Follow on TwitterLatest From the Blog
Two-thirds of Americans Want Public-Option: Olympia Snowe To Be ‘The Decider’
Is there any wonder why Americans are so cynical about their government? The White House and key Democrats in the Senate are essentially telling us that a necessity for a ‘bi-partisan’ Health Care Reform bill trumps the actual contents of said bill. Consider that their definition of a ‘bi-partisan’ bill is one passed by ONLY Democrats except for a single Republican vote, Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-ME).
Could this be just a rhetorical excuse to water down Health Care Reform? Consider that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee has no government-sponsored insurance option — something Americans support by a two-to-one margin — and yet requires all American citizens to purchase unaffordable health insurance from the private health insurance industry. In fact, the health insurance industry leveled a veiled threat in the form of an industry-funded study on the eve of the vote that stated they’d be likely to raise insurance premiums with the passage of the Baucus bill to the tune of $1,700 more per family per year. The health insurance cartel continues to prove, time and again, that greed has no bounds. The Senate Finance Committee has given them a present — in the form of the Baucus bill — and they’re already scheming on how to better their lot.
So Obama is willing to kill meaningful reform for the sake of Olympia Snowe’s vote. Here’s how the President responsed to the bill’s passage, which he hailed as a victory:
President Obama appeared in the Rose Garden late Tuesday afternoon to hail the Senate Finance Committee’s passage of a health-care overhaul bill – singling out Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Me.) for her “courage” and “seriousness of purpose.”
As expected, the White House claimed victory in achieving a bipartisan bill with the addition of Snowe, the only Republican so far to sign on to the effort. Obama said the bill “enjoys the support of people from both parties,” leaving aside how narrowly bipartisan the vote was.
Are you kidding me?! Mr. President, YOU’RE the one showing courage, by betraying all your core supporters who obviously misjudged your character during the campaign. Do you believe for a second we’re going to let you window dress this as some kind of ‘reform’?
Here’s what Olympia Snowe had to say today on the public option:
While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said on CBS TV that she could foresee a government-run plan that would “kick in” if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.
“I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage” in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged.
It appears the White House is now gung-ho about pushing for final legislation that accommodates Olympia Snowe’s preferences — never mind what the American people want. ALL to garner her single vote. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said on CNN:
He [Nelson] expects “some version of the public option” to be in the final bill, though he said it may hinge on Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
“Olympia Snowe of Maine is quite key here,” Nelson said. “And if her vote is critical in the future, then she may insist what is a kind of public option.”
Because God knows how horrible it would be if a Health Care Reform Bill got passed without that single Republican vote.
The Status Quo And How Washington Ensures It
A major impasse appears to exist these days between Democrats and Republicans on virtually every issue. On the surface, it would seem it’s all ideology-based. But upon closer inspection, their hostilities are, in large part, incited by media-manufactured outrage, where partisan vitriol and ideological demagoguery drowns out all thoughtful discourse.
Unfortunately, our country is in a mess, and on many fronts. And the proposed solutions (including the watered-down health care reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee yesterday) are more about symbolic change than meaningful change. Nothing gets done, nothing changes, because the biggest problems plaguing our country actually enrich powerful interest groups who are dead-set on keeping it that way.
Were the public (from both parties) to spend more time deconstructing the issues, and connecting the dots, they’d understand their anger is — more times than not — displaced. Yes, each side strongly believes the other’s ideological perspective is deeply flawed, but their inability to logically discuss issues in a meaningful way, or to pay close attention to lobbyist contributions to their own parties, ensures that they continue to miss the pink elephant in the room whom their elected representatives are tripping over to feed.
The two parties’ key ideological talking points revolve around the following:
The Republican Mantra — the government is everything that is wrong with society. It taxes hard-working citizens and gives it away to those who don’t work as hard. Big business can be trusted, and a laissez faire approach to the marketplace is essential to economic growth. Essentially, government is the problem, business is the solution.
The Democratic Mantra — the government is generally good. It was created by the people for the people. When market conditions are ripe, corporations will profit by exploiting labor and price gauging the public. They need to be reigned in to some degree by government. Essentially, business is the problem, government is the solution.
While there are some truths in each, NEITHER addresses how the realities inherent in both the American political system and its marketplace minimizes the significance of some of their most cherished beliefs.
A large part of the Republican mantra is a myth:
First and foremost, the government DOES exist to best serve the public interest. It WAS created by the people, for the people.
To embrace the Republican ideology, you must convince yourself not only that government is bad and incapable of doing anything, but that corporate interests are aligned with the public interest. In reality, NOTHING could be further from the truth. Corporations have a responsibility to no one, but their shareholders. They exist to maximize profits by any legal means.
If a corporation can save its shareholders millions of dollars by legally dumping toxic wastes into fresh water supplies, or by outsourcing all their jobs overseas, or by denying coverage to the uninsured, or by denying the claims of the insured, or by selling ‘snake oil’ as medicine, or by price gauging when competition doesn’t exist (like in the pharmaceutical marketplace, where patents ensure monopolies) then these corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders to exploit it to the fullest — to the detriment of the public they serve.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it: “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”
Take a look at George W. Bush’s laissez faire policies:
Bush drastically cut the funding of the FDA, thereby reducing government oversight over the food and drug industries. How did the food and drug industries fare when left to their own devices? We experienced more food recalls in those eight years than in my entire lifetime. Click into Bush’s report card of October 2006 by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It outlines Bush’s significant FDA cuts, and the calamity that resulted.
Take a look at Sen. Lindsey Graham’s success in pushing Wall Street deregulation during both the Clinton and Bush years:
In one remarkable stretch from 1999 to 2001, [Graham] pushed laws and promoted policies that he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints but his critics charge significantly contributed to the financial crisis that has rattled the nation.
He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.
And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.
Warren Buffett, the world’s most astute and successful investor, warned us as far back as 2003 of the threat posed by these derivatives:
The derivatives market has exploded in recent years, with investment banks selling billions of dollars worth of these investments to clients as a way to off-load or manage market risk.
But Mr Buffett argues that such highly complex financial instruments are time bombs and “financial weapons of mass destruction” that could harm not only their buyers and sellers, but the whole economic system.
Had Bush regulators reeled back the financial industry’s exposure to these risky speculative securities, we could have prevented the collapse of insurance Goliath, AIG. But Bush, being the ever-hard-headed ideologue, rushed to enact even more deregulation initiatives right up to the final months of his Presidency in 2008 — at the same time we were experiencing the financial meltdown from his earlier deregulation. Since then, AIG has cost the American taxpayers $200 billion dollars, and the tally continues to grow. Its failure can be directly attributed to risky derivative speculation, and a lack of oversight:
State insurance regulators have said repeatedly that [AIG’s] core insurance operations were sound — that the financial disaster was caused primarily by a small unit that dealt in exotic derivatives.
Anyone who believes that less government (and more freedom for big business) leads to economic stability and is in the public interest, is either delusional, or a Lobbyist.
The Democratic Mantra For Bigger Government Ignores the Fact That Politicians Are ‘On The Take’:
Yes, unlike corporations whose responsibility is only to their shareholders, the government does serve to promote the interests of the American public. But the truth of the matter is they are beholden to powerful money interests whose political contributions determine whether or not they remain in office. If politicians refuse to subjugate themselves to these powerful interest groups — on grounds of principle — they not only forfeit their political contributions, the interest groups aggressively bankroll their opposition (in their upcoming election).
The power of these entrenched interests and their hold over our politicians has recently come to the forefront in the ongoing Health Reform debates. Look at the Democratic Senators trying to kill the public option, and see how much money they are receiving from the health insurance industry. Keep in mind they are defying the public will.
Even President Obama, himself, who has stated many times in the past that he prefers a single payer system, banished single payer advocates from even getting a place at the table to engage in the discussion. His closest advisers (Rahm Emanuel and Kathleen Sebelius) have been doing everything in their power to undermine the passing of a robust public option, despite the fact that Americans support a government-run insurance option by a nearly two-to-one margin, 61%-34%. A public option would guarantee a reigning-in of our nation’s staggering medical costs, and ensure universal health coverage. So why won’t Obama firmly commit to it and use his bully pulpit to drive it home?
In addition, Obama quickly cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry protecting them from Congressional efforts to use its bargaining power to lower runaway drug prices. As part of the deal, he also agreed to prohibit American citizens from importing cheaper medications from Canada. The Pharmaceutical Industry, in turn, agreed to reduce drug expenses by a mere $80 billion — a guaranteed ceiling — and a pittance for such a profitable industry. In addition, Big Pharma agreed to pay $150 million in advertising for the White House ‘health reform’ agenda.
As the ‘old’ John McCain said back in 1999 (when he still had integrity):
We will never achieve these reforms until we first reform the way we finance our political campaigns. As long as the influence of special interests dominates political campaigns, it will dominate legislation as well. Until we abolish soft money, Americans will never have a government that works as hard for them as it does for the special interests. That is a sad, but undeniable fact of contemporary politics.
A Change of Behavior From Both Parties is Required To Turn This Country Around:
Republicans — Your ideology is misguided, and the proof is all around you. Your inability to acknowledge this fact and to seek new ideas only serves as a distraction in our country’s attempts to solve its pressing problems. You must ween yourselves from chasing after shadows cast by the likes of Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox News. Your real enemies are not the government, per say. They are the powerful interests who’ve corrupted our government, and the propagandists who distract you from seeing it. Enough with the dramatic knee-jerk outbursts over hot-button — but meaningless — sound bites, and focus on getting at the real truth (in other words: stop turning to compulsive liars in search of answers).
Democrats — Policies are to politics, what location is to real estate. Policies, policies, policies! Get over the fact Obama won. Stop making excuses for him each time he breaks another campaign promise, or he’ll never deliver substantive change. Obama is proving to be one who takes the path of least resistance . So when you follow like sheep and cheer him on even when he’s selling you out, then you’re ensuring that the path of least resistance for him is the one aligned with the powerful interests — those heavily invested in the status quo — those working against the change you voted for.
If we don’t get a robust public option, or our troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan; and if we don’t get more transparency in our government, or an investigation into Bush’s torture abuses and other illegalities, or meaningful global warming policies it WON’T be because of an uncooperative Republican minority. They’re largely redundant. The battle for real change is taking place within the Democratic Party.
Obama’s ‘Lobbyist Ban’: A White House ‘Aspiration’ To Remain Unenforced
Kevin Bogardus of The Hill did a nice follow-up on the status of Obama’s campaign promise to ban all lobbyists from serving in his administration. The White House issued a ‘guidance’ on the matter two weeks ago, and here’s what Bogardus’s investigative reporting uncovered:
The Hill contacted all 20 Cabinet-level agencies to see if they intended to follow the guidance issued two weeks ago by the White House. Twelve agencies returned messages before press time and all said they would adhere to the guidelines.
Norm Eisen, special counsel to The President (for ethics and government reform) revealed to The Hill that it was not being enforced by the White House, but being “left up to each of the agencies to follow through.” Here’s how Eisen described the White House’s ‘guidance’ in his Sept. 23 blog post:
“The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions.”
The White House is leaving itself wiggle room to shirk its own initiative; one Obama campaigned on to restore integrity to the Executive Branch and ensure our policy-makers at the highest levels of government have no conflict of interest and that interest groups don’t have undue influence on policy:
Obama: “I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won’t work in my White House.”
What is it with Obama that his most deeply held principles, as espoused on the campaign trail, seem to lack any personal commitment now that he has an opportunity to actually make them a reality?
The United States can no longer risk having defense industry lobbyists, nor lobbyists of foreign countries — present or former — working for the Pentagon, and playing decisive roles in determining whether or not we allocate more troops and resources to Afghanistan, or whether or not we bomb Iran. Could there be another conflict of interest in the entire stratosphere with the potential to inflict such massive havoc upon U.S. national security, as well as upon its financial stability — not to mention the potential for massive loss of life and destruction?
Geoff Morrell, press secretary for the Pentagon, said they intended to abide by the White House ‘guidance’.
Bogardus examines the logistics of what that would entail:
If the Pentagon follows through on not appointing lobbyists to its advisory committees, that could affect a number of individuals who are [already] advising Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
For example, Vin Weber sits on the Defense Policy Board, a powerful advisory committee in the Pentagon. Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, advises the secretary and other top officials in the Pentagon on defense policy.
But Weber is a managing partner at Clark & Weinstock. He registered to lobby this year for a number of high-profile corporations, such as Bechtel, eBay and KPMG. Under the White House guidance, the lobbyist will either have to terminate his registration or not be reappointed when his term is up.
Many of you will remember Weber’s client, Bechtel, as the company awarded the no-bid contracts to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. You may also remember the big news about how “Pentagon auditors were ‘going easy’ on Bechtel despite their chronic failure to provide the financial records required to prove tax dollars were being spent properly”. In addition to Bechtel, Clark & Weinstock have a client list that includes many of the country’s largest defense companies, such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Elbit Systems, and Lockheed Martin.
And Weber is, as one might predict, making the case to remain in Afghanistan, and to escalate our troop levels there to the full 40,000 requested:
If Obama opts for a compromise approach, and sends only 15,000-20,000 troops [as opposed to the 40,000 requested by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal], Weber says Republicans will accuse Obama of underfunding the war by yielding to the left. Weber suggested this might be the worst policy option on the table, as Obama is going to need the GOP to get his national security policies through Congress, in light of a significant number of liberal Democrats unwilling to support continued military action.
… if Obama should start pulling American troops out of Afghanistan in an effort to end the war, as many on the left and a growing number of critics on the right have suggested (e.g. Pat Buchanan, George Will), Weber says, “Things will go very bad, very quickly,” with the Taliban likely to take control of a nation that does not have a security force prepared to keep order across the vast nation.
Weber told The Hill [about the White House’s Lobbyist guidelines]:
“If the policy permits me to stay under certain circumstances, I will. If not, I will thank them for the opportunity to serve.”
Obviously, Mr. Weber, your HUGE conflict of interest has compromised your ability to perform you duties at the Pentagon in an honest and ethical manner, and it is disgraceful that you have been — and continue to be — permitted by the Obama Administration to help shape our country’s foreign policy. Please gather up your belongings and exit the building at once!
And Mr. President, please honor your campaign pledge, and PURGE these corrupted lobbyists from your Administration and all Cabinet-level agencies. Enough of the pussyfooting around, already!
Watch: Camera Obscura “If Looks Could Kill”
Here’s a Scottish band that I absolutely adore. Their sound takes me back to my youth in the 80s. My wife and I had the pleasure of seeing them at the Cat’s Cradle in Carrboro, NC recently. They are amazing! Tracyanne Campbell is the best songwriter of her generation. I’m not exaggerating. These days, most […]
Watch: Tuomo “Don’t take it too hard” – BEST SONG OF 2008!
This is my favorite song from 2008. In fact, it’s one of my favorite tunes written in the new century. This talent, Tuomo, is largely unknown, and I believe he’s still unsigned. For those of you in the American Music Industry, he’s hiding out in Finland. FIND HIM, AND SIGN HIM! This song stands up […]
Watch: Colin Newman’s latest Band, Githead, perform “Drop”
For those of you who followed the band, Wire, back in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as Newman’s solo efforts in the 80s, you’ll love his latest band, Githead. Here they are performing an acidic-trip, house-hop number entitled “Drop”. Very catchy: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gnLYtmacbo[/youtube] The Githead single, “Drop,” or the full length album, Art Pop, […]
Watch: Bon Iver “Skinny Love” on David Letterman
My sister just tipped me off on this band, Bon Iver. For those of you in the ‘know’ I’m sure you’re sayin’, “Hey, that song’s been out nearly a year! Get with the program!” 🙂 Point taken. Anyways, for those of you who are also just a step behind the times, here’s a great song […]
Obama Stops at Cliff, Peeks Over Edge, and Decides to Shift Afghan Strategy
Finally, some semblance of rationale is beginning to emerge within U.S. foreign policy! The New York Times is reporting that: President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to […]
Israeli Foreign Ministry Document Outlines Strategy to Avoid Permanent Peace Deal
Naor Gilon, former counselor of political affairs for Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, presented him with a document outlining the country’s future foreign policy strategy. It reveals: The government should not attempt to reach a permanent settlement with the Palestinians but rather focus on a temporary accord that would prevent US and European frustration. […] “.. […]
Is the World Dumping the American Dollar as its Global Currency?
Robert Fisk of the Independent is reporting today: In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold […]
Follow AlterPolitics on Twitter
