Fun juxtaposition of page one stories in USA TODAY today. There’s the ominous one about government overtaking the private sector as the driving force in the U.S. economy, “Private wages fall in historic pay shift.”

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

But the dominant story on Page One is a more cheerful piece, “Twitter Power: Learning from ourselves, in real time.”

That Twitter has succeeded isn’t a shock; a time-pressed global culture was bound to pounce on the free service’s 140-character haiku format, and 114 million users have signed up to date, 40% of them Americans. What generates awe is the speed with which Twitter has taken a seat alongside Google and Facebook at the tech world’s grown-up table.

Once derided as a peddler of infantile missives (“My latte is cold!”), the service has revealed itself to be an accurate barometer of mass culture. Today, if something isn’t tweeted, did it happen?

“Twitter has become the world’s water cooler,” says Adam Ostrow, editor of the social media blog Mashable. “It’s a place where you can hear what millions are saying and feel, unbiased and in that moment.”

USA Today’s lead page one story today is “Industry donates to drug plan foes” focusing on the pharmaceutical industry. The sidebar looks at a related issue of generic pharmaceuticals competing with “biologic” drugs, “Industry donates to drug plan foes.”

Meanwhile, at The Examiner, columnist Tim Carney submits yet another dispatch about big business running the country, “How industry kidnapped Obama’s health ‘reform’.”

Well, good. Report those stories. The same stories…over and over…ad nauseum…refreshing them every quarter when new lobbying or campaign contribution reports are out.

But maybe there’s a different and equally important story to tell. Yes, it’s the one we’ve been harping on for three weeks now, but it’s valid and woefully underreported: the role of the trial attorneys in blocking medical malpractice reform or federal liability limits.

To repeat ourselves (over and over), we’ve yet to see any major newspaper or wire service or broadcast outlet report on the gathering of thousands of trial lawyers in San Francisco at the American Association for Justice’s summer convention, which ends today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a key player in the Congressional health care debate, addressed a powerful special interest and political constituency, and no mainstream media cared. (With apologies to LegalNewsline.) The peripatetic Tim Kaine lights down in San Francisco for political purposes and nada.

So here’s a new angle. On September 24-25 the AAJ is holding a seminar and Continuing Legal Education session at The Venetian in Las Vegas, “Litigating Toxic Tort, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Device Cases Seminar.” It’s two days in which attorneys will be trained how to make the U.S. health care system more expensive. And they get CLE credit for it!

Just consider the morning session, 8:30 a.m. to noon, as listed on the agenda, which includes sessions on the hot new topic of Chinese drywall, discovery in the post-Levine world — that is, the opportunity for more lawsuits against drugmakers in state instead of federal courts — and being prepared when lawyers try to dismiss personal injury suits because of statutes of limitation or assumed risk.

The two-day schedule also includes sessions on how to more effectively sue the manufacturers of drugs and devices.

The list of faculty is revealing too, including an attorney who sued pharmaceutical companies on behalf of the attorney general of West Virginia, and a university research fellow, litigator and former staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Indeed, there’s a list of 13 attorneys who, if they succeed in their efforts and inculcating the session’s students, will drive up the costs of health care in America.

There’s big money being spent, political influence being wielded, and our nation’s health care costs being driven through the roof while medical innovation is inhibited. So here’s a story idea: “Personal injury lawyers work to drive up health care costs.”

It’s a reasonable expection, that journalists covering the health care beat should apply the same kind of scrutiny to the plaintiffs’ bar as they do to the pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance industries. How about it, USA Today? Page one, above the fold…

This morning the USA Today came out in strong opposition to Big Labor’s plans to effectively eliminate secret ballots for labor union elections. USA Today described in detail what the Employee Free Choice Act, and explained how this misguided legislation would undermine our country’s democratic principles. This piece provided a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the bill, including how federal bureaucrats could impose binding terms for first labor contracts.

To be fair, they point out that Labor leaders often argue that the card check bill wouldn’t prohibit private balloting. Yes- however accurate this point may be it is misleading. They realize that under a card check system: “union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers.”

As a counter to this opinion piece, the AFL-CIO’s President John Sweeney  was allowed to provide an ‘opposing view’. Sweeney writes that a card check system allows employees to make their choice of union representation without intimidation. Unfortunately, by forcing employees to make their decision known to co-workers, union organizers and even their supervisors they become susceptible to many forms of potential coercion. Surprisingly I agree with John Sweeney when he says “U.S. workers deserve a free, fair choice of whether to improve their lives and futures through unions.” HOWEVER, the only way to secure free and fair choice in deciding whether to join a union, is through private ballot elections.