Cancer Drug Shortage Leads to Less-Effective Substitute Drugs, Study Finds
Abby Alonzo suffered a relapse after a drug used to treat her cancer became unavailable. (St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital)
By LIZ NEPORENT Dec. 27, 2012
Abby Alonzo was eight weeks into treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma and doing great when her doctor informed the 9-year-old's parents that one ingredient in the cocktail of chemo drugs she was receiving was no longer available, and they would have to use a substitution.
"It's scary, and I was alarmed but I didn't really have a sense of how critical this drug was," said Katie Alonzo, Abby's mother. "When something like this happens, you have to put your faith in the doctors."
But by 12 weeks into treatment, Abby relapsed. Rather than receiving a planned break from treatment, she was rushed into emergency "salvage therapy," which involved more chemo, a bone marrow transplant and radiation.
The doctors at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., who treated Abby, attribute her relapse to the shortage of the drug mechlorethamine, also known as nitrogen mustard. In today's New England Journal of Medicine [ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1212468 ], the St. Jude doctors, along with colleagues from the Dana-Farber cancer institute in Boston and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in Stanford, Calif., highlight how the scarcity of this medication has been linked to a higher rate of relapse among children, teenagers and young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma.
The 40 patients in the study who received the substitute drug cyclophosphamide experienced complications at about twice the rate of the 181 patients studied who didn't have to switch drugs. This is the first randomized study to compare the differences in treatment outcomes between the two medications.
None of the patients died, but the authors emphasize that they're only 18 months out from treatment and could still be hit with adverse effects.
"It's too soon to know about problems and success rates," said Dr. Michael Link, one of the lead investigators and a Stanford University pediatric oncologist. "Even if they're cured, they underwent intensive treatment they would have otherwise avoided and this puts them at greater risk for long-term effects such as infertility and secondary cancers."
Similar but Not the Same
Dr. Amy Billet, a pediatric oncologist at Dana-Farber who was also part of the study, said it's not possible to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the drug swap was responsible for the higher rate of relapse, but she and her fellow investigators could think of no other credible explanation.
"You can never know what happened to one individual patient. You can only say there is an increase risk in the group who got the substitution drug," she said.
According to Link, this latest study only confirms what doctors have suspected for years: swapping one drug for another, even when the two are similar, isn't always ideal.
"We thought this one was a no-brainer because the drugs were so alike, but we discovered to our dismay that the substitution didn't work as well. This takes the problem out of the hypothetical and we can point our finger at exactly which patients suffered as a result of the shortage," he said.
A Larger Problem
Two years ago, Dr. Richard Besser and the ABC News Medical Unit embarked on a series of reports [ http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/largest-hospital-drug-shortage-decades/story?id=12452389 ] spotlighting critical shortages of drugs commonly used to treat cancer. While almost 80 percent of children with cancer can be cured with current therapies, they found that many common treatment regimens rely on older drugs – mechlorethamine has been used since the 1960s -- and some drugs have been in short supply in recent years.
Reasons for the shortage aren't entirely clear. It's likely a combination of factors such as limited manufacturing, lagging production time and lack of profits from these drugs. As Link noted, "When a manufacturer stops making a drug, there isn't always another one ready to swoop in and take over."
The Food and Drug Administration has tried to step in to remedy the problem. For example, after President Obama issued an executive order in 2011 to reduce the dire drug shortages, the FDA broadened its reporting of potential drug shortages and expedited regulatory reviews that sometimes made the shortages worse.
The New England Journal authors said the FDA's efforts should be commended but said more needed to be done. They said that the shortage of mechlorethamine eased up shortly after their study ended, with no explanation. But they warn there's no guarantee there won't be another shortage later.
"We really need a global effort to attack this problem rather than trying to do it one event at a time," Billet said.
Alonzo, now age 13, is currently cancer-free. Her lungs were badly scarred from the treatment she received though her mother said doctors were never able to say for sure this was because of the extra treatment she was forced to undergo when she relapsed.
"I don't think we'll ever know," said her mother. "What we do know is there are other children that have had to go through a lot of extra damage to their body, and there may be long-term consequences. It's all because the drug wasn't made – that's what doesn't seem right."
Scientology 'Alien Space Cathedral' Reportedly Revealed In New Mexico
By Lee Speigel Posted: 01/01/2013 10:34 am EST | Updated: 01/01/2013 10:34 am EST
In the New Mexico desert lies an allegedly secret Scientology installation that includes a huge message for extraterrestrials -- a crop circle-type design that can only easily be seen from high above the ground.
Sweeney also reports that buried texts of Hubbard's teachings are included at the top secret New Mexico Scientology site.
The BBC reporter tried to find "the space alien cathedral that ex-Scientologists say was built deep underground by the church in the 1980s at the cost of millions of dollars.
"Its vault houses the lectures of Hubbard on gold discs locked in titanium caskets sealed with argon. The cathedral is H-bomb proof," Sweeney reports in his book.
Sweeney went to the supposed site of the alien cathedral accompanied by former Scientologist Marc Headley.
"Headley says he was 'audited' -- given spiritual counseling -- by Tom Cruise, Hollywood superstar and leading church member. Marc says he was also beaten up by the shadowy church's leader David Miscavige. The church denies both incidents," Sweeney alleged.
Analysis: Entering the age of the $1 million medicine
An operator installs a chromatography column to purify the gene therapy drug Glybera at Dutch biotech company uniQure in Amsterdam December 13, 2012. Credit: Reuters/Michael Kooren
By Ben Hirschler LONDON | Thu Jan 3, 2013 4:47pm EST
(Reuters) - The Western world's first drug to fix faulty genes promises to transform the lives of patients with an ultra-rare disease that clogs their blood with fat. The only snag is the price.
The gene therapy for lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD), a hereditary disorder that raises the risk of potentially lethal inflammation of the pancreas, is likely to cost more than $1 million per patient when it goes on sale in Europe this summer.
Rare or so-called orphan diseases are winning unprecedented attention from drug developers. More than a quarter of the 39 new medicines approved in the United States last year were designated for such conditions.
These are therefore exciting times for campaigners such as Briton Jill Prawer, who leads an LPLD support group, and others championing the needs of people with equally obscure illnesses.
Naturally, she is delighted by the arrival of the LPLD drug Glybera. "It's brilliant," said Prawer, a 50-year-old mother of three who has suffered all her life from LPLD.
Until now, governments and insurance companies have largely accepted prices that can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars for products that treat orphan diseases. As only a handful of patients need the treatment, the overall cost to health budgets is relatively small.
However, healthcare providers are increasingly having to balance the acute needs of the few against the wider interests of society, within constrained budgets. Scrutiny of the sky-high prices charged for this wave of new drugs is growing.
"More companies are getting into this sector because they've seen the eye-wateringly high prices that can be charged for some of these very rare disease medicines," said Karl Claxton, professor of health economics at the University of York.
"It's unsustainable. Healthcare systems around the world are under increasing financial pressure and all of them are starting to look very carefully at what they get for their money."
PAYERS PUSH BACK
As more treatments become available and scientists learn more about what causes the 6,000-7,000 diseases that affect less than 1 percent of the population, there are signs the payers may be pushing back - especially in austerity-hit Europe.
As from this week, a new drug called Kalydeco is being made available on the state health service to about 270 patients in England with a rare form of the lung disease cystic fibrosis.
It was cleared, however, only after Vertex Pharmaceuticals cut the official list price of 182,625 pounds ($297,000) a year. The size of the discount is confidential.
In the Netherlands a row erupted last year over whether the healthcare insurance board, CVZ, should continue funding expensive enzyme replacement therapies for people living with Fabry and Pompe diseases.
In the end CVZ agreed to keep paying but the case highlighted the difficulties of assessing the value of medicines for rare conditions, given the limited evidence that can be collected from clinical trials involving very few patients.
In the case of gene therapy, extreme pricing may be unavoidable, since a single dose could last a lifetime, giving any drug manufacturer just one shot at recouping its investment.
Glybera, developed by private Dutch firm uniQure, is the first gene therapy to win approval in the West, although China cleared one for head and neck cancer in 2003.
Several companies are working on other gene therapies, including Sanofi's Genzyme unit, GlaxoSmithKline, Shire and small biotechs like Bluebird Bio.
On both sides of the Atlantic, drugs for orphan diseases have changed ideas about what makes a profitable pharmaceutical.
Traditionally, drugmakers have relied on mass-market pills to fight problems such as high cholesterol. But expiries of patents, allowing competitors to make cheap copies, have undermined their profits in this area. By contrast, rare diseases offer premium prices and far lower competition.
The U.S. biotech company Alexion Pharmaceuticals shows how well the orphan drug model can work. Despite treating only a few thousand patients worldwide, sales of its rare blood disease drug Soliris are forecast by analysts to reach $1.5 billion this year and $2.6 billion by 2017 - thanks to a U.S. list price of $440,000 per patient a year.
Soliris is not alone. The past decade has been the most productive in the history of orphan drug development, helped by the U.S. Orphan Drug Act in 1983 and similar later laws in Europe, Japan, Australia and Singapore that provide additional market exclusivity for medicines targeting small populations.
While this policy has stimulated innovation, some investors are also nervous about future pricing.
"The issue of the sustainability of orphan drug pricing is really front and center for investors at the moment," said David Pinniger, investment manager of the International Biotechnology Trust, whose holdings include shares in orphan drug companies such as Alexion and Biomarin Pharmaceutical.
"The question is will the orphan drug strategy become a victim of its own success? With austerity and pricing pressure, this area is going to come under increasing scrutiny."
A Thomson Reuters analysis put the global orphan drug market at more than $50 billion at the end of 2011, with spending accounting for about 6 percent of total drug sales.
A number of these drugs started out as treatments for rare cancers but have since become multibillion-dollar sellers as their use has expanded.
The orphan drug market is expanding faster than traditional pharmaceuticals with annual growth averaging 25.8 percent from 2001 to 2010 compared with 20.1 percent for non-orphan drugs.
Moreover, orphan drugs' average "present value" - which measures the current worth of future revenues - is higher than for non-orphan drugs, despite their tiny target populations. This reflects lower development and marketing costs, as well as longer market exclusivity.
Unsurprisingly, big pharmaceutical firms are showing growing interest in rare diseases, reflected in Sanofi's $20.1 billion purchase of Genzyme in 2011 and decisions by companies including Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to enter the market.
That promises more competition in some established areas, with Pfizer, for example, launching its new Gaucher disease drug Elelyso at a 25 percent discount to Genzyme's Cerezyme.
Large drugmakers are also likely to be under more pressure to curb excessive prices than small biotechs - a fact recognized by GSK, which has said it would like to see more responsible orphan drug pricing.
TIME FOR NEW APPROACH?
Tim Cox, professor of medicine at the University of Cambridge and the first UK doctor to give Gaucher patients enzyme replacement therapy, welcomes industry investment but believes pricing at present is "completely arbitrary".
"I believe we can have a system to approve drugs for a reasonable time at a reasonable cost that can be reviewed after a period, so that the amount of health benefit gained can be used as an arbiter of the final cost," he said.
That view is echoed by Yann Le Cam, head of the EU-wide orphan disease patients' group Eurordis, who wants to see more flexible licensing that would allow a new drug to come to market earlier with limited distribution while more data is collected.
"At the end of the day, it will be cheaper," he said, since each clinical trial would need fewer patients and could be concluded faster.
This concept also appeals to Joern Aldag, the CEO of uniQure, whose predecessor company Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics (AMT) was torpedoed by initial rebuffs from EU regulators who wanted bigger trials before approving Glybera.
AMT was taken private by newly created uniQure last April because it could no longer fund itself in the public markets.
"We are breaking new ground in science and reimbursement - but we also have to also break new ground in how the regulations are set up," Aldag said. ($1 = 0.6141 British pounds)
Wegelin & Co. Admits It Helped U.S. Clients Hide $1.2 Billion From IRS
Posted: 01/03/2013 1:04 pm EST | Updated: 01/04/2013 3:32 am EST
NEW YORK (AP) — Switzerland's oldest bank became the first foreign bank to plead guilty in the United States to tax charges when it admitted Thursday that it helped American clients hide more than $1.2 billion from the Internal Revenue Service.
Wegelin & Co., founded in 1741, entered the plea in federal court in Manhattan, agreeing to pay $20 million in restitution to the IRS, a $22 million fine and an additional $15.8 million, representing the gross fees earned by the bank on the undeclared accounts of U.S. taxpayers between 2002 and 2011. U.S. authorities said the money, combined with an April forfeiture of more than $16.2 million by the bank, meant the U.S. had recovered about $74 million.
The bank had been accused of helping at least 100 U.S. clients conceal large sums of money from the federal tax collection agency in overseas accounts.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the bank became a haven for U.S. taxpayers looking to cheat on taxes through secret off-shore accounts.
"The bank willfully and aggressively jumped in to fill a void that was left when other Swiss banks abandoned the practice due to pressure from U.S. law enforcement," Bharara said.
He called it a "watershed moment in our efforts to hold to account both the individuals and the banks — wherever they may be in the world — who are engaging in unlawful conduct that deprives the U.S. Treasury of billions of dollars of tax revenue."
Wegelin, headquartered in St. Gallen, Switzerland, said in a statement that it had cooperated with the probe "within the bounds allowed for by Swiss law" since learning that it was under U.S. investigation.
U.S. authorities said Wegelin had no branches outside Switzerland but accessed the U.S. banking system through a correspondent bank account that it held at UBS AG in Stamford, Conn.
Prosecutors said Wegelin in 2008 and 2009 opened and serviced dozens of new accounts for U.S. taxpayers as it tried to capture clients lost by UBS after word surfaced that that UBS was being investigated for helping U.S. taxpayers evade taxes and hide assets in Swiss bank accounts.
Wegelin employees told U.S. taxpayer-clients that their undeclared accounts would not be disclosed to U.S. authorities because the bank had a long tradition of secrecy, prosecutors said. They added that the employees persuaded U.S. taxpayer-clients to move money from UBS to Wegelin by claiming that, unlike UBS, Wegelin did not have offices outside of Switzerland and would be less vulnerable to U.S. law enforcement.
Meanwhile, prosecutors said, Wegelin took additional steps to hide the accounts, including by putting them in the names of sham corporations and foundations formed under the laws of jurisdictions that included Hong Kong and Panama and by using code names and numbers to minimize references to the actual names of U.S. taxpayers on Swiss bank documents. They said the bank also was careful not to send account statements to U.S. clients in the United States and corresponded with clients through private email accounts.
In February 2009, UBS entered a deferred prosecution agreement with U.S. authorities and agreed to pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest and restitution.
JPMorgan Faces Sanction for Withholding Madoff Documents
Eric Thorson, inspector general of the Department of the Treasury, is seen here at a hearing on Wall Street and the Financial Crisis in Washington, D.C. on April 16, 2010. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
A man talks on his phone at JPMorgan & Chase Co. headquarters in New York. Peter Foley/Bloomberg
By Robert Schmidt & Jesse Hamilton - Jan 4, 2013 11:28 AM CT
The U.S. Treasury Department’s inspector general has threatened to punish JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) for failing to turn over documents to regulators investigating the bank’s ties to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
Inspector General Eric Thorson gave the largest U.S. bank a Jan. 11 deadline to cooperate with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency probe or risk sanctions for impeding the agency’s oversight. JPMorgan, according to the Dec. 21 letter, contends the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Thorson’s letter didn’t spell out what documents the OCC is seeking or the focus of its investigation. Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence after confessing to the fraud that once claimed to have $65 billion in customer assets.
The previously undisclosed OCC probe adds to the lender’s troubles in Washington, where several agencies and lawmakers are investigating the bank’s loss of at least $6.2 billion on botched derivatives trades. The losses have prompted regulators including the Federal Reserve to consider tightening proposed restrictions on proprietary trading.
Jennifer Zuccarelli, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, said the bank “will of course continue to work together with our regulators” on the investigation.
Confidential Guidance
“This dispute does not go to the merits of the matter but it does raise an important issue of principle: Whether we and other banks, large and small alike, have the fundamental right long recognized in this country to communicate freely with and seek confidential guidance from their lawyers,” Zuccarelli said in an interview.
Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesman, declined to comment on the agency’s inquiry.
In the letter sent to JPMorgan general counsel Stephen Cutler, the inspector general -- the Treasury’s internal watchdog -- dismissed JPMorgan’s arguments on attorney-client privilege, saying the OCC “could not do its work” if banks were allowed to withhold information on that basis. The OCC, an independent bureau of Treasury, asked the IG office to review the situation, Thorson said in the letter.
Failure to produce the records “will have to be seen as a continuing purposeful impediment to the authority of the OCC,” Thorson said in the letter, and would require “further action by our office.”
Trustee’s Claims
The trustee liquidating Madoff’s firm, Irving H. Picard, sued JPMorgan in December 2010, accusing the bank of aiding Madoff’s fraud. The lawsuit, eventually demanding $19 billion, the largest of Picard’s claims, has since been dismissed. Picard has appealed the ruling.
JPMorgan “had financial reports in its possession that clearly evidenced fraud,” David J. Sheehan, lead counsel for Picard and a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, said in a February 2011 statement. JPMorgan was the Madoff firm’s “primary banker for more than two decades,” Sheehan said.
JPMorgan benefited from Madoff accounts while it “helped perpetuate Madoff’s fraud by ignoring the red flags, and continuing to structure products and collect fees for their own enrichment,” according to the trustee’ lawsuit.
The bank would have made $398 million in pretax profit from Madoff deposits from 1986 to 2008, conservatively assuming no reinvestment gain, according to a 2011 study by Linus Wilson, an assistant finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. The firm declined to comment on the study at the time.
Withdrawing Investments
The trustee’s claim also accused the bank of withdrawing $276 million in its own investments in Madoff-related feeder funds about three weeks before Madoff’s Dec. 11, 2008, arrest. JPMorgan described the withdrawals as part of “an across-the- board review of its exposure to hedge funds,” according to its court filings.
In responding to Picard’s suit, the bank issued a statement in 2011 saying it “did not know about or in any way become a party to the fraud” and called it an “unfounded claim” that JPMorgan earned substantial fees from Madoff’s account. JPMorgan also objected in court when the trustee sought more freedom to use confidential Madoff documents provided by the bank.
The OCC is also investigating the trading losses in the bank’s chief investment office and is preparing an enforcement action, according to a person briefed on the situation who asked not to be named because the matter isn’t public. The cease-and- desist order would require the bank to fix internal risk controls, the person said.
FERC Dispute
In a second dispute involving demands from federal regulators for documents, a federal magistrate judge in Washington ruled in November that JPMorgan could invoke attorney-client privilege to keep private e-mails requested by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The agency had accused a JPMorgan unit of making “factual misrepresentations” and omitting material information in communications with the California Independent System Operator, which operates the state’s power grid, and in filings to the commission. The FERC suspended the unit’s electricity-trading authority for six months starting April 1.
To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net; Jesse Hamilton in Washington at jhamilton33@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at mreynolds34@bloomberg.net; David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net
What’s Inside America’s Banks? Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO, testifying last summer before the House Financial Services Committee about his bank’s sudden $6 billion loss. Some four years after the 2008 financial crisis, public trust in banks is as low as ever. Sophisticated investors describe big banks as “black boxes” that may still be concealing enormous risks—the sort that could again take down the economy. A close investigation of a supposedly conservative bank’s financial records uncovers the reason for these fears—and points the way toward urgent reforms. January/February 2013 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/whats-inside-americas-banks/309196/ [ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/whats-inside-americas-banks/309196/?single_page=true ] [with comments]
===
Powerful Tea Party Group's Internal Docs Leak—Read Them Here
—posing as a populist organization while doing the bidding of big-money donors. Yet internal documents obtained by Mother Jones show that FreedomWorks has indeed become dependent on wealthy individual donors to finance its growing operation.
Big donations like Stephenson's are business as usual for FreedomWorks. According to a 52-page report prepared by FreedomWorks' top brass for a board of directors meeting held in mid-December at the Virginia office of Sands Capital Management [ http://sandscapital.com/ ], an investment firm run by FreedomWorks board member Frank Sands [ http://www.freedomworks.org/about/board-of-directors ], the entire FreedomWorks organization—its 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofit arms and its super-PAC—raised nearly $41 million through mid-December. Of that total, $33 million—or 81 percent of its 2012 fundraising—came in the form of "major gifts," the type of big donations coveted by nonprofits and super-PACs. (FreedomWorks' nonprofit components do not have to disclose their funders.)
Well-heeled individual contributors ponied up $31 million—or 94 percent—of those major gifts, according to the FreedomWorks board book. Eight donors gave a half-million dollars or more; 22 donated between $100,000 and $499,999; 17 cut checks between $50,000 and $99,999; and 95 gave between $10,000 and $49,999. Foundations contributed $1.6 million in major gifts, and corporations donated $330,000. Corporations once accounted for more of FreedomWorks' hefty donations. In a memo included in the report, David Kirby, FreedomWork's vice president for development, and senior adviser Terry Kibbe wrote, "This year continued our trend of relying less and less on corporate support." At the same time FreedomWorks expanded its small donor ranks from 41,794 in 2011 to 81,081 in 2012. More than 30,000 of those small donors gave between a dollar and $99 this year.
According to ex-FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey, when he joined the organization in 2003, FreedomWorks relied heavily on corporate donations. The group, he says, subsequently weaned itself off such underwriting and used direct-mail lists—some provided by Armey—to build up a base of small donors. But in the last year, there was a "big surge in private individual contributions," most of which Armey says he didn't know about. "The details were kept secret from me," he remarks.
In 2012, according to the board book, FreedomWorks hosted 110 current and potential "investors" at a Jackson Hole, Wyoming, hotel for its second annual "Restore Liberty" donor retreat. The event resulted in a source pledging a $10 million matching grant; the board book does not name this source. In August 2013, FreedomWorks plans to fete donors at the four-star St. Regis resort [ https://plus.google.com/115474989738085320724/about?hl=en ] in Aspen, Colorado. (FreedomWorks also treats its board well, holding its August 2012 meeting at the Snake River Lodge and Spa in Teton Village, Wyoming, according to minutes taken at the meeting.)
In 2013, FreedomWorks plans to spend between $25 million and $30 million, according to the board book. Favored causes and projects include the annual Blog-Con convention, the right's answer to Netroots Nation; fly-ins for activists [ http://m.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-grassroots-army-to-take-capitol-hill- ] to lobby members of Congress; briefings with lawmakers and their aides; and the recently launched FreedomWorks University [ http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/posts/whats-next ]. FreedomWorks also plans to continue its financial support for Glenn Beck's media enterprise, including sharing a TV studio with and leasing office space to the Washington bureau of TheBlaze [ http://www.theblaze.com/ ], Beck's website and TV network.
The board book is chock full of strategy talk by the FreedomWorks' brass. In a memo to the board included in the report, CEO Kibbe panned GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as just another "old white guy." He acknowledged that his group's plan to help flip control of the US Senate to the GOP failed miserably ("We take our lumps with humility"), and he insisted that it's time to replace the aging image of the conservative movement with "younger, more diverse, more substantive voices for freedom in America." Kibbe asked: "Can liberty, personal responsibility, and doing things for yourself be the new 'cool'?"
Such a makeover, Kibbe wrote, can begin if FreedomWorks courts so-called "Ron Paul Millennials," the loud, loyal twentysomethings who in 2008 and 2012 followed the GOP libertarian presidential candidate from one stump speech to the next. Kibbe noted that FreedomWorks plans to reach out to blacks and Hispanics with a new "Black and Brown" tour, starring a Brazilian immigrant and tea party activist named Ana Puig. And he touted FreedomWorks' growing online presence, with 2.1 million members on its email list and 4 million Facebook fans.
Despite his organization's reliance on big-money donors, Kibbe stressed that the future of conservative politics is at the grassroots level. "Freedom is trending," he wrote to the board, "thanks to your willingness to keep up the fight."
Read FreedomWorks' Winter 2012 board book:
[complete 52-page document embedded, Scibd-style]
*
Support for Mother Jones' dark money reporting comes in part from the Puffin Foundation's First Amendment program.
Electoral College Count Affirms Obama Win Over Mitt Romney
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
By DONNA CASSATA 01/04/13 08:00 PM ET EST
WASHINGTON — Congress made the obvious official on Friday. President Barack Obama has been re-elected.
In a joint session, Congress formally certified that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were the winners in the November election with 332 electoral votes, well more than the 270 required. Republican Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, won 206 votes.
It's a mostly ceremonial – yet constitutionally necessary – vote that's mostly intriguing to political junkies and policy wonks. The count Friday lacked the suspense of the drawn-out campaign and election but was steeped in tradition.
Biden and about a dozen senators trekked across the Capitol from the Senate to the House chamber, and the vice president joined House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on the rostrum. Senate pages carried two dark wooden boxes that contained the results of the electoral votes that had been counted in the state capitals last month. Clerks used silver letter openers to unseal the envelopes.
Taking turns, the leaders of the Senate Rules Committee – Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. – and the top members of the House Administration Committee – Reps. Candice Miller, R-Mich., and Robert Brady, D-Pa. – read the results from each state. Biden, who presided over the session, announced the final results to applause from the scattering of House and Senate members in the chamber.
The 12th Amendment directs the electors chosen by the states to meet and vote for president and vice president. Each state gets its equivalent in the 435-member House and the 100-member Senate. The District of Columbia gets the other three electors. Their certified tally sheets must be counted in Washington.
The low-key session was in sharp contrast to the drama in January 2001, when Vice President Al Gore, the loser in the disputed election, presided over the certification of an electoral count that gave the presidency to his rival, Republican George W. Bush. Gore had beaten Bush in the popular vote but lost the electoral count.
Months after the November election, the final official vote from all 50 states and the District of Columbia showed Obama with 65,899,660 votes, or 51.1 percent, and Romney with 60,932,152 votes, or 47.2 percent. Obama is the first president since Republican Dwight Eisenhower to win back-to-back presidential elections with more than 51 percent of the popular vote.
Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in Obama at noon on Jan. 20 at the White House in a private ceremony, and then administer the oath again on the West Front of the Capitol the next day. The Constitution requires that the inauguration take place on Jan. 20 but because it is a Sunday, the public session and the accompanying parade and festivities will occur on Monday.
Biden has asked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to swear him in for a second term. She will be the first Hispanic to administer either a presidential or vice presidential oath.
By Sabrina Siddiqui and Ryan Grim Posted: 01/03/2013 6:09 pm EST | Updated: 01/04/2013 1:08 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.
A coalition of progressive groups is also keeping up the pressure for reform, such as advocacy group CREDO Action, which targeted wavering senators Wednesday.
Despite some opposition, Udall was confident about the proposal’s prospects, telling reporters, "Momentum is on our side -- my uncle Mo used to refer to the 'big mo.'" Udall's uncle, Mo Udall, was a longtime Arizona congressman. Udall said he anticipates having enough Democratic votes to pass reform using what advocates call the constitutional option, but what opponents refer to as the “nuclear option.”
“I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change,” Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie.
The main component of the Merkley-Udall approach is the talking filibuster, which still enables the minority to filibuster legislation but would require them to do so by actually standing and speaking on the floor. Additionally, the proposal would also streamline conference committee assignments and nominations, and eliminate the motion to proceed -- a motion typically offered by the majority leader to bring up a bill or other measure for consideration.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced earlier on Thursday that he will recess the chamber at the close of the day’s proceedings, thereby extending the first legislative day of the new Congress to maintain his ability to reform the Senate’s filibuster rules later this month.
“The Senate is simply not working as it should,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “We will reserve the right of all Senators to propose changes to the Senate rules, and we will explicitly not acquiesce in the carrying over of all the rules from the last Congress.”
Merkley confirmed to HuffPost shortly after the briefing that the filibuster reform debate will begin on Jan. 22.
A HuffPost/YouGov poll [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/filibuster-reform-poll_n_2218963.html ] conducted in late November found that 65 percent of Americans believe senators should have to participate in debate for the duration of a filibuster, while only 9 percent of those polled said that senators should be able to filibuster without being physically present.
The centrist fantasy of a Grand Bargain on the budget never had a chance. Even if some kind of bargain had supposedly been reached, key players would soon have reneged on the deal — probably the next time a Republican occupied the White House.
For the reality is that our two major political parties are engaged in a fierce struggle over the future shape of American society. Democrats want to preserve the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and add to them what every other advanced country has: a more or less universal guarantee of essential health care. Republicans want to roll all of that back, making room for drastically lower taxes on the wealthy. Yes, it’s essentially a class war.
The fight over the fiscal cliff was just one battle in that war. It ended, arguably, in a tactical victory for Democrats. The question is whether it was a Pyrrhic victory that set the stage for a larger defeat.
Why do I say that it was a tactical victory? Mainly because of what didn’t happen: There were no benefit cuts.
This was by no means a foregone conclusion. In 2011, the Obama administration was reportedly willing to raise the age of Medicare eligibility, a terrible and cruel policy idea. This time around, it was willing to cut Social Security benefits by changing the formula for cost-of-living adjustments, a less terrible idea that would nonetheless have imposed a lot of hardship — and probably have been politically disastrous as well. In the end, however, it didn’t happen. And progressives, always worried that President Obama seems much too willing to compromise about fundamentals, breathed a sigh of relief.
There were also some actual positives from a progressive point of view. Expanded unemployment benefits were given another year to run, a huge benefit to many families and a significant boost to our economic prospects (because this is money that will be spent, and hence help preserve jobs). Other benefits to lower-income families were given another five years — although, unfortunately, the payroll tax break was allowed to expire, which will hurt both working families and job creation.
The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.
Oh, and not only did Republicans vote for a tax increase for the first time in decades, the overall result of the tax changes now taking effect — which include new taxes associated with Obamacare as well as the new legislation — will be a significant reduction in income inequality, with the top 1 percent and even more so the top 0.1 percent taking a much bigger hit than middle-income families.
So why are many progressives — myself included — feeling very apprehensive? Because we’re worried about the confrontations to come.
According to the normal rules of politics, Republicans should have very little bargaining power at this point. With Democrats holding the White House and the Senate, the G.O.P. can’t pass legislation; and since the biggest progressive policy priority of recent years, health reform, is already law, Republicans wouldn’t seem to have many bargaining chips.
But the G.O.P. retains the power to destroy, in particular by refusing to raise the debt limit — which could cause a financial crisis. And Republicans have made it clear that they plan to use their destructive power to extract major policy concessions.
Now, the president has said that he won’t negotiate on that basis, and rightly so. Threatening to hurt tens of millions of innocent victims unless you get your way — which is what the G.O.P. strategy boils down to — shouldn’t be treated as a legitimate political tactic.
But will Mr. Obama stick to his anti-blackmail position as the moment of truth approaches? He blinked during the 2011 debt limit confrontation. And the last few days of the fiscal cliff negotiations were also marked by a clear unwillingness on his part to let the deadline expire. Since the consequences of a missed deadline on the debt limit would potentially be much worse, this bodes ill for administration resolve in the clinch.
So, as I said, in a tactical sense the fiscal cliff ended in a modest victory for the White House. But that victory could all too easily turn into defeat in just a few weeks.
As tax hikes kick in for all, top earners pay growing share
By William La Jeunesse Published January 03, 2013 FoxNews.com
Taxes are going up this week on almost everyone, but one group of top earners will feel the pinch far more than others. The .7 percent.
It's an exclusive club created by President Obama's new tax plan. Already the most progressively taxed nation in the world, the U.S. becomes more top heavy with the new tax code, analysts say.
With income tax hikes concentrated on only those individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000, about 40 percent of all federal income taxes will now be paid by just .7 percent of all federal income tax returns, according to preliminary numbers from Tax Foundation Chief Economist William McBride.
"We are currently the reigning champion of progressivity. This deal will make our tax code even more progressive," said McBride. "We cannot sustain a situation where the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of the tax burden, while the bottom half roughly on average pays no income taxes."
Previous data showed about 37 percent of the federal income tax burden fell on the top 1 percent, while 41 percent had a zero or negative tax liability. The share of nonpayers, which has doubled since 1990, is expected to stay consistent for at least five years under the deal.
The tax plan approved this week raises the top marginal rate to 39.5 percent on those making over $400,000/$450,000 and their capital gains rate rises from 15 to 20 percent. Two other provisions also limit the value of their deductions. Taken together, McBride estimates the top .7 percent -- roughly 1.1 million of 143 million tax returns -- will pay about 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
"It creates huge divisions in society and breeds contempt. It's class warfare. It is also unsustainable because it disconnects voters. The bottom half of the population pays no income tax. That's hugely disruptive. Those folks now have an incentive to lobby for more federal spending and it disconnects them from the cost of the federal government."
While most taxpayers were shielded from increases in their income taxes, payroll taxes went up for everyone. The IRS issued new withholding guidelines for employers earlier this week. Some workers will see the higher deductions on Friday -- others next week.
Here are some examples.
-- for a single person earning $38,000 a year, the IRS told employers to withhold $5,437 a year. That's up $570, or $11 a week.
-- for someone earning $90,000, they will pay $19,885 -- or $2,443 more than last year.
-- for someone earning $185,000, the government will withhold $49,459 -- an increase of $5,977.
-- for someone earning over $400,000, payroll taxes will increase by $270 per week or $14,212 a year.
Still, payroll taxes (that's the FICA deduction on your paycheck) pay for Social Security and Medicare. That is money taxpayers eventually get back, and then some.
Over a lifetime, the average male worker pays $345,000 in FICA taxes, but gets back $417,000 in benefits, according to the nonpartisan think tank, The Urban Institute.
Former Navy Chaplain On Newt Gingrich Gay Marriage Stance: 'Worthy Of Death'
Former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt believes that Newt Gingrich caved to "demonic voices" when he changed his stance on gay marriage. Here, the chaplain is during a hunger strike in front of the White House in 2006. (AP)
By Cavan Sieczkowski Posted: 01/04/2013 12:12 pm EST | Updated: 01/04/2013 3:02 pm EST
A former Navy chaplain says that Newt Gingrich's stance on same-sex marriage was influenced by "demonic voices" and makes the former Republican presidential candidate "worthy of death."
Gingrich spoke about the issue of same-sex marriage [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney_n_2337895.html ] during an interview with The Huffington Post in December. Although he defended his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, the former House Speaker said the GOP needs to progress with the times.
"It is in every family. It is in every community," he told HuffPost. "The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."
The chaplain cites a Bible passage from Romans, Chapter 1, which says “homosexual acts are worthy of death.”
“It’s not like Newt is personally engaging in homosexual activity, but the Bible condemns him now because he takes pleasure in those that do that sort of thing,” he explained. “When the Bible condemns his endorsement of homosexual sin then he has become one of the sinners condemned by Romans, Chapter 1.”
Klingenschmitt continued to say Gingrich is tempted by "demonic voices" that tell him "Okay, it's not really a sin. We ought to endorse this" simply to get more votes in a possible 2016 presidential run.
The chaplain, who belongs to an evangelical sect of the Episcopal Church and was disgraced in 2006 for disobeying an order [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401544.html ], is not the only one to speak out against Gingrich's evolved view on same-sex marriage. Frank Schubert, National Political Director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), called the politician's comments both "stupid" and "ridiculous."
Gingrich was previously vocal against same-sex marriage [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-gay-marriage-_n_1234955.html ]. He went so far as to compare it to paganism, saying, "The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization." While running for the GOP presidential nomination, he also vowed to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
Leading Conservative Religious Organization Warns That Christians Will Soon Be Treated Like Blacks In Jim Crow Era
By Scott Keyes on Jan 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm
The American Family Association, a top conservative Christian organization, emailed members today with a dire warning that, within 50 years, Christians will be treated like African Americans during the Jim Crow era.
In an email entitled “What will religion look like in the year 2060?”, the AFA warned about the coming onslaught against Christians, who currently make up over three-quarters [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/151760/christianity-remains-dominant-religion-united-states.aspx ] of Americans. The group’s predictions include that Christians will be brutally discriminated against like blacks before the Civil Rights Era, government will take children from parents at birth, and any city with “Saint” or other loosely-religious name will be forced to change.
The full email:
What will religion look like in the year 2060?
Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth.
Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a “family” group at will.
Churchbuildings will be little used, with many sold to secular buyers and the money received going to the government.
Churches will not be allowed to discuss any political issues, even if it affects the church directly.
Tax credit given to churches and non-profit organizations will cease.
Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose.
We will have, or have had, a Muslim president.
Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state.
Groups connected to any religious affiliation will be forced out of health care. Health centers get tax money from the state, making it a violation of church and state.
George Lucas, Mellody Hobson Engaged: 'Star Wars' Director, Businesswoman Set To Marry 01/03/2013 HuffPost Celebrity can report that filmmaker George Lucas and his girlfriend of seven years, businesswoman Mellody Hobson, are engaged. The famed director, 68, and his longtime partner and president of a big-time Chicago-based investment management firm [ http://www.forbes.com/profile/mellody-hobson/ ], Ariel Investments LLC, 43, are no strangers to showcasing their relationship in the spotlight. The pair are often spotted hand-in-hand on the red carpet, everywhere from the Cannes Film Festival to Formula One Grand Prix races to the NAACP awards. [...] Lucas recently made headlines after donating $4 billion to an education foundation [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html ] -- the amount he received after selling Lucasfilm Ltd. (which Lucas solely owned) to Disney. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/george-lucas-mellody-hobson-engaged_n_2404471.html [with comments]
US banks' multi-billion dollar payouts to settle housing bust claims
Nikhil Kumar - New York - Tuesday 08 January 2013
American banks struck two multi-billion dollar settlements yesterday to end claims connected to the housing bust which triggered the financial crisis and plunged the US into recession.
In separate announcements, Bank of America said it would cough up more than $10bn (£6.2bn) to settle claims over housing loans sold to Fannie Mae, the US government-backed mortgage finance giant, while regulators said they had reached an $8.5bn deal with a group of 10 major lenders, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, to resolve possible claims of foreclosure abuses.
The group of 10 will pay $3.3bn to eligible Americans who went through foreclosure, with the borrowers expected to receive compensation of up to $125,000 depending on the facts of their respective cases. A further $5.2bn will go towards other help, including loan modifications and forgiveness.
Regulators said they had reached the deal, which follows a foreclosure review process than began in April 2011, to ensure swift relief for borrowers who had been unlawfully caught up in foreclosures, or had suffered other harm because of errors.
"We have learned a great deal from the reviews that have been conducted to date," Thomas Curry, the US Comptroller of the Currency, said.
"However, it has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners...
"Our new course of action will get more money to more people more quickly," he added.
Bank of America's settlement with Fannie Mae, which was separate from the regulatory deal over foreclosures, will see the North Carolina-based bank buy back $6.75bn worth of residential loans from the mortgage finance firm.
Bank of America will also pay Fannie Mae more than $3bn in cash, with the settlement set to the bank's fourth-quarter, pre-tax income by some $2.7bn.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
