Archive for the ‘Bureaucracy’ Category
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSION, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE, CBS NEWS, CNN, COBRA INSURANCE PLANS, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, FACEBOOK, MEDIA, MEDICAL INSURANCE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SELF-HELP, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 6, 2016 at 1:58 pm
An insurance company suspends your medical coverage for months—or longer.
You’ve faithfully paid all premiums for your medical insurance—and have the records to prove it. But the company doesn’t care.
Think it can’t happen to you? It did to a couple I’ll call Diane and Mike.
Mike worked as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm. He was getting health insurance for himself and his wife, Diane, under a COBRA arrangement.
COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. It’s a Federal law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan.
One of its provisions creates an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment.
But a COBRA can sometimes act the same way the deadly poisonous snake does—with unpredictable and lethal results for those depending on it.
In this case, after Mike left his law firm to work at another, he found the COBRA didn’t operate as it was supposed to.
A snafu developed, involving
- the COBRA management company,
- the hospital where Mike and Diane had long been patients, and
- Mike’s former employer.
Each of these institutions blamed the other for failing to provide appropriate information.
So the insurance company suspended Mike and Diane’s health insurance–completely ignoring their medical needs.
Of course, for most people who have dealt with an insurance company, this won’t come as a surprise. Insurance companies aren’t in business to do good. They’re in business to make money.
Then, one day, Diane called me on an unrelated matter. During the conversation, she let slip the suspension of her medical insurance.
I was stunned at the news–and outraged when she said this had been going on for six months.
At once, I offered my services as a troubleshooter. She accepted.
I decided to call the office of my State Assemblyman. In California, the 80 members of the Assembly serve two-year terms, and are limited to being elected three times.
The 40 members of the State Senate serve four-year terms, and can be elected twice.
Because they face re-election sooner, members of the Assembly must stay closely attuned to resolving their constituents’ problems. That’s why they employ staffers who are experts at navigating through the maze of State agencies.
California State Capitol Building
And State Senators make certain their offices are equally well-staffed with such experts.
When I called my Assemblyman’s office, I didn’t ask to speak with him. I knew I was too politically unimportant to rate a direct chat at that level. And I didn’t need to talk with him, anyway.
I simply told the secretary that I wanted to speak with the office’s specialist on insurance.
California has an Insurance Commissioner who directs the state’s Department of Insurance. The mandate of this agency is to license, regulate and examine insurance companies.
Soon I was speaking with Frank, the Assemblyman’s expert on insurance matters. I quickly explained the problem my friends were having. And, to my surprise, I found that he and I hit it off right away.
Frank said he had a friend–Steve–who worked as an investigator for the Department of Insurance. Then he generously offered to put me through to him. I thankfully accepted.
Soon Steve and I quickly found ourselves getting along well. Then he asked me: “What’s your friend’s number?”
Diane hadn’t authorized me to give her number to anyone, but I decided to forward it. If Steve was that interested in examining their problem, I wasn’t going to throw a damper on his enthusiasm.
Soon Steve and Diane were discussing the situation.
The insurance company Mike and Diane were relying on was, like many such companies, registered in Florida. But, in order to legally do business in California, it had to obey the laws of the State of California.
And California laws forbade exactly the sort of behavior this company was engaging in.
And shortly after that conversation, Diane’s insurance company got an unexpected call from the Insurance Commissioner’s office.
The message was simple–and blunt: Restore that coverage–now.
And, within 48 hours, it had been fully restored.
There are several important lessons to be learned here:
- Maintain accurate records of all your premium payments. And keep them accessible–as in file folders, a safe deposit box or an online file.
- Don’t let your insurance company victimize you. Once you’ve paid your premium, you’ve lived up to your part of the arrangement. Now it’s their obligation to provide the medical care you need.
- Know the names, addresses and phone numbers of your representatives–at local, state and Federal levels. Websites such as http://www.govspot.com/ and http://www.capweb.net/ will instantly provide this information–and a great deal more.
- Know the name, address and phone number of your state Insurance Commissioner.
- If your elected representatives can’t or won’t assist you, complain to the news media. Start with the local newspapers and TV stations. If that doesn’t work, try the Internet.
- If the agencies that are supposed to help consumers won’t aid you, make them part of your complaint to the media.
- If you’re disabled and/or have children who are affected by the insurance cut-off, play up this angle in your contacts with public agencies and/or the media.
- If all else fails, consider filing a lawsuit against the insurance company.
9-1-1-, ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, EMERGENCIES, FACEBOOK, NBC NEWS, POLICE DISPATCHING, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICIAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 5, 2016 at 12:01 am
The quickest way of opening the eyes of the people is to find the means of making them descend to particulars, seeing that to look at things only in a general way deceives them.…
–-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses
One morning at about 8:10, a friend of mine named Robert heard a helicopter repeatedly buzzing the San Francisco Tenderloin area, where he lived.
Thinking that a fire or police action might be in the works, he called the non-emergency number of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD): (415) 553-0123.
And he got a recorded message.
This told him–in English–what he already knew: He had reached the San Francisco Police Department.
Then it told him this again in Spanish. Then again in Cantonese. Then came a series of high–pitched squeals–presumably for those who are hard-of-hearing.
Then the line went dead, and another recorded voice told Robert: “If you’d like to make a call, please hang up and try again.”
At that point, Robert decided to waste no more time trying to learn if there was an emergency going on in his area. Or, to put it more accurately, he decided to waste no more time trying to learn this from the SFPD.
Instead, Robert turned on his TV and checked all the local news channels. When he didn’t see anyone reporting a raging fire or police sealing off an area, he decided there probably wasn’t anything to worry about.
But later on he decided to call the SFPD once again–to complain at a level he believed would attain results.
That level was the office of its chief, Greg Suhr.
Robert didn’t expect to reach the chief himself. But he didn’t have to: Reaching Suhr’s secretary should serve the same purpose.
The secretary he reached turned out to be a sworn officer of the agency. She patiently heard out Robert’s complaint. And she totally agreed with it.
She also agreed that this was a longstanding problem with the SFPD–citizens not being able to get through for help because of an ineffective communications system.
Finally, she agreed with Robert that the situation counted as a major PR disaster for her agency. People who become disgusted and/or disillusioned with a police department’s phone system aren’t likely to trust that agency with their cooperation–or their lives.
Then she had a surprise for Robert: Like him, she had at times been unable to reach a live dispatcher–even when calling 9-1-1.
She added that the police department did not handle its own dispatch work. This had been farmed out long ago to the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management (SFDEM).
She said that the SFPD didn’t have any control–or even influence–over SFDEM, which operated as an independent agency.
Robert suggested that it was definitely in the best interests of the SFPD for someone at its highest level to contact SFDEM and demand major reforms. Or to find another agency that would take its dispatcher responsibilities seriously.
The chief’s secretary said she would pass along Robert’s comments to the proper authority.
Will anything change? Not likely, barring a miracle.
There are few events more frightening and frustrating than having to call the police, fire department or paramedics during an emergency–and get a recorded message.
Whether intended or not, the message this sends the caller can only be: “Your call is simply not important to us–and neither are you. We’ll get to you when we feel like it.”
When people call the police or fire department, they’re usually frightened–for themselves or others. They know that, in a fire or crime or medical emergency, literally every second counts.
It’s going to take the police or fire or paramedics several minutes to arrive–assuming they don’t get caught up in a traffic snarl.
And it’s going to take them even longer to arrive if it takes the caller several minutes to reach them with a request for help.
This is the sort of bread-and-butter issue that local authorities–who operate police and fire departments–should take most seriously.
Mayors and council members should not expect to be treated with respect when their constituents are treated so disrespectfully in a time of crisis.
And citizens aren’t stupid. They can easily tell lies from truths.
Lies such as: “We’d like to put in a new communications system, but we can’t afford it due to budget cuts.”
And truths such as: While San Francisco faced a $229 million deficit for the fiscal year, 2012, it nevertheless found
- Monies to tap after the San Francisco Giants won the 2011-12 World Series, 4-0.
- Monies to decorate various San Francisco buildings (such as the airport) with the orange-and-black colors of the Giants.
- Or with the Giants logo.
- Monies to throw a day-long party for the victorious Giants on October 31–Halloween.
San Francisco Airport–decked out with San Francisco Giants colors
So, in the end, it all comes down to a matter of priority–for both citizens and their elected leaders.
As Robert F. Kennedy once said: “Every nation gets the kind of government it deserves–and the kind of law enforcement it insists in.”
ABC NEWS, BEDBUGS, BUILDING INSPECTION, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE STATUTES, KIP MACY, LANDLORDS, NBC NEWS, NICOLE MACY, RENT CONTROL, RENTERS, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SLUMLORDS, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 1, 2016 at 12:57 am
Slumlords would have everyone believe that San Francisco is a “renters’ paradise.” A place where hard-working landlords are routinely taken advantage of by rent-avoiding bums who want to be constantly pampered.
On the contrary: It’s not renters who hold “untouchable” status, but slumlords themselves.
If you doubt it, you need only review the case of slumlords Kip and Nicole Macy. They waged a two-year war on their rent-paying tenants to force them out of their South of Market building.
The reason: The Macys wanted to get them out of their rent-controlled apartments so they could rent these out to tenants who could afford extortionate rents.
For two years, the police and district attorney’s office stood by while the Macys aimed threats, vandalism, illegal lockouts and violence at their law-abiding tenants.
The Macys have since been convicted and will be sentenced to four years and four months imprisonment. But this case is a rarity for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.
Meanwhile, thousands of San Francisco tenants have lived with rotting floors, nonworking toilets, chipping lead-based paint and other outrages for not simply months but years.
But San Francisco tenants need not be put at the mercy of greedy, arrogant slumlords. And the agencies that are supposed to protect them need not be reduced to impotent farces.
The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office should create a special unit to investigate and prosecute slumlords. Prosecutors should offer rewards to citizens who provide tips on major outrages by the city’s slumlords.
And the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection–which is charged with guaranteeing the habitability of apartment buildings–should immediately adopt a series of long-overdue refirms.
By doing so, it can:
- Vastly enhance its own prestige and authority;
- Improve living conditions for thousands of San Francisco renters; and
- Bring millions of desperately-needed dollars into the City’s cash-strapped coffers.
In Part 2 of this series I outlined 14 such reforms. In this concluding column, I will outline the remaining eight:
- DBI should order landlords to post their Notices of Violation in public areas of their buildings–on pain of serious financial penalties for failing to do so. When DBI orders a slumlord to take corrective action, s/he is the only person who is notified. Thus, if that slumlord refuses to comply with those directives, s/he is the only one who realizes it. Given the pressing demands on DBI, weeks or months will pass before the agency learns about this violation of its orders. Tenants have a right to know if their landlord is complying with the law.
- DBI should launch–and maintain–a city-wide advertising campaign to alert residents to its services. Everyone knows the FBI pursues bank robbers, but too many San Franciscans do not even know that DBI exists, let alone what laws it enforces. This should be an in-your-face campaign: “Do you have bedbugs in your apartment? Has your stove stopped working? Are you afraid to ride in your building elevator because it keeps malfunctioning? Have you complained to your landlord and gotten nowhere? Then call DBI at —–. Or drop us an email at ——.”
- Landlords should be legally required to give each tenant a list of the major city agencies (such as DBI, Department of Public Health and the Rent Board) that exist to help tenants resolve problems with their housing.
- Landlords should be legally required to rehabilitate a unit every time a new tenant moves in, or at least have it examined by a DBI inspector every two years. A tenant can occupy a unit for ten or more years, then die or move out, and the landlord immediately rents the unit to the first person who comes along, without making any repairs or upgrades whatsoever.
- Landlords should be required to bring all the units in a building up to existing building codes, and not just those in need of immediate repair.
- Landlords should be legally required to hire a certified-expert contractor to perform building repairs. Many landlords insist on making such repairs despite their not being trained or experienced in doing so, thereby risking the lives of their tenants.
- DBI should not view itself as a “mediation” agency between landlords and tenants. Most landlords hate DBI and will always do so. They believe they should be allowed to treat their tenants like serfs, raise extortionate rents anytime they desire, and maintain their buildings in whatever state they wish. And no efforts by DBI to persuade them of its good intentions will ever change their minds.
- Above all, DBI must stop viewing itself as a mere regulatory agency and start seeing itself as a law enforcement one. The FBI doesn’t ask criminals to comply with the law; it applies whatever amount of force is needed to gain their compliance. Niccolo Machiavelli said it best: If you can’t be loved by your enemies, then at least make yourself respected by them.
As Robert F. Kennedy wrote: “Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.”
ABC NEWS, BEDBUGS, BUILDING INSPECTION, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE STATUTES, KIP MACY, LANDLORDS, NBC NEWS, NICOLE MACY, RENT CONTROL, RENTERS, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SLUMLORDS, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WAR ON DRUGS
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 31, 2015 at 12:01 am
The “war on drugs” has some valuable lessons to teach the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) which is charged with protecting tenants against predatory landlords.
Consider:
- At least 400,000 rape kits containing critical DNA evidence that could convict rapists sit untested in labs around the country.
- But illegal drug kits are automatically rushed to the had of the line.
It isn’t simply because local/state/Federal lawmen universally believe that illicit drugs pose a deadly threat to the Nation’s security.
It’s because:
- Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to “facilitate” violations of Federal anti-drug laws.
- Local and State law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.
- Thus, financially-strapped police agencies have found that pursuing drug-law crimes is a great way to fill their own coffers.
- Prosecutors and lawmen view the seizing of drug-related properties as crucial to eliminating the financial clout of drug-dealing operations.
It’s long past time for DBI to apply the same attitude–and methods–toward slumlords.
DBI should become not merely a law-enforcing agency but a revenue-creating one. And those revenues should come from predatory slumlords who routinely violate the City’s laws protecting tenants.
By doing so, DBI could vastly:
- Enhance its own prestige and authority;
- Improve living conditions for thousands of San Francisco renters; and
- Bring millions of desperately-needed dollars into the City’s cash-strapped coffers
Among those reforms it should immediately enact:
- Hit slumlord violators up-front with a fine–payable immediately–for at least $2,000 to $5,000 for each health/safety-code violation.
- The slumlord would be told he could reclaim 75-80% of the money onlyif he fully corrected the violation within 30 days. The remaining portion of the levied fine would go into the City coffers, to be shared among DBI and other City agencies.
- This would put the onus on the slumlord, not DBI. Appealing to his greed would ensure his willingness to comply with the ordered actions. As matters now stand, it is DBI who must repeatedly check with the slumlord to find out if its orders have been complied with.
- If the landlord failed to comply with the actions ordered within 30 days, the entire fine would go into the City’s coffers–to be dividedamong DBI and other agencies charged with protecting San Francisco residents.
- In addition, he would be hit again with a fine that’s at least twice the amount of the first one.
- Inspectors for DBI should be allowed to cite landlords for violations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health. They can then pass the information on to DPH for its own investigation.
- If the DBI Inspector later discovers that the landlord has not corrected the violation within a designated time-period, DBI should be allowed to levy its own fine for his failure to do so.
- If DPH objects to this, DBI should propose that DPH’s own Inspectorsbe armed with similar cross-jurisdictional authority. Each agency would thus have increased motivation for spotting and correcting health/safety violations that threaten the lives of San Francisco residents.
- This would instantly turn DBI and DPH into allies, not competitors. And it would mean that whether a citizen called DBI or DPH, s/he could be assured of getting necessary assistance. As matters now stand, many residents are confused by the conflicting jurisdictions of both agencies.
- DBI should insist that its Inspectors Division be greatly expanded. DBI can attain this by arguing that reducing the number of Inspectors cuts (1) protection for San Francisco renters–and (2) monies that could go to the general City welfare.
- The Inspection Division should operate independently of DBI. Currently, too many high-ranking DBI officials tilt toward landlords because they are landlords themselves.
- DBI should create a Special Research Unit that would compile records on the worst slumlord offenders. Thus, a slumlord with a repeat history of defying DBI NOVs could be treated more harshly than a landlord who was a first-time offender.
- Turning DBI into a revenue-producing one would enable the City to raise desperately-needed revenues—in a highly popular way. Fining delinquent slumlords would be as unpopular as raising taxes on tobacco companies. Only slumlords and their hired lackey allies would object.
- Slumlords, unlike drug-dealers, can’t move their operations from one street or city to another. Landlords aren’t going to demolish their buildings and move them somewhere else.
ABC NEWS, BEDBUGS, BUILDING INSPECTION, BUSINESS, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE STATUTES, KIP MACY, LANDLORDS, NBC NEWS, NICOLE MACY, RENT CONTROL, RENTERS, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SLUMLORDS, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WAR ON DRUGS
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 30, 2015 at 2:32 pm
To hear slumlords tell it, San Francisco is a “renters’ paradise,” where obnoxious, lazy, rent-evading tenants constantly take advantage of hard-working, put-upon landlords.
Don’t believe it.
And in case you’re inclined to anyway, consider the story of Kip and Nicole Macy, two San Francisco slumlords who recently pled guilty to felony charges of residential burglary, stalking and attempted grand theft.
Kip Macy
Nicole Macy
Determined to evict rent control-protected tenants from their apartment building in the South of Market district, they unleashed a reign of terror in 2006:
- Cut holes in the floor of one tenant’s living room with a power saw–while he was inside his unit.
- Cut out sections of the floor joists to make the building collapse.
- Threatened to shoot Ricardo Cartagena, their property manager, after he refused to make the cuts himself.
- Changed the locks to Cartagena’s apartment, removed all of his belongings and destroyed them.
- Created fictitious email accounts to appear as a tenant who had filed a civil suit against the Macys–and used these to fire the tenant’s attorney.
- Cut the tenants’ telephone lines and shut off their electricity, gas and water.
- Changed the locks on all the apartments without warning.
- Mailed death threats.
- Kicked one of their tenants in the ribs.
- Hired workers to board up a tenant’s windows from the outside while he still lived there.
- Falsely reported trespassers in a tenant’s apartment, leading police to hold him and a friend at gunpoint.
- Broke into the units of three tenants and removed all their belongings.
- Again broke into the units of the same three victims and soaked their beds, clothes and electronics with amonia.
The Macys were arrested in April, 2008, posted a combined total of $500,000 bail and then fled the country after being indicted in early 2009.
In May, 2012, Italian police arrested them and deported them back to America a year later.
Having pled guilty, they were sentenced in September, 2013, to a prison term of four years and four months.
How could such a campaign of terror go on for two years against law-abiding San Francisco tenants?
Simple.
Even in the city misnamed as a “renter’s paradise,” slumlords are treated like gods by the very agencies that are supposed to protect tenants against their abuses.
The power of slumlords calls to mind the scene in 1987’s The Untouchables, where Sean Connery’s veteran cop tells Eliot Ness: “Everybody knows where the liquor is. It’s just a question of: Who wants to cross Capone?”
Many tenants have lived with rotting floors, bedbugs, nonworking toilets, mice/rats, chipping lead-based paint and other outrages for not simply months but years.
Consider the situation at the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, which is supposed to ensure that apartment buildings are in habitable condition:
- A landlord is automatically given 30 days to correct a health/safety violation. If he drags his feet on the matter, the tenant must live with that problem until it’s resolved.
- If the landlord claims for any reason that he can’t fix the problem within one month, DBI doesn’t demand that he prove this. Instead, it automatically gives him another month.
- A slumlord has to work at being hit with a fine—by letting a problem go uncorrected for three to six months.
- And even then, repeat slumlord offenders often avoid the fine by pleading for leniency.
- That’s because many DBI officials are themselves landlords.
But the situation doesn’t have to remain this way.
DBI could:
- Vastly enhance its own prestige and authority
- Improve living conditions for thousands of San Francisco renters, and
- Bring millions of desperately-needed dollars into the City’s cash-strapped coffers.
How?
By learning some valuable lessons from the “war on drugs” and applying them to regulating slumlords.
Consider:
- At least 400,000 rape kits containing critical DNA evidence that could convict rapists sit untested in labs around the country.
- But illegal drug kits are automatically rushed to the had of the line.
It isn’t simply because local/state/Federal lawmen universally believe that illicit drugs pose a deadly threat to the Nation’s security.
It’s because:
- Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to “facilitate” violations of Federal anti-drug laws.
- Local and State law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.
- Thus, financially-strapped police agencies have found that pursuing drug-law crimes is a great way to fill their own coffers.
- Prosecutors and lawmen view the seizing of drug-related properties as crucial to eliminating the financial clout of drug-dealing operations.
It’s long past time for San Francisco agencies to apply the same attitude–and methods–toward slumlords.
In my next column I will lay out how this can be done.
9/11, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ASSASSINATION, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, IRAQ WAR, ISIS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PENTAGON, PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION, REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, REP. PETER KING, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, RONALD KESSLER, Secret Service, SECURITY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics on December 29, 2015 at 12:19 am
On the night of September 19, 2014, an Iraq war veteran, Omar Gonzales, jumped the White House fence, ran more than 70 yards across the north lawn, and sprinted just past the north portico White House doors.
Only then was he apprehended by Secret Service agents.
Gonzalez’ short-lived trespass onto White House grounds was one of 143 security breaches–or attempted breaches–at facilities protected by the United States Secret Service (USSS) during during the last 10 years.
Then, less than 24 hours after Gonzalez’s arrest, a second man was apprehended after he drove up to a White House gate and refused to leave. This triggered a search of his vehicle by bomb technicians in full gear. Other agents shut down nearby streets. No bombs were found.
Asked for Obama’s reaction, White House spokesman Frank Benenati gave this boilerplate reply: “The president has full confidence in the Secret Service and is grateful to the men and women who day in and day out protect himself, his family and the White House.”
Yet not all is well in Presidential security.
A newly-released report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found the Secret Service to be “in crisis.”
The White House
“Morale is down, attrition is up, misconduct continues and security breaches persist,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R-Utah) publicly stated.
“Strong leadership from the top is required to fix the systematic mismanagement within the agency, and to restore it to its former prestige.”
But the blunt truth is that many of the problems now plaguing the USSS were on full display as early as 2009.
That was when well-known investigative reporter Ronald Kessler published his then-latest book, In the President’s Secret Service.
Kessler had previously pubilshed books outlining the inner workings of the White House, the CIA and the FBI.
Kessler praised the courage and integrity of Secret Service agents as a whole. But he warned that the agency was risking the safety of many of its protectees, including President Obama.
He was particularly critical of SS management for such practices as:
- Shutting off weapon-scanning magnetometers at rallies for Presidential candidates–and even for Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.
- During a speech Bush gave at Tbilisi, Georgia in 2005, an assailant threw a live hand grenade–which failed to explode–at him.
- Despite 9/11, Secret Service agents are still being trained to expect an attempt by a lone gunman—rather than a professional squad of terrorist assassins.
- The Service’s Counter Assault Teams (CATs) have generally been cut back from five or six agents to two, rendering them useless if a real attack occurred.
- Salaries paid to USSS agents have not kept pace with reality. Veteran USSS men and women are now being offered up to four times their salary for moving to the private sector, and many are leaving the agency for that reason.
Secret Service agents protecting President Barack Obama
- While Congress has greatly expanded the duties of this agency, Secret Service management has not asked for equivalent increases in funding and agents.
- Many agents are leaving out of frustration that it takes “juice” or connections with top management to advance one’s career.
- USSS agents are being trained with weapons that are outdated (such as the MP5, developed in the 1960s) compared to those used by other law enforcement agencies and the potential assassins they face (such as the M4–with greater range and armor-piercing capabilities).
- The Service refuses to ask for help from other agencies to meet its manpower needs. Thus, a visiting head of state at the U.N. General Assembly will usually be assigned only three agents as protection.
- The agency tells agents to grade themselves on their physical training test forms.
- Agents are supposed to be evaluated on their marksmanship skills every three months. But some agents have gone more than a year without being tested.
- Some agents are so overweight they can’t meet the rigorous demands of the job. As a result, they pose a danger to the people they’re supposed to be guarding.
- The Secret Service inflates its own arrest statistics by claiming credit for arrests made by local police.
- Congressional members who visit the agency’s Rowley Training Center in Laurel, Maryland, are treated to rehearsed scenarios of how the agency would deal with attacks. If agents were allowed to perform these exercises without rehearsals, Congressional members would see they make mistakes like anyone else.
Kessler closes his book with the warning: “Without….changes, an assassination of Barack Obama or a future president is likely.
“If that happens, a new Warren Commission will be appointed to study the tragedy. It will find that the Secret Service was shockingly derelict in its duty to the American people and to its own elite corps of brave and dedicated agents.”
And the effects will be not only momentary but long-term. As Kessler writes:
“By definition, an assassination threatens democracy.
“If Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, Andrew Johnson, his successor, would not have been able to undermine Lincoln’s efforts to reunite the nation and give more rights to blacks during the Reconstruction period.
“If John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated, Lyndon Johnson likely never would have become President. If Robert F. Kennedy had not been killed and had won the presidency, Richard Nixon might never have been elected.”
9/11, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ASSASSINATION, BARACK OBAMA, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, IRAQ WAR, ISIS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PENTAGON, PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION, REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, REP. PETER KING, RICHARD NIXON, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, RONALD KESSLER, Secret Service, SECURITY, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, WORLD TRADE CENTER
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics on December 28, 2015 at 2:37 am
The United States Secret Service (USSS) is “in crisis”–a crisis that threatens President Barack Obama and his successors as President of the United States.
That’s the verdict of a review of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Since April, 2012, the agency has faced scandal–and scrutiny by the press and Committee. That was when reports first surfaced of agents buying the favors of prostitutes in Columbia.
Even more embarrassing for the USSS were a series of security breaches that potentially exposed President Barack Obama to danger.
As a result, during the last three years, three directors have headed the Secret Service. Numerous agents–including senior officials–have been disciplined, transferred or fired.
For decades, the Secret Service was seen by the press, public and other law enforcement agencies as an elite agency. And the Presidential Protection Detail (PPD) was seen as the most elite part of the agency.
No longer.
Secret Service agents guarding President Obama
Among the findings of the 438-page report:
- The agency is understaffed and overworked.
- Its staffing crisis started in 2011 owing to government-wide budget cuts demanded by Republicans.
- The Secret Service has fewer employees today than it did in 2014, despite recommendations from an independent panel that staffing be increased.
- There have been a number of undisclosed security breaches–such as in October, 2014, when an unauthorized woman gained access to a Congressional Hispanic Caucus event that Obama attended.
- In February, two people gained access to the outer security perimeter of the White House.
- There have been 143 security breaches–or attempted breaches–during the last 10 years at facilities protected by the agency.
“This report reveals that the Secret Service is in crisis,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R-Utah) publicly stated. “Morale is down, attrition is up, misconduct continues and security breaches persist.
“Strong leadership from the top is required to fix the systematic mismanagement within the agency, and to restore it to its former prestige.”
But the truth is that many of the problems now plaguing the U.S. Secret Service were on display long before the House issued its report.
On September 11, 2001, Secret Service agents literally grabbed Vice President Dick Cheney and hauled him from the White House to a secure facility beneath the Executive Mansion.
As for everyone else who worked in the White House, agents simply threw open the White House doors and ordered: “Run!”
“Women, take off your shoes!” agents shouted–so they could run faster. Frightened Presidential aides were told to remove their White House badges–just in case snipers were lurking nearby.
That was it.
With the World Trade Center and Pentagon in flames, and the White House seemingly next in line as a target, this was the sum total of protection offered White House staffers by the agency considered the elite in Federal law enforcement.
White House staffers fleeing on 9/11
Not knowing what to do, some aides walked home in a daze.
Click here: Amazon.com: Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House (9780385525190): Peter Baker: Books
(President George W. Bush was not in the White House at the time. He was reading The Pet Goat to a group of children at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.)
Three days later, on September 14, Andy Card, Bush’s chief of staff, addressed White House staffers in Room 450 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the West Wing.
Card said he understood that “this is not what any of you signed up for when you joined the White House staff.” And he offered them the chance to resign without anyone–himself or the President–thinking any less of them.
When no one offered to leave, Card let a Secret Service agent offer security advice:
- Vary your routines to and from work.
- Watch out for any cars that might be following you.
- Go to different restaurants for lunch.
At least one member of the audience, Bradford Berenson, an associate White House counsel, knew he wouldn’t be taking that advice.
Like most of the others at the meeting, his name was listed in the local phone book. A terrorist wanting to kill him need only lurk outside Berenson’s home and open fire when he appeared.
Click here: 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars: Kurt Eichenwald: 9781451669398: Amazon.com: Books
And that was it, as far as the Secret Service was concerned.
No offers of even temporary escorts by Secret Service agents. No offers to install “panic buttons” in their homes in case of emergency.
In essence: “We’re really glad you’ve decided to serve your country. But don’t expect us to protect you. You’re on your own.”
Fast forward 13 years later.
On the night of September 19, 2014, an Iraq war veteran, Omar Gonzales, jumped the White House fence, ran more than 70 yards across the north lawn, and sprinted just past the north portico White House doors.
Gonzalez appeared unarmed as he ran across the lawn–possibly one reason why Secret Service agents didn’t shoot him or release their service dogs to detain him. But he had a small folding knife with a three-and-one-half-inch serrated blade when he was apprehended.
According to a criminal complaint, when he was arrested he told Secret Service agents he was “concerned that the atmosphere was collapsing” and needed to contact the President “so he could get word out to the people.”
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BORIS YELTSIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, MISS TEEN USA, MISS UNIVERSE, MISS USA, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, RED ARMY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on December 22, 2015 at 12:06 am
Vladimir Putin admires Donald Trump. And Donald Trump admires Vladimir Putin.
To many people, it’s the ultimate odd-couple: The lifelong Communist and former KGB officer (Putin) walking arm-in-arm with the billionaire, publicity-hungry capitalist.
What could be going on here?
First Putin:
“He is a bright personality, a talented person, no doubt about it. It is not up to us to appraise his positive sides, it is up to the U.S. voters. but, as we can see, he is an absolute leader in the presidential race.
“He is saying that he wants to move to a different level of relations with Russia, to a closer, deeper one. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome that.”
Now Trump:
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
Donald Trump
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant,’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, [he’s] also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
TRUMP: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.
TRUMP: I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m confused. So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?
TRUMP: “Oh sure, absolutely.
When Trump praised Putin as a leader–“unlike what we have in this country”–he no doubt meant President Barack Obama.
Ironically, it is Obama–not Trump–who has repeatedly been named in Gallup polls as the most admired man in America in each of the last seven years, beginning with 2008, the year he was elected president.
Although Trump didn’t mention former President George W. Bush, his insult applies–unintentionally but accurately–to Obama’s predecessor.
In June 2001, Bush and Vladimir Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.
Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush
Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.
“I did play rugby,” said Bush. “Very good briefing.”
Bush knew that Putin had worked for Soviet intelligence. So he should not have been surprised that the KGB had amassed a lengthy dossier on him.
But more was to come.
BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy Land.
PUTIN: It’s true.
BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir?
Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others–even world leaders–through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian theology.
Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commonality to build a bond. He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.
“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”
Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.
“Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Associated Press correspondent Ron Fournier asked Bush.
“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue.
“I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”
Of course, no one from the Right–including Trump–is now recalling such embarrasing words.
It’s far more politically profitable to pretend that all of America’s tensions with Russia began with the election of Barack Obama.
And that those tensions will vanish once another Rightist–and non-black–President enters the White House.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BORIS YELTSIN, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, JOE SCARBOROUGH, JOSEPH GOEBBELS, JOSEPH STALIN, KGB, MISS TEEN USA, MISS UNIVERSE, MISS USA, MORNING JOE, MSNBC, NAZI GERMANY, NAZI PARTY, NBC NEWS, RED ARMY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOVIET UNION, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WEHRMACHT, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 21, 2015 at 12:21 am
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have been getting a lot of publicity lately–for how much they admire each other.
On the surface, this might seem surprising. Putin spent most of his adult life as a fervent member of the Communist Party, which swore eternal warfare against capitalism.
After joining the KGB in 1975, he served as one of its officers for 16 years, eventually rising to the level of Lieutenant Colonel. In 1991, he retired to enter politics in his native St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad).
Vladimir Putin
This, in turn, brought him to the attention of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who groomed Putin as his successor. When Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned on December 31, 1999, Putin became Acting President.
In 2000, he was elected President in his own right, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging. He won re-election in 2004, but could not run for a third term in 2008 because of constitutionally-mandated term limits.
So Putin ran his handpicked successor, Dimitry Medvedev, as president. When Medvedev won, he appointed Putin as prime minister. In 2012, Putin again ran for president and won.
Trump, on the other hand, is the personification of capitalistic excess. He has been an author, investor, real estate mogul and television personality as former host of NBC’s “The Apprentice.”
The Trump Organization sponsors the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants.
Donald Trump
He is notorious for stamping “Trump” on everything he acquires, most notably Trump Tower, a 58-story skyscraper at 725 Fifth Avenue in New York City.
On June 16, he declared himself a candidate for the Presidency in the 2016 election. Since July, he has consistently been the front-runner in public opinion polls for the Republican Party nomination.
So it came as a surprise to many in the United States when, on December 17, Putin described Trump as “a bright and talented person without any doubt,” adding that Trump is “an outstanding and talented personality.”
And he called Trump “the absolute leader of the presidential race.”
Trump, in turn, was quick to respond: “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
Two months earlier, in October, Trump had said of Putin: “I think that I would probably get along with him very well.”
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said: “Sure, when people call you ‘brilliant’ it’s always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia.”
The host, Joe Scarborough, was upset by Trump’s praise for Putin: “Well, I mean, it’s also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?”
Trump: “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. Unlike what we have in this country.”
Scarborough: “But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.”
Trump: “Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. You know. there’s a lot of stuff going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on and a lot of stupidity…”
Absolute dictators like Vladimir Putin and would-be dictators like Donald Trump often gravitate toward each other. At least temporarily.
On January 30, 1933, anti-Communist Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. For the next six years, the Nazi press hurled insults at the Soviet Union.
Adolf Hitler
And the Soviet press hurled insults at Nazi Germany.
Then, on August 23, 1939, Hitler’s foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, signed the Treaty of Non-aggression between Nazi Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R). Signing for the Soviet Union was its own foreign minister, Vyachelsav Molotov.
The reason: Hitler planned to invade Poland on September 1. He needed to neutralize the military might of the U.S.S.R. And only Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin could do that.
Democratic nations like France, Great Britain and the United States were stunned. But there had long been a grudging respect between the two brutal dictators.
On June 30, 1934, Hitler had ordered a bloody purge throughout Germany. Privately, Stalin offered praise: “Hitler, what a great man! This is the way to deal with your political opponents.”
Joseph Stalin
Hitler was–privately–equally admiring of the series of purges Stalin inflicted on the Soviet Union. Even after he broke the non-aggression pact by invading the U.S.S.R. on June 22, 1941, he said:
“After the victory over Russia, it would be a good idea to get Stalin to run the country, with German oversight, of course. He knows better than anyone how to handle the Russians.”
In April, 1945, as he waited for victorious Russian armies to reach his underground bunker, Hitler confided to Joseph Goebbels, his propaganda minister, his major regret:
He should have brutally purged the officer corps of the Wehrmacht, as Stalin had that of the Red Army. Stalin’s purges had cleaned “deadwood” from the Russian ranks, and a purge of the German army would have done the same.
For Adolf Hitler, the lesson was clear: “Afterward, you rue the fact that you’ve been so kind.”
It’s the sort of sentiment that both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump can appreciate.
ABC NEWS, BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BALTIMORE SUN, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FREDDIE GRAY, MARILYN MOSBY, NBC NEWS, POLICE BRUTALITY, REUTERS, ROUGH RIDES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 18, 2015 at 12:26 am
Freddie Gray’s tally of arrests came to at least 18.
But on April 12, he was arrested for what would be the final time.
That arrest would lead to Gray’s death and scandal for the Baltimore Police Department.
On May 1, Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore’s chief deputy prosecutor at the State’s Attorney office, publicly released the findings of her agency in the Gray case:
- “The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.” [Police had claimed it was a switchblade.]
- “Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray. Accordingly Lt. Rice Officer MIller and Office Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray.”
- “Lt. Rice Officer Miller and Officer Nero loaded Mr. Gray into the wagon and at no point was he secured by a seatbelt while in the wagon contrary to a BPD [Baltimore Police Department] general order.”
- “…Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside of the BPD wagon.”
- “Despite stopping for the purpose of checking on Mr. Gray’s condition, at no point did [Officer Goodson] seek nor did he render any medical assistance for Mr. Gray.”
- “Mr. Gray…requested help and indicated that he could not breathe. Officer Porter asked Mr. Gray if he needed a medic at which time Mr. Gray indicated at least twice that he was in need of a medic.”
Marilyn Mosby
- “…Despite Mr. Gray’s appeal for a medic, both officers [William Porter, Caesar Goodson] assessed Mr. Gray’s condition and at no point did either of them….render or request medical assistance.”
- “Sgt. [Alicia] White….spoke to the back of Mr. Gray’s head. When he did not respond, she did nothing further despite the fact that she was advised that he needed a medic. She made no effort to look or assess or determine his condition.”
- “Despite Mr. Gray’s seriously deteriorating medical condition, no medical assistance was rendered or summoned for Mr. Gray at that time by any officer.”
- “By the time Officer Zachary Novak and Sgt. White attempted to remove Mr. Gray from the wagon, Mr. Gray was no longer breathing at all.”
- “A medic was finally called to the scene where upon arrival, the medic determined Mr. Gray was now in cardiac arrest and was critically and severely injured.”
- “Mr. Gray was rushed to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma where he underwent surgery. On April 19, 2015, Mr. Gray succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead.”
- “The manner of death deemed homicide by the Maryland Medical Examiner is believed to be the result of a fatal injury that occurred while Mr. Gray was unrestrained by a seatbelt in custody of the Baltimore Police Department wagon.
After presenting her findings, Mosby then outlined the criminal charges her office was bringing against the officers involved:
- Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45: Second-degree depraved murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office.
- Officer William Porter, 25: Involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
- Brian Rice, 41: Involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
- Officer Edward Nero, 29: Two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
- Officer Garrett Miller, 26: Two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and one false imprisonment charge.
- Alicia White, 30: Involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
* * * * *
On December 16, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams declared a mistrial in the trial of William Porter, the first of the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray’s death.
For 16 hours, the jury had deliberated on whether Porter was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. After jurors reported they were deadlocked on all charges, Judge Williams said an administrative judge would set a new trial date as early as December 17.
The Freddie Gray case has polarized Baltimore–and America.
On the Left–and especially among blacks–are those who believe Gray was an innocent victim of police oppression.
“Even if he was guilty of dealing and using narcotics,” they say, “the anti-drug laws are a stupid waste of police resources.”
On the Right are those who steadfastly defend all police actions, including the most brutal and lawless.
“Even if the cops were guilty of brutality and/or negligence,” they say, “so what? A career criminal won’t ply his trade anymore.”
Both sides are wrong.
Until the anti-drug laws are repealed, they are legal and will continue to be enforced. Freddie Gray knew this better than most.
But police who employ illegal methods to enforce the law risk losing not only the cases they want to bring but their own careers as well. They also invite contempt and hatred for their own police agencies and law enforcement in general.
Such officers who cause death or injury by unjustified brutality and/or negligence must be held accountable.
That has long been considered the difference between the FBI and the KGB.
There is a difference between supporting the legal actions of police—and living in a police state.
America’s citizens have the right to expect protection from crime–whether committed by civilian criminals or those wearing police uniforms.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSION, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE, CBS NEWS, CNN, COBRA INSURANCE PLANS, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, FACEBOOK, MEDIA, MEDICAL INSURANCE, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SELF-HELP, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY
STOP INSURANCE RIP-OFFS
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 6, 2016 at 1:58 pmAn insurance company suspends your medical coverage for months—or longer.
You’ve faithfully paid all premiums for your medical insurance—and have the records to prove it. But the company doesn’t care.
Think it can’t happen to you? It did to a couple I’ll call Diane and Mike.
Mike worked as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm. He was getting health insurance for himself and his wife, Diane, under a COBRA arrangement.
COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. It’s a Federal law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan.
One of its provisions creates an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment.
But a COBRA can sometimes act the same way the deadly poisonous snake does—with unpredictable and lethal results for those depending on it.
In this case, after Mike left his law firm to work at another, he found the COBRA didn’t operate as it was supposed to.
A snafu developed, involving
Each of these institutions blamed the other for failing to provide appropriate information.
So the insurance company suspended Mike and Diane’s health insurance–completely ignoring their medical needs.
Of course, for most people who have dealt with an insurance company, this won’t come as a surprise. Insurance companies aren’t in business to do good. They’re in business to make money.
Then, one day, Diane called me on an unrelated matter. During the conversation, she let slip the suspension of her medical insurance.
I was stunned at the news–and outraged when she said this had been going on for six months.
At once, I offered my services as a troubleshooter. She accepted.
I decided to call the office of my State Assemblyman. In California, the 80 members of the Assembly serve two-year terms, and are limited to being elected three times.
The 40 members of the State Senate serve four-year terms, and can be elected twice.
Because they face re-election sooner, members of the Assembly must stay closely attuned to resolving their constituents’ problems. That’s why they employ staffers who are experts at navigating through the maze of State agencies.
California State Capitol Building
And State Senators make certain their offices are equally well-staffed with such experts.
When I called my Assemblyman’s office, I didn’t ask to speak with him. I knew I was too politically unimportant to rate a direct chat at that level. And I didn’t need to talk with him, anyway.
I simply told the secretary that I wanted to speak with the office’s specialist on insurance.
California has an Insurance Commissioner who directs the state’s Department of Insurance. The mandate of this agency is to license, regulate and examine insurance companies.
Soon I was speaking with Frank, the Assemblyman’s expert on insurance matters. I quickly explained the problem my friends were having. And, to my surprise, I found that he and I hit it off right away.
Frank said he had a friend–Steve–who worked as an investigator for the Department of Insurance. Then he generously offered to put me through to him. I thankfully accepted.
Soon Steve and I quickly found ourselves getting along well. Then he asked me: “What’s your friend’s number?”
Diane hadn’t authorized me to give her number to anyone, but I decided to forward it. If Steve was that interested in examining their problem, I wasn’t going to throw a damper on his enthusiasm.
Soon Steve and Diane were discussing the situation.
The insurance company Mike and Diane were relying on was, like many such companies, registered in Florida. But, in order to legally do business in California, it had to obey the laws of the State of California.
And California laws forbade exactly the sort of behavior this company was engaging in.
And shortly after that conversation, Diane’s insurance company got an unexpected call from the Insurance Commissioner’s office.
The message was simple–and blunt: Restore that coverage–now.
And, within 48 hours, it had been fully restored.
There are several important lessons to be learned here:
Share this: