Politics

A Day In The Life Of Ted the Tea-Partier

     Ted gets up at 6 A.M. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee.  The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for government-enforced minimum water-quality standards. 

     With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to have the government insure their safety and that they work as advertised.  All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Ted gets it too.

     He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.  Ted’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat-packing industry. 

     In the morning shower, Ted reaches for his shampoo.  His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

     Ted dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath.  The air he breathes is far less polluted than decades ago because some wacko liberal environmentalist fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

     Ted begins his workday. He has a good job with decent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.  Ted’s employer pays these standards because Ted’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.  If Ted is hurt on the job or is laid off, he’ll get workers’ compensation or unemployment because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

     It’s noontime, and Ted needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Ted’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Ted’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression and nearly collapsed the banking system again in 2008, saved only by a tax-payer bailout.

     Ted is home from work, and drives to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country.  His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought to have the government enact car safety standards.

     He arrives at his boyhood home.  His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.  The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

     He is happy to see his father, who is now retired.  His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Ted wouldn’t have to. Ted gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show.  The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and hate their country.  He doesn’t mention that his radical, anti-government Republicans  have, over many decades, fought against each and every one of these protections and benefits Ted enjoys throughout his day.

     Ted agrees:  “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!  They’re taking away our freedoms!  After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

Photo credit: outtacontext / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

Uncategorized

Meningitis lawsuit says TN senator-doctor gave tainted injection, does not name him as defendant

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.tennessean.com.

A Tennessee state senator has been named in court papers as the physician who injected a victim of the fungal meningitis outbreak with the tainted spinal steroid that led to her lengthy illness.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court, attorneys for Joan M. Peay of Nashville wrote that Dr. Steven Dickerson, a member of the Tennessee Senate, was the one who injected her with the steroid.

Dickerson, who is not named as a defendant in the case, injected Peay with contaminated methylprednisolone acetate on Sept. 7, 2012, at the Saint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center, the 31-page complaint states.

Dickerson, a Nashville Republican serving his first term, has declined to respond to questions about his role at the neurosurgical center.

The Tennessean reported Sunday that records showed Dickerson, who is an anesthesiologist, injected at least two other patients with the same drug at the same clinic in August and September of last year, just before the fungal meningitis outbreak became public.

An aide issued a brief comment late last week stating that Dickerson did not want to comment out of concern for the victims and their privacy.

Like all Nashvillians, Dr. Dickerson is focusing his concerns and thoughts on the well-being of the patients in Tennessee and throughout the United States who developed fungal meningitis, the aide wrote in an email.

The senator did not respond to a second request for comment Tuesday.

The Peay suit was one of several to be filed as a statutory deadline…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

DLI

Klickitat County Lumber Company Fined

William Arthur Cooper: Lumber Industry, 1934

     The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries announced that a Klickitat County lumber company was fined nearly a quarter of a million dollars after worker gets caught in machinery.

     The SDS Lumber Company of Bingen, Wash., has been fined $244,600 for 69 workplace safety and health violations after a worker was seriously injured in March. The Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) cited the employer for one willful, 54 serious and 14 general violations of safety and health rules. A willful violation is cited when L&I alleges that the violation was committed with intentional disregard, plain indifference, or when employers substitute their own judgment for safety and health regulations.

     L&I determined that a lack of training and proper safety procedures left the lumber mill worker with severe injuries when his arms became entangled in machinery while trying to clear a jam. L&I began an investigation on March 9m 2013 after being notified that the worker had been hospitalized. By law, all employers are required to report to L&I within eight hours anytime a worker is hospitalized or dies due to work-related causes.

     “This incident shows the importance of Washington’s hospitalization reporting rule,” said Anne Soiza, assistant director for L&I’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health. “In most other states, a hospitalization involving only one worker does not have to be reported and the serious hazards could continue unabated. In our state, we are able to send inspectors right away to ensure the safety of the other workers.”

     The investigation found that managers and supervisors were aware that workers routinely bypassed machinery safety guards to try and clear jams while the machinery was still in motion.

     Consequently, the company was cited the maximum penalty allowed by law, $70,000, for a willful violation. Additionally, because the willful violation was associated with a worker’s serious injuries, the company will now be part of the Severe Violator Enforcement Program, an OSHA program that monitors severe safety violators.

     The injury incident prompted comprehensive safety and health inspections of the entire plant. In addition to the machinery violations, the department found serious hazards related to chemicals, hazardous and flammable substances, bloodborne pathogens, confined work spaces, electrical and fall protection. Many of the violations were corrected during the inspections. 

     The company has appealed the citations. 

 

Photo credit: americanartmuseum / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

 

Uncategorized

Minimum Wage will increase by 13 cents to $9.32 per hour on January 1, 2014

Washington’s minimum wage will increase to $9.32 per hour beginning January 1, 2014, the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) announced on September 30th.

L&I calculates the state’s minimum wage each year as required by Initiative 688, approved by Washington voters in 1998. The 13-cent-per-hour increase, from $9.19 to $9.32 an hour, reflects a 1.455 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI‑W) over the last 12 months ending August 31. The increase was announced earlier this month by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

The CPI-W measures average price changes for goods and services purchased by urban wage earners and clerical workers. The goods and services it monitors include basic living costs such as food, clothing, shelter, fuels and services such as doctor visits.

Washington is one of 10 states that adjust the minimum wage based on inflation and the CPI. The others are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon and Vermont.

Washington has the highest minimum wage, followed by Oregon, which recently announced its 2014 minimum wage will rise by 15 cents, to $9.10 per hour. Washington’s minimum wage applies to workers in both agricultural and non-agricultural jobs, although 14‑ and 15-year-olds may be paid 85 percent of the adult minimum wage, or $7.92 per hour in 2014.

More information on Washington’s minimum wage is available at Wages.Lni.wa.gov. Employers and workers also may call 360-902-5316 or 1-866-219-7321.

 Photo credit: Unhindered by Talent / Foter / CC BY-SA

Port of Seattle

Duwamish Waterway – Superfund Site and Home to 100,000+ Jobs

– – Photo by Kit Case

I had the pleasure of taking a boat tour of the Duwamish Waterway as part of the Port101 educational program offered by the Port of Seattle, together with its partners: Lower Duwamish Waterway Group (Boeing, City of Seattle, King County, Port of Seattle), Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, Manufacturing Industrial Council, Vigor Shipyards, and Delta Marine Industries.  As the boat cruised upriver, a variety of speakers provided an in-depth narrative with stories of the past and current inhabitants of the waterway, both businesses and peoples.

In 1913, the Duwamish River was tamed, removing the common problem of flooding and improving access for ship traffic when a 9-mile stretch of the meandering, shallow river was shaped and formed into a 5-mile stretch of dredged channel – the Lower Duwamish Waterway.  Historically, the river was the breadbasket of the greater Seattle area.  Foods were brought by canoe from the shores of the river to market.  Fishing was – and still is – fruitful.  Six salmon species return upriver to spawn each year.  With the dredging of the channel and the creation of Harbor Island from those dredge materials and material from the Denny and Jackson regrade projects, industry began to take hold along the river.  Today, the five-mile-long Duwamish Waterway provides over 100,000 jobs and represents 80% of Seattle’s industrial land.  Most of the businesses along the river are family-owned and provide family-wage jobs. Vigor Shipyards, Delta Marine Industries, Alaska Marine Lines and many others line the waterway.

As industry replaced homes and small farms, toxic waste became more of an issue.  Until 1958, untreated sewage was directed to the Duwamish.  Even since then, sewage overflows have continued to be emptied into the river. By the 1970s, abuse of the waterway was rampant.  If there was a toxic spill on the river, it was intentional.  ‘Dilution was the solution to pollution’ – it was common practice to toss industrial waste into the river, with the thought that it would be diluted and carried out to sea.  In 2001, the Lower Duwamish was declared a Superfund Site, placing it on the Environmental Protection Agency‘s list of the nation’s most contaminated sites.  The EPA has now released it’s Proposed Clean-up Plan, which provides for 7 years of active clean-up measures followed by 10 years of hoped-for “natural recovery.” Slowly, progress towards protecting the Duwamish is being made.

Several ‘Early Action’ Clean-up Sites have already been completed or are underway, many spearheaded by local businesses along the river.  Seattle Iron and Metals, one of the Northwest’s leading recyclers of metals, was relocated by the Port of Seattle to a site upriver.  The facility sits along the shore on 9.5 acres of 10-inch thick concrete capping a sophisticated water catchment and treatment facility.  Alaska Marine Lines, in collaboration with the University of Washington, installed a catchment and treatment system in 1989 that treats storm water runoff to household standards before it is released into the waterway.

Boeing has undertaken the removal, clean up and restoration of Plant 2, the second manufacturing plant built and run by Boeing, where ‘Rosie the Riveter’ worked building military aircraft during WWII.  Much of the plant had been built on pilings over the river, and the soil in and near the river had become contaminated after decades of manufacturing on the site. Boeing will be removing the remaining structure, overhanging tarmac and pilings and will remove over 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the site.  All building materials will be recycled.  Boeing has installed storm water treatment systems at the Plant 2 site as well as North Boeing Field.  The state-of-the-art system at Plant 2 will treat an estimated 84 million gallons annually, cleaning the storm water before releasing it into the Duwamish Waterway.  Boeing is restoring more than 3,000 of natural shoreline and has created 5 acres of intertidal wetlands and wildlife habitat. Once completed, it will represent the largest restoration project of its kind on the Waterway.

King5 TV recently reported on the Plant 2 restoration project.  The video of their report includes fantastic fly-over and on-the-ground shots of the project.

 

Social Security

“Lamestream Media” Enables Right-Wing Talking Points About Social Security Disability

– – Screen Shot from Fair.org

     Just in time for a scheduled meeting of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to discuss the status of the Social Security Disability program (SSDI) on October 7th, on Sunday, October 6, CBS’ popular “news” show, 60 Minutes, aired “Disability USA” – a sensationalized program full of misleading and largely anecdotal information designed to convince viewers the program is riddled with fraud and on the brink of collapse.  If you watched this program, and it is your sole source of information about Social Security Disability, you know essentially nothing about the actual operation of the program.  You heard not a single word from disability recipients, their advocates, or from officials who administer the program, none of whom were invited to participate in the 60 Minutes piece.

…the 60 Minutes segment focused on some fraud in the program in one impoverished area of the country in order to paint disability recipients generally as the undeserving poor, slackers and frauds.

     First, listening to the program you might not have understood that the average monthly benefit of about $1100 is not tax-payer money but earned credits for money paid into the system by the disabled worker.  Then, in terms of the “shocking” growth of the disability rolls you heard CBS’s Steve Kroft and Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma natter on about, you didn’t hear that the statistical growth of the program is a direct function of the increase in population over the past 30 years, the aging of the baby-boomer population into their higher disability years, the entry of women into the work force in greater numbers, and similar demographic factors.  Finally, you likely came away from the program thinking that qualifying for SSDI is a cakewalk, when the actual standards for disability result in denial of two-thirds of all applications, only 10% of those denials being reversed on appeal, and an overall figure of about 41% of applicants ultimately qualifying.

     Completely ignored in this puff-piece for the right wing (Coburn is the lead Republican on the Senate Subcommittee for Investigations and has a long-standing, well-documented hostility to Social Security) is the shifting of responsibility for disability from workers’ compensation systems, where it properly belongs, to the Social Security Disability program because of the rollbacks in coverage and benefits in states’ workers’ comp programs across the country, all driven by right-wing and corporate interests.  So, while SSDI faces potential exhaustion of its funds in the next few years (although this can be – and in the past has been – remedied by shifting funds from the Social Security old-age program), the liability insurance industry, which includes workers’ compensation carriers, is enjoying record profits over the last two years.

     Similarly unmentioned was the impact of the worst economy in decades, shrinking the ability of disabled workers to find less physically challenging work.

     As is typically the case with these types of “news” pieces, the 60 Minutes segment focused on some fraud in the program in one impoverished area of the country in order to paint disability recipients generally as the undeserving poor, slackers and frauds. CBS could have moderated the potential negative impact of its program by including interviews of SSA program officials or of spokespersons from some two dozen national disability advocacy organizations who asked to be heard on this show.  It shamefully chose to ignore all such requests, and has diminished itself accordingly as a news organization.

 

 

government

Government Shutdown Simulates “Small Government”

Every news program announces the ongoing shutdown of non-essential federal government services.  News articles delve into the possible consequences.  Republicans and Democrats fight over whether the other is willing to negotiate.  Members of the Republican Party bicker within their ranks about the shutdown.  Everyone should take note that what we are experiencing with the current shutdown provides us all with a practice-run for the level of government desired by the Tea Party members of the Republican Party.

Wikipedia notes that the current “small government” movement in the United States is largely a product of Ronald Reagan‘s presidency from 1980–88. The Tea Party movement is a modern reflection of this belief in small government. They claim that in the past the United States had a small government, and that it has turned away from that ideal. Some members of the Republican Party advocate small government, especially its libertarian wing, which includes politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. The Libertarian party, a third party, supports small government. A 2013 poll showed that the majority (54%) of Americans think the government is trying to do too much.

We now have an opportunity to define “essential” services.

Although 54% is only just a majority, Americans can now ponder the concept of small government and what the effect of shrinking the government would have on federal, state and local jurisdictions.  The “non-essential” services now halted would likely have to be replaced by those jurisdictions, where possible, were the federal government to be stripped down to the vision of the Tea Party and Libertarian Party members.  We now have an opportunity to define “essential” services.

Cities across the country will feel the pinch of the shutdown, particularly if it drags out beyond a few days. Furloughs of non-essential federal employees won’t just affect D.C. and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Cities around the country host full-time, non-Post Office federal employee populations. New York is home to 26,696 federal employees; Atlanta is home to 23,718; Philadelphia is home to 19,940; Chicago has 16,069; Houston has 15,530; and Los Angeles has 14,689. The list of the top 50 cities with the highest federal employment is here.1

Look around your city, your state.  What federal services are you willing to have disappear?  Is your state able to take over those services?  Are your local and state governments under pressure to also shrink?  The mantra that smaller government will cure what ails us rings through the air.  Before joining the chorus, each of us should think about and prepare for the ripple effects if those singing are to succeed.

1The Atlantic, What the Government Shutdown Will Look Like Where You Live, Mike Riggs, Sep 30, 2013

Photo credit: estherase / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

social security disability

Overpaid Disability Benefits by Social Security: Now What?

Today’s post comes from guest author Roger Moore, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

What can I do if the Social Security Administration (SSA) says I have been overpaid disability benefits?

This is a very common problem, unfortunately. There are a number of factors that cause these issues to come up so frequently.

First, the rules about how much one can make differ, depending on what type of disability benefit is received. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) recipients can earn over $1,000 per month without jeopardizing their monthly benefit. But almost every dollar earned by Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients can affect the amount of their monthly benefit, as this benefit is partially based upon a recipient’s financial situation. These amounts can change over time.

Second, there are many different rules about when you can earn money from working above what is called the substantial gainful employment level and not jeopardize your continued entitlement to disability benefit. It’s difficult to summarize all of the circumstances, yet alone know all of the rules, for a claimant. What’s more, simply providing the SSA your wages doesn’t absolve you from having to repay overpayments. The SSA doesn’t look at this information on a regular basis. Years later, you may get a “Dear John” letter advising you that you were overpaid thousands of dollars.

Finally, you may simply get wrong or bad information from someone when you meet with or speak with the SSA. It’s important to document when you spoke with the person and who that person was. If possible, get them to put their advice in writing.

When faced with an overpayment, there are two things you should always do. First, Continue reading Overpaid Disability Benefits by Social Security: Now What? →

Penalty, Safety Violation

Safety Violations Matter: Wisconsin Court Reaffirms Basis for Employer Safety Penalties

Aside

Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

The extra penalty for employers that ignore safety rules is something not available to injured workers in Washington State, but it is an interesting concept that provides real incentives for safe workplaces.

In most instances, an injured worker cannot sue her employer for a workplace injury. However, if an injury results from an employer’s reckless, intentional, or illegal action, an injured worker can bring a separate claim against the employer directly. An employer’s violation of the Wisconsin state safety statute  or of any Department of Workforce Development (DWD) safety administrative rule which causes a worker’s injury can trigger a 15% increased penalty for the employer (Section 102.57 of the Worker’s Compensation Act). This increased compensation is based on the amount of compenstion paid by the insurance carrier and is capped at $15,000. The big deal is that the safety violation penalty is not paid by the insurance company–it is paid directly from the employer’s pocket (which also makes for increased litigation of these claims!).;

In a win for injured workers, a recent Court of Appeals case (Sohn Manufacturing v. LIRC), decided on August 7, 2013, reaffirmed the ability of the Worker’s Compensation Department to hold employers responsible for unsafe behavior. In the Sohn case, the worker operated a die cutter machine, and the employer instructed her to clean it while the anvil rollers were running. The worker suffered a severe hand injury when her hand was pulled into the machine. A state investigator found an OSHA violation as well as a violation of the state safety statute (Section 101.11). An administrative law judge and the Labor and Industry Review Commission affirmed an award of a safety violation under 102.57 of the worker’s compensation act.

The employer challenged this ruling in court, arguing that the federal OSHA law preempted Wisconsin’s ability to enforce safety procedures under Section 102.57 and that an OSHA investigation cannot form the basis for a state safety violation claim injured workers should be thankful that the Court of Appeals rejected both of these arguments. First, the Court explicitly stated that OSHA does not preempt Wisconsin’s ability to award penalties under Section 102.57, as the safety violation statute is not an enforcement mechanism and OSHA was not intended to impact state worker’s compensation rules. More importantly, the Court indicated that an OSHA violation of a federal workplace safety regulation can be used as basis to demonstrate an employer’s violation of Wisconsin’s state safety statute (Section 101.11).

While the decision was not surprising, it reaffirms the state’s commitment to holding employer’s accountable for safety violation rules under the worker’s compensation system. Workers and practitioners also should remain aware of any OSHA violation found post-injury. A document demonstrating a federal OSHA violation can form the immediate basis for a safety violation under Section 102.57.

Healthcare

The Washington Health Care Authority: We’re Doing it Wrong

Aside

+++ Looking at the Cost of Healthcare

     While Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, continue to wrangle over funding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare,” to use the pejorative), we here in the “Soviet of Washington”[1] have been quietly taking our own steps towards controlling health care costs. One such step was the establishment of the Washington Health Care Authority (HCA) in 2006. The stated purpose of the HCA is to ensure that the “most comprehensive health care options” are available through state-funded health care plans while “minimizing the financial burden which health care poses on the state.” RCW 41.05.006. The HCA selects different medical technologies for review by the Health Technology Clinical Committee (HTCC)—a panel of physicians and other health care professionals who determine whether those technologies will be covered by state-funded insurance programs.

 This complete and utter lack of oversight is troubling…

     Sounds like a laudable goal, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, in practice, the committee operates as an unaccountable cabal whose coverage decisions are not subject to any substantive review. When the legislature passed the bill creating the HCA and HTCC, it included a provision for appealing the HTCC’s coverage determinations. But Governor Gregoire vetoed that provision, ostensibly on the belief that other portions of the bill provided sufficient opportunity for review of HTCC coverage decisions. However, as the court of appeals has noted, “there is no statutory procedure for substantively challenging HTCC determinations.” Joy v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

     This complete and utter lack of oversight is troubling because the HTCC often makes decisions at odds not only with the medical community, but also most other insurance companies.

     Recently, the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity ran a story lauding the Washington HCA for “making the tough choice” to implement cost-cutting measures.[2] According to the story, “the Health Technology Assessment . . . reviewed three common, expensive and controversial treatments for chronic back pain: spinal injections, spinal stimulation, a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.” That sentence needs a bit of unpacking. First of all, while relatively common, spinal injections are actually fairly inexpensive and generally considered conservative care. Conversely, while spinal stimulation is expensive, it is comparatively uncommon. But at its essence, the statement from this story is that these treatments are controversial. But are they? Let’s focus first on spinal cord stimulation, for which the HTCC denied coverage on the grounds that it is not safe, medically effective, or cost-effective.

     When the HTCC proposes a rule on the coverage or non-coverage of a given health technology, it submits that rule for public comment before publishing the final rule. When it published its findings to the public on spinal cord stimulation, medical practitioners from across the country submitted voluminous literature in support of coverage of spinal cord stimulation—not one medical provider commented that spinal cord stimulation was ineffective or unsafe. One commenter noted that spinal cord stimulation had been used safely and effectively since 1967 to treat intractable back pain without the use of addictive narcotics. The same commenter pointed out that Washington would be the only state to deny coverage of spinal cord stimulation, and that the vast majority of private insurers also cover the procedure.

     So why did Washington State decide not to cover spinal cord stimulation? According to the Center for Public Integrity, Josiah Morse, director of the Health Technology Assessment Program, says that the committee “downplays the role of cost in its decisions.” “[I]n most cases there isn’t enough research on the cost-effectiveness of medical technologies, so the committee makes most of its decisions based on safety and effectiveness.” But if no medical professional commented that spinal cord stimulation was unsafe or ineffective, why would the HTCC deny coverage?

     Consider another HTCC coverage decision—in 2011, it decided that femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgery was not covered. FAI is a condition involving the cartilage of the hip socket. It is extremely painful and, if left untreated, can result in the need for an early hip replacement. FAI surgery is the only solution for moderate to severe cases. The HTCC again requested public comments and again received overwhelming support for coverage of FAI surgery. In fact, the only comment not urging coverage came from Josiah Morse, who urged his own committee “to bullet, bold or otherwise call out the last sentence that no cost, cost-effectiveness data were found.” It seems inappropriate for Mr. Morse to emphasize a lack of data to his own committee as a reason to deny coverage of the surgery—especially when it is his committee that is entrusted to gather the data in the first place.

     The Washington Health Care Authority must be held accountable to the people of Washington State. Skyrocketing costs are obviously of great concern to anyone interested in healthcare reform, but costs alone cannot be the sole, or even dominant, ground upon which to base a healthcare benefit coverage determination. I, for one, am not comfortable living in a world where decisions about whether or not my insurance company will cover an expensive, life-saving or –altering procedure are based predominantly on the cost of the procedure.

 

 

[1] A quote attributed to Postmaster General James Farley in 1937.

[2] Joe Eaton, The Other Washington Could Hold the Key to Medicare’s Cost Crisis, The Center for Public Integrity (July 29, 2013).

Photo credit: Truthout.org / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Published by Causey Wright