after this week. She’s young and needs to hone in on her skills. Simon says she needs to figure out what kind of an artist she is and that she sucked the energy out of it, but still gives her a 10 out of 10 for trying, which is generous of him. If I were him I wouldn’t have given her that much credit, but then again that is why Ryan Secrest hasn’t called me to be a judge on the show yet.

Siobhan Magnus “House of the Rising Sun”: It started out slow. I didn’t mind it. In the past I was never really a fan of Magnus, but after this performance I like her. I’m not sure if she is American Idol caliber, but she has potential. A record company will be knocking on her door, either if she wins or not. Simon wasn’t a fan of it.

Lacey Brown “The Story”: I don’t think I’ve ever heard this song before, maybe I have, but I don’t remember. I liked it. For the past few weeks I am becoming more and more of a fan of her. The first week I didn’t like her and was certain she’d be voted off, but not this week.

Kaitlyn Epperly “I Feel the Earth Move”: I like her she is a musician, not just a singer. I have liked her performances thus far. This performance was ok, not one of her better ones, but it was still really good. She is not one of my favorites, but she doesn’t deserve to go home this week. I like the ending of the song. Simon said he’d start with the positive and said he liked her hair. He compared her to request night on a Friday night in a restaurant. True, her song was simple, but maybe that showed her voice and talent off the best. Sometimes simple is just right.

DiDi Benami “Rhiannon”: I hate this song to begin with. I’m not a fan of Benami. She deserved to go home last week, however, I didn’t mind her rendition. I liked how she changed the chorus to a slower pace.

Paige Miles “Smile”: Her voice was shaky. It was not strong enough. Her performance was lacking. Simon remarked that it was a horrible choice, the arrangement was awful and something you would hear in a Holiday Inn in 1974 with bar patrons eating peanuts and not paying much attention to the lounge singer.

Crystal Bowersox “Give Me One Reason”: As a general rule I never liked her, but this performance has redeemed her. It was electric, powerful and enchanting. I give her a lot of credit. She has immense talent.

Lily Scott “I Fall To Pieces”: She’s my favorite, but I’m not sure if this was the right song for her to choose. I like her in past performances and am still rooting for her, but I did not like her rendition or song choice. It could cost her a spot in the elite 12 of the competition.

Elimination prediction: Katie Stevens and Kaitlyn Epperly.

American Idol Men:

Lee Dewyze “Fireflies”: I like Owl City’s version. Dewyze did put his own rocker feel to it, but I was not impressed.

Alex Lambert “Trouble”: I loved Lambert’s rendition. It was passionate and soulful at the same time. In my opinion, this was one of my favorite performances a male has given this season of American Idol. Simon said that he has to stop concentrating so much and needs to loosen up and relax like by imagining Randy in a bikini or something. Kara imagines it.

Tim Urban “Hallelujah”: It was a haunting performance. For weeks I have not been a fan of Urban at all, actually I have been hoping he would be leaving the show for good, but this performance made me change my perspective. It was beautiful.

Andrew Garcia “Genie in a Bottle”: It was interesting. I had never heard the song sung by a male. It was weird, but alright, I would not say phenomenal though. There was no wow factor.

Casey James “You’ll Think of Me”: I love Keith Urban’s rendition, but this wasn’t half bad. I liked it. He could have put more of himself in the song, but I definitely liked it. It had star quality.

Aaron Kelly “I’m Already There”: He wavered in some points and was shaky here and there. It was not a good song choice. I think he needs to develop more. Simon said it was the right type of song for him to do, but it wasn’t a great vocal, but it did have emotion.

Toddrick Hall “Somebody to Love”: I didn’t want to hear this song. I hate when others try to sing Queen’s songs. Not cool in my book. You can’t and shouldn’t mess with Freddie and the crew. He took a risk in my book, but I must admit it wasn’t that bad. Simon commented that with this performance Hall would be perfect for musicals, not as a recording artist.

Big Mike “This Woman’s Work”: I absolutely hated it. I’ve never heard it before, but I’m sure the original is 10 times better. I guess his performance was good, but I did not care for it. Kara cried. Kara said he is amazing and that the song choice was relevant for him and the time he is going through.

Elimination prediction: This week is a tough one, but I’ll have to go with Lee Dewyze and Andrew Garcia.

By Nicole Gawel

Three times must be a charm. The Piano and Rocket men delivered in Tuesday’s performance of Billy Joel and Elton John’s Face 2 Face tour at the HSBC Arena.

After rescheduling three times, as the original show was slated for July 24, 2009, with the first reschedule in early December 2009 and finally, the actual show March 9, 2010, was it worth the wait? The resounding answer would be yes, because isn’t anticipation part of the fun?

The two were electric on stage, facing each other in a piano duel and also serving as the opening act.

Having them each sing alternating verses of each of their songs proved to be powerful. The whole arena could feel the energy and stigma the two star powers brought to Buffalo.

Joel bid adieu to the audience after a few songs each and John took the stage solo. I would have loved to see John in his heyday of platform shoes and a loud wardrobe. His outfits and shoes were not all that disappointing, just extremely muted from what they once were.

The one song I could not stand was Rocketman. Normally, it’s a good song, but John lamented on it too much making it into an opus. My mom even commented a third of the way into the song that this was the two-disc extended version.

I was fascinated by his shoes though.

Although John is a great performer and incredible pianist, Joel stole the show from him. Joel is truly “The Entertainer.” John hardly spoke on stage to the audience, but made gestures to interact, but Joel commented, made it into a comedy routine at some points, spoke of fond memories with touring in Buffalo in the earlier years of his career and had the audience in the palm of his hand all night.

Joel twirled the mic stand and tried to dance and move like he could way back when. He didn’t stay behind the piano the entire night like John did, which maybe is a difference with performers from England and the United States.

The two songs Joel could have left out were “Zanzibar” and “Angry Young Man.” There were other songs that are better he could have chosen.

My favorite was John’s “Beyond the Yellowbrick Road.” My favorite Joel song was “Movin’ Out.”

At the end of the two solo acts the two collaborated again and that’s when the concert seemed to hold the most magical moments. The songs that were mesmerizing included “Candle In The Wind,” “Uptown Girl,” and the final song of the night and the most looked forward to, “Piano Man.”

Between the two performers, although amazingly incredible and with immense influence in the music industry on their own, you could tell that the two came from opposite sides of the Atlantic. While Joel entertained, John performed.

Corey Feldman on Larry King Live told viewers to "stop jumping the gun" and spreading rumors that Corey Haim died from an drug overdose. He said until all the information is out there, "nobody knows" what really lead to the death of his friend.

On Larry King Live Feldman said Haim had a "long and detailed drug history and battled addiction for many, many years". Feldman did add though that Haim had been "in the best frame of mind that he's ever been in" up untill the time of his death.

Feldman and Haim were known as the "Two Coreys" during the height of their fame in the late '80's. They starred together in the film "The Lost Boys".

Haim died early Wednesday morning from an apparent overdose of prescription drugs.

Actor Corey Haim died today of an apparent overdose of prescription pills according to the LAPD. Haim was 38.

Police were called around 4 AM PT Wednesday morning to investigate the apparent overdose.

Haim starred or co-starred in a number of films such as Lucas, Murphy's Romance, and in The Lost Boys with Corey Feldman.

Haim, according to reports, suffered a drug-induced stroke in 2001. Haim also had been in and out of rehab over a dozen times throughout his life.

It may be possible to look into America’s future. How? Watch what’s going on in Greece. According to the Washington Post, “Greece needs to raise about 23 billion [more than $31 billion] in April and May to pay debts coming due. Greek officials say that either is impossible, or would require punitive interest rates — making it harder to bring the budget under control — unless Europe helps out.” So the Greek government awaits a bailout from Germany and France, but first it has to impress them that it is serious about fiscal austerity.

The Greek welfare state’s annual deficit is about 13 percent of its GDP and its accumulated debt is 113 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s overall debt is now on track to reach 90 percent of GDP by 2020, more than $20 trillion. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, the annual budget deficit will be $1.2 trillion more than the Obama administration has guessed. The ten-year figure is now projected to be $9.76 trillion. The annual deficit is about 10 percent of GDP.

Government spending is rising — and the new entitlement called health-care “reform” hasn’t passed yet. That’ll be good for a couple of trillion over the next decade.

The economic consequences of all that are likely to be dire. As the government tries to borrow more money, both to finance its programs and to pay the old debt that’s coming due, it will have to promise a better return to nervous lenders, such as China. But raising the interest rate will push other borrowers’ rates up, which in turn will put a damper on economic activity. Unemployment will grow and revenues will shrink, but entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, will keep growing. They already face tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and are heading toward bankruptcy. Military spending will also increase, along with most other government spending.

What will the politicians do when they find interest payments swallowing the budget, leaving them less and less money to shower on political supporters? They might resort to higher taxes, which would further dampen economic activity. They might get the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt through inflation; but that would wreak economic havoc. Politicians aren’t likely to cut spending because it would jeopardize their careers. At that point, the government might default on its debts, a step that has much to recommend it.

Thus, the welfare state is a fiscal failure.

The welfare state has long been presented as the viable “third way,” a happy medium between laissez faire — full separation of state and economy — and state socialism — government control of the economy. Advocates of individual liberty have emphasized that the welfare state violates freedom because government takes wealth from those who produce it and transfers it to favored groups. Defenders have responded that the welfare state embodies compassion: people with means give to those less fortunate. But forced transfers through government are not true compassion. A virtue like compassion requires free choice, but government gives you no choice. So the compassion of the welfare state is counterfeit. It’s more about distributing goodies at others’ expense to win votes for politicians.

Historically compassion had little to do with government programs for the poor and social insurance for the working and middle classes. Beginning as far back as Queen Elizabeth I poor laws were intended to control people who were potential sources of social strife; and social insurance beginning in Bismarck’s German welfare state was calculated to make working people dependent on the government. In both cases the free society was subdued for the sake of those in power.

Now it is clearer than ever that the welfare state is not only morally flawed, it is also fiscally unsustainable. Politicians will always have an incentive to spend, while hiding the costs or pushing them onto future generations through debt. But reality doesn’t go away. It comes back to bite in unexpected ways.

We’re seeing it in Greece today. Tomorrow it will be other European welfare states. Then, if nothing changes, it will be America’s turn.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation http://www.fff.org and editor of The Freeman magazine.

New York City’s fiscal year 2011 budget could be greatly impacted by the outcome of the State budget, according to a report <http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2010/nyc_budget_rpt_2010.pdf> New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released today. While the City’s current plans greatly reduce the $4.9 billion budget gap that the City had projected for fiscal year 2011, proposed reductions of $1.2 billion in State assistance could increase the City’s budget risks to about $2 billion, according to the report.

“The City has been far more fiscally responsible than the State,” DiNapoli said. “But, unfortunately, fiscal problems trickle down, and the State’s actions could have a harsh impact on the City’s finances.”

The DiNapoli report found that while the impact on the City of the global economic downturn has not been as painful as initially forecast, New York City has lost nearly 162,000 jobs and the unemployment rate has hit 10.5 percent, the highest in 17 years. The effects of the recession contributed to a decline in City tax revenue, which fell by $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2009, or 7.1 percent – the steepest decline in at least 30 years.

The City has relied upon conservative budgeting through the recent recession, and its fiscal health has been aided by a faster-than-expected recovery on Wall Street, which is on pace to post record profits in excess of $55 billion in 2009. The City in its January 2010 financial plan estimated a surplus of nearly $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2010, which reflects an improved revenue outlook ($1.8 billion); a drawdown on reserves ($600 million); and agency cost-reduction actions ($484 million). The surplus is being used to help balance the fiscal year 2011 budget.

The DiNapoli report also notes that the City will grapple with growing out-year gaps related, in part, to the expiration of federal education aid. The out-year gaps could total $6 billion, according to the report.

Click here <http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2010/nyc_budget_rpt_2010.pdf> for a copy of the report, or visit the OSC Web site at http://www.osc.state.ny.us

AARP congratulated Senator Gillibrand on her efforts today to help thousands of New York seniors live independently in their homes and out of expensive institutional settings.

They strongly support her agenda to create access to long-term care insurance, expand coverage for home care, recruit more health care professionals, and invest in a more senior-friendly transportation infrastructure. These policies help older adults age in the manner they desire – that is to live independently in their communities – and they save New York taxpayers money.

Although most people who need long-term care prefer to remain at home, Medicaid spending for long-term care remains heavily weighted toward institutional care. Nationally and in New York, 75 percent of Medicaid long-term care spending for older people pays for institutional services with only 25 percent going to home-and community-based services (HCBS). AARP strongly believes there needs to be a rebalancing of this spending.

Many of the initiatives Senator Gillibrand outlined today will undoubtedly help people obtain the services they need to allow them to live in their homes and communities and out of expensive nursing homes. They will also help slow the rate of Medicaid spending on long-term care.

Throughout the health care debate, AARP has supported those provisions contained in health care reform that would secure greater access to home and community-based services as well as more financing options to help pay for these critical services. That is why AARP believes it is essential that health care reform be passed. The AARP looks forward to working with Senator Gillibrand on these initiatives that are not only important to the well being of older people in our state but to all taxpayers who fund our long-term care system.

By: Joe Piracci

Below is a quick recap of this week’s ABC's Lost episode followed by some thoughts on it and theories. If you are just looking for Lost theories please scroll to the bottom of the article

ABC's Lost Recap

Island:

This week's episode of ABC's Lost starts off with Ben Linus catching up with Sun, Lapidus, Miles and Ilana after leaving the temple while on their way to the beach. Ilana asks Miles to tell her how Jacob died. Miles uses his ability to communicate with the dead and tells her that Ben killed Jacob. This upsets Ilana. When they arrive back at the beach Ilana chains Ben to a tree and tells him to dig his own grave while she stands by with a rifle. As Ben digs the grave, Locke appears and tells Ben that he is leaving the island and that he wants him to protect the island when he leaves. He frees Ben and tells him to run to a tree 200 yards away where there is a rifle waiting for him and to shoot Ilana when he gets to it. Ben takes off running and Ilana follows after him. Ben makes it to the tree, takes the rifle and points it at Ilana. She drops her gun and expects Ben to shoot her. Instead Ben tells her that he is sorry that he killed Jacob. He tells her the reason he did it was because he was mad at Jacob for making him choose the island over his daughter. He tells her that he just wants to leave and go with Locke because Locke is the only person that will have him. Ilana then looks at Ben and tells him she will have him. They both walk back to the beach together.

Jack and Hurley start walking back toward the temple when they run into Richard. Richard tells them to follow him in order to get back to the temple. Instead of leading them to the temple, Richard leads them to an old ship in the middle of the jungle. Inside the ship Richard tells Jack and Hurley that he wants to die, but can’t kill himself because Jacob gave him a gift. (Is the gift immortality?) He tells them that he wants to die because Jacob told him he had a plan for him and he spent his whole life waiting to find out what the plan was, but now that Jacob is dead he feels that he wasted his whole life and there is no point in living any longer. Jack agrees to kill Richard and lights the fuse on a stick of dynamite. Instead of leaving, Jack sits down next to Richard and starts telling him that he knows that Jacob has been watching him since he was a child and that he believes Jacob won’t let him die. They sit there as the fuse burns down to the end, but right before it reaches the dynamite the fuse goes out. Richard turns to Jack and asks what’s next? Jack replies that they should go back to where it all started, the beach. When they arrive at the beach, they find Sun, Lapidus, Ben, Miles and Ilana setting up camp. As the episode ends a submarine begins to surface. Inside the submarine is Charles Widmore.

Flashsideways:

Ben is a teacher. Ben tries to blackmail his boss, the principal of the school, into giving up his job and recommending Ben for the position. He does this by using the fact that the principal is having an inappropriate relationship with the school nurse. When Ben confronts his boss with this information his boss tells him that if he tells people about the affair that he will ruin the future of his favorite student who just happens to be Alex Rousseau. Ben must choose between what he wants and what is best for someone he cares about. In the end, Ben chooses not to blackmail his boss and instead saves the future of Rousseau. Also, during a conversation between Ben and his dad we learn that they were on the island and had decided to leave. So, even in this alternate reality the island still existed, was not buried underwater and was still used by Darma and that Ben and his father and who knows who else were there at some point.

Thoughts:

Throughout the whole episode I couldn’t help but feel for Ben. Even though he has been a manipulative, diabolical, evil man during this whole series I didn’t want him to die. The whole time I was hoping that someone would save him from Ilana. When the episode ended I was relieved that he was still alive. I guess Ben has grown on me and I think Ben has grown as well. He isn’t the same man he was when the series started. He has become more human and less of a scoundrel.

I find it ironic that in the alternate reality Ben chose to help Alex and not himself. The Ben in this world is not the same Ben from the island. Perhaps leaving the island was the best thing that could have happened to him.

It is also interesting that Ben and his dad were on the island at some point even in the alternate reality. Who else was on the island in this reality? Why did Ben and his dad leave? Ben was there before the bomb went off so why would the bomb going off change his life?

It seems that Richard was one of the people that crashed on the island hundreds of years ago while Jacob and the Smoke Monster were sitting on the beach. You remember the episode. The statute was still in one piece and those two were talking on the beach. The Smoke Monster turned to Jacob and told him he wanted to kill him and that one-day he would find a loophole that would allow that to happen. Richard is a very, very old man apparently and I bet knows more about what is going on than anybody, but Jacob and the Smoke Monster.

Ilana told Sun that there are six candidates left to replace Jacob. The six are as follows as far as I can tell:
1. Hurley
2. Jack
3. Sawyer
4. Jin/Sun
5. Kate
6. Sayid

Theories:

I have one new main theory. This theory states that Jacob and the Smoke Monster are some sort of deities. Jacob seems to be the sun god or the god of light while the Smoke Monster is the god of darkness or of the night.

Neither is inherently bad or good. Neither can kill each other directly, but one is stronger than the other at different points. Just as the day or light takes over the darkness or night once a day and visa versa, each has its point of strength and weakness, but neither can kill the other one completely on their own.

This is where humans come into the picture. Neither care for humans except when they can help them achieve something or do something that they themselves are not capable of or allowed to do. This is why the Smoke Monster had to influence Ben to kill Jacob because he could not do it himself. The statue is the home of Jacob and the temple belongs to the Smoke Monster and that is why he killed everyone who would not leave. He wanted to cleanse the temple of the followers of his enemy Jacob.

Neither Jacob nor the Smoke Monster can or will ever destroy the other. They can only rise up and be taken down just as the sun rises during the day and the darkness falls after sunset and right now it is dark and it is the Smoke Monster’s turn to be the dominate one, but at some point Jacob will be born again and it will be his time again. Humans are just pawns in their game just as they were in the biblical story that depicted Satan and God battling for the souls of humans. Both wanted the souls of man, but neither could directly interfere with man, but could only persuade and tempt.

Now, while the characters in Lost don’t follow this biblical example exactly, it is a very close parallel. I believe that whichever candidate is chosen that it is not their job to take over for Jacob, but that they will be used to allow Jacob to be reborn through them and therefore able to regain power over the Smoke Monster.

This game has probably been going on for thousands of years. Each one is trying to find the loophole that will allow them to destroy the other one completely, but I don’t think they will ever find it. In the end, this process is just a never-ending cycle and that is why the Smoke Monster wants to leave because he is sick of playing this unwinnable game.

The island has magical powers because it does not exist in what humans consider to be reality, but instead exists in a parallel dimension where these gods or supernatural beings live. The humans that are brought to this island are there because they are used as a way of getting the upper hand on the other, for amusement, and as an instrument of rebirth for the gods.

I am still working on a theory to tie in the alternate reality that has come into being since the explosion of the nuclear bomb. I only have nine episodes left to figure it out. Since I am only filling in this week for our regular ABC Lost blogger you may never find out if I figure out the rest of the mystery or not. Enjoy next weeks episode of ABC's Lost and bookmark this site so you can read Nicole Gawel’s Lost article next week!

NEW YORK, NY (March 10, 2010) - Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that David Loglisci, the former Chief Investment Officer at the Office of the New York State Comptroller (OSC), who was indicted last year along with co-defendant Henry Hank Morris, pled guilty to a Martin Act felony for his role in the corruption of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (CRF) and will cooperate in the ongoing investigation.

Today's plea is part of a more than two-year ongoing investigation into corruption involving the Office of the State Comptroller and the Common Retirement Fund. The charges to date allege a complex criminal scheme involving numerous individuals operating at the highest political and governmental levels under former Comptroller Alan Hevesi, in which the State pension fund was used as a piggy bank for the Comptroller's chief political aide and a favor bank for political allies and other friends.

With today's plea, a former top official overseeing the state's single largest asset admitted that decisions were driven by politics and greed - not the best interests of the fund or its beneficiaries, said Attorney General Cuomo. Not only were pension recipients defrauded but so were the taxpayers across New York who are ultimately responsible for sustaining the fund. A culture of corruption permeated the fund and shows how vulnerable it can be to graft and exploitation without dramatic reform.

From January 2003 through May 2007, Loglisci's position at the Office of the State Comptroller granted him the authority to recommend investments for the CRF, an authority he was duty-bound to exercise in the best interests of the CRF¹s members and beneficiaries. Today, Loglisci acknowledged abdicating his authority to Henry Hank Morris, the top political advisor to former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, in order to help steer hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment deals to Morris and to politically favored firms.

As part of his plea, Loglisci acknowledged breaching his fiduciary duties and violating the public trust by making investment decisions according to political benefit for the Comptroller, rather than in the best interests of the CRF's members and beneficiaries. Loglisci admitted that he understood, but did not disclose, that Morris played three conflicting roles at the CRF: He was the paid outside political consultant to the sole trustee; he had a financial interest in multiple proposed alternative investments; and he made investment decisions, including with respect to deals in which he had a financial interest.

Loglisci further admitted that he had been instructed by senior OSC officials to obtain Morris¹s approval prior to recommending or declining investment proposals and further admitted to ceding his authority over the CRF's alternative investment portfolio to Morris.
Morris used this authority to corrupt the investment process at the CRF to favor those who either made contributions to the Comptroller's campaign, which he managed, or agreed to pay placement or other fees to Morris or his associates, and to punish those who would not. Morris further used this authority, as well as his position as chief political consultant and campaign fundraiser for the Comptroller, to extract campaign contributions from those doing and seeking to do business with the CRF, and to reward campaign contributors with investments, which he did.

Loglisci acknowledged breaching his duties and intentionally engaging in fraud, deception and concealment in connection with numerous investment transactions. With respect to some of these transactions, Loglisci was aware that Morris was a secret partner of Barrett Wissman, Julio Ramirez and others, with whom Morris split sham placement fees or had other financial interests which Morris concealed from the CRF.

Loglisci pleaded guilty before Justice L. Bart Stone in the State Supreme Court, New York County, Part 31, and was released on his own recognizance with travel restrictions. Loglisci faces a possible sentence of up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison for the charge of a felony violation of the Martin Act, a Class E felony.

The State pension fund is the biggest pool of money in the state and the third largest pension fund in the country, most recently valued at approximately $129 billion. At the time of the events charged, it was valued at approximately $150 billion. The New York State Comptroller is the sole trustee of the fund, responsible for managing and investing the pension fund solely in the best interests of the over one million current and former public employees and their families.

Attorney General Cuomo's investigation into corruption at the CRF has led to a number of criminal charges and six guilty pleas to date, including guilty pleas by former Liberal Party Chair Ray Harding, investment advisor Saul Meyer, hedge fund manager Barrett Wissman, Julio Ramirez, an unlicensed placement agent, and venture fund manager Elliott Broidy.

The indictment against Hank Morris remains pending and Morris is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

Cuomo also issued subpoenas in May of 2009 to over 100 investment firms and agents after his investigation found that 40 to 50 percent of agents obtaining investments from New York pension funds were unregistered.

Also in May of 2009, Cuomo announced his Public Pension Fund Reform Code of Conduct, which would eliminate pay to play in state public pension funds. To date, eleven firms have signed onto the Code: The Carlyle Group, Riverstone Holdings LLC, Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC, HM Capital Partners I, Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Access Capital Partners, Falconhead Capital, Markstone Capital Group, Wetherly Capital Group, Ares, and Freeman Spogli.

These firms collectively have agreed to return more than $90 million associated with New York State Common Retirement Fund investments; these funds will principally be provided to the CRF for the benefit of the pension holders. Payments from individuals bring that total to more than $120 million for the CRF and the State.

The investigation was conducted by Stacy Aronowitz, Deputy Chief of the Public Integrity Bureau, and Assistant Attorneys General Emily Bradford, Rachel Doft, Noah Falk, and Amy Tully, under the supervision of Ellen Nachtigall Biben, Special Deputy Attorney General for Public Integrity, and Linda A. Lacewell, Special Counsel to the Attorney General.