Practical Vision

AFL-CIO: Wall Street Won’t Do Right. Now They Have To

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:36:00 +0000

by Tula Connell, Oct 23, 2009

So, Wall Street CEOs didn’t figure out on their own that when they take taxpayer money, they have a moral obligation to help the overall economy with their $700 billion public-funded bailout rather than single-mindedly line their own pockets with billions of dollars in salaries, bonuses and other ego-inflating perks.

Funny how “moral obligation” and “Wall Street” tend to be mutually exclusive terms. Wall Street CEOs wouldn’t do it on their own. So now they have to.

This week, the U.S. Treasury Department’s special master for compensation, Kenneth Feinberg, said financial corporations still on the public dole will have to limit salaries to a maximum of $500,000 and that average total pay packages among top employees will drop by 50 percent. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve announced that 28 of America’s largest, most complex financial institutions will be required to submit their pay policies to a regulatory review—whether or not they have received bail-out money from taxpayers.

We can all nitpick with the details or lament that the restrictions could have been tougher, but the bottom line is this: The Obama administration is holding corporations accountable in a way that never would have happened under a Cheney-Bush or Palin-McCain regime.

Noting that the “toga party is already back on Wall Street,” a Boston Globe editorial pointed to and encouraged the Obama administration’s outrage against Wall Street’s greed and hubris. As Bloomberg and other outlets noted, Obama said:

It does offend our values when executives of big financial firms, firms that are struggling, pay themselves huge bonuses even as they continue to rely on taxpayer assistance to stay afloat.

On MSNBC yesterday, Director of the AFL-CIO Office of Investment Dan Pedrotty pointed out that Feinberg has created a model for how corporations should address compensation. Rather than larding CEOs with cash, their compensation is tied now with restricted stocks. That is, if the company does well, so does the CEO. That’s called “incentive.”

Because, as Pedrotty pointed out, the top five investment banks in the five years leading up to the crisis paid out $145 billion in bonuses—and three of the five failed.

The American people have been asked for hundreds of billions of dollars to backstop these failed businesses. The same American people who are suffering record unemployment, skyrocketing foreclosures, 201(k)s and disappearing pensions. They deserve some accountability here.

Got that right.

Thanks to AFL-CIO NOW BLOG for this excellent update.

Obama Finally Defines His Plan. It Isn’t Everything, But its Worth Supporting

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:43:00 +0000

Barack Obama delivered yet another stirring speech. And for what its worth, its not often that you hear any politician, especially a President, call a liar out by using the actual word “lie.” It’s also rare to hear someone give a ten to fifteen minute basic argument for and defense of political liberalism – why there is need and a place for government in civil society, when partnered with hard work and responsibility.

But what Obama outlined tonight as specific elements of health care reform are the bare minimum that I can accept. To bend any further would be to turn health care reform into an insurance industry giveaway at the expense of ordinary people.

Democrats and the administration have already been through countless compromises in draft committee legislation, and I understand compromise. I'm not a political novice. But this is as far as I can bend. There is always a point where a good compromise becomes a bad capitulation.

Again, there's a point where further compromise sets the bigger picture of health reform back. We are at that point.

So, there is a hard truth to face. It's not even close to what American people really deserve. But it is something that will make dramatic difference in the lives of many Americans right now, including my own mother and father, with the opportunity to expand on it in the future.

And while there are many examples where something insufficient passed in the short run was never built on, there are also some big examples where something insufficient was built on later - like Social Security. I can't and wouldn't ignore that. Part of what we fight for this round is about what we setup for the next round.

What comes in the next days and weeks, however, is one might tough fight.

Obama's interest in changing the political tone and rhetoric in Washington has seemed to trump his tenacity at times. Obama needs a little more Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson (on health care, where he brow-beat congressmen and fought tough and nasty to get Medicare passed) and a little less Buddha.

I am sure some see the administrations (and the Democratic Party's) efforts in this health reform debate as brilliant and tactical. But I don't agree. I think they have looked shockingly amateur and tragically naive in reaching across the isle in "good faith" to lying, manipulating, racist who are driven by hate of this president and the interest of their wealthy white friends - and expecting not to get burned. It's idiotic.

It's time to accept that something we've been trying to do for a century is obviously a fight. It is not a pleasant chit chat on a Sunday afternoon among friends.

As I eluded to earlier, my mother and father watched this speech tonight with desperate hopes that reform would allow my very ill mother to afford health insurance.

While other's who are more "pure" than me can simply trash anything that isn't everything - I think about these issues with their faces, and the faces of other real Americans who need a solution right now - in mind.

I hope he can stick with it, and continue to come out swinging. Because what he's outlined tonight is about the bare minimum we could call "reform" of any stripe.

Americans Have the Worst Quality of Life in the Developed World

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:26:00 +0000

(The following is a comment that was posted on commondreams.org by one Lance.Freeman. It bluntly lays out a painful but real truth about where America stands in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world, and how completely our corporatist, hegemony obsessed government has driven this country into the ground.)

Lance.Freeman
September 7th, 2009 2:27 am
America: The Grim Truth

Americans, I have some bad news for you: You have the worst quality of life in the developed world – by a wide margin.

If you had any idea of how people really lived in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many parts of Asia, you’d be rioting in the streets calling for a better life. In fact, the average Australian or Singaporean taxi driver has a much better standard of living than the typical American white-collar worker.

I know this because I am an American, and I escaped from the prison you call home.

I have lived all around the world, in wealthy countries and poor ones, and there is only one country I would never consider living in again: The United States of America. The mere thought of it fills me with dread.

Consider this: you are the only people in the developed world without a single-payer health system. Everyone in Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand has a single payer system. If they get sick, they can devote all their energies to getting well. If you get sick, you have to battle two things at once: your illness and the fear of financial ruin. Millions of Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical bills, and tens of thousands die each year because they have no insurance or insufficient insurance.

This is ironic, because you need a good health system more than anyone else in the world. Why? Because your lifestyle is almost designed to make you sick.

With a diet guaranteed to make you sick and a health system designed to make sure you stay that way, what you really need is a long vacation somewhere. Unfortunately, you probably can’t take one. I’ll let you in on little secret: if you go to the beaches of Thailand, the mountains of Nepal, or the coral reefs of Australia, you’ll probably be the only American in sight. And you’ll be surrounded crowds of happy Germans, French, Italians, Israelis, Scandinavians and wealthy Asians. Why? Because they’re paid well enough to afford to visit these places AND they can take vacations long enough to do so. Even if you could scrape together enough money to go to one of these incredible places, by the time you recovered from your jetlag, it would time to get on a plane and rush back to your job.

If you think I’m making this up, check the stats on average annual vacation days by country:

Finland: 44 Italy: 42 France: 39 Germany: 35 UK: 25 Japan: 18 USA: 12

The fact is, they work you like dogs in the United States. This should come as no surprise: the United States never got away from the plantation/sweat shop labor model and any real labor movement was brutally suppressed.

All this begs the question: Why would anyone put up with this? Ask any American and you’ll get the same answer: because America is the freest country on earth. If you believe this, I’ve got some more bad news for you: America is actually among the least free countries on earth. Your piss is tested, your emails and phone calls are monitored, your medical records are gathered, and you are never more than one stray comment away from writhing on the ground with two Taser prongs in your ass.

And that’s just physical freedom. Mentally, you are truly imprisoned. You don’t even know the degree to which you are tormented by fears of medical bankruptcy, job loss, homelessness and violent crime because you’ve never lived in a country where there is no need to worry about such things.

But it goes much deeper than mere surveillance and anxiety. The fact is, you are not free because your country has been taken over and occupied by another government. Fully 70% of your tax dollars go to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon is the real government of the United States. You are required under pain of death to pay taxes to this occupying government. If you’re from the less fortunate classes, you are also required to serve and die in their endless wars, or send your sons and daughters to do so. You have no choice in the matter: there is a socio-economic draft system in the United States that provides a steady stream of cannon fodder for the military.

If you call a life of surveillance, anxiety and ceaseless toil in the service of a government you didn’t elect “freedom,” then you and I have a very different idea of what that word means.

So what should you do?

You should leave the United States of America.

If you’re young, you’ve got plenty of choices: you can teach English in the Middle East, Asia or Europe. Or you can go to university or graduate school abroad and start building skills that will qualify you for a work visa. If you’ve already got some real work skills, you can apply to emigrate to any number of countries as a skilled immigrant. If you are older and you’ve got some savings, you can retire to a place like Costa Rica or the Philippines. If you can’t qualify for a work, student or retirement visa, don’t let that stop you – travel on a tourist visa to a country that appeals to you and talk to the expats you meet there. Whatever you do, go speak to an immigration lawyer as soon as you can. Find out exactly how to get on a path that will lead to permanent residence and eventually citizenship in the country of your choice.

In closing, I want to remind you of something: unless you are an American Indian or a descendant of slaves, at some point your ancestors chose to leave their homeland in search of a better life. They weren’t traitors and they weren’t bad people, they just wanted a better life for themselves and their families. Isn’t it time that you continue their journey?

A Public Option: What It Is, What It Isn’t, Why it Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:34:00 +0000

The last six months have been dominated by a single subject. Before we focus on that single subject – health care reform – it is probably important to note the subjects that have gotten pushed to the sidelines:

Perpetual War – the Obama administration, has revised its campaign pledge of total Iraq troop withdraw repeatedly as the Pentagon continues to make public statements that it intends to be in Iraq long after any cutoff deadline. Meanwhile, the administration has chosen to escalate in Afghanistan and turn it into a full-scale shooting war with no clear mission, and no timetable, much like his predecessor did in Iraq.

Economic Crisis – even though public attention has waned and corporate media has regained control of the story, the near economic collapse of 2008 was caused directly by the corporate buyout of politicians. They bought the “referees,” fixed the game so they could cheat and thus broke the system. What should have been a massive warning prompting bold, deliberate steps to re-regulate the financial players and decouple corporations and politics and instead largely fallen of both political and public radar. “All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.”

Organized Labor and EFCA – the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have thwarted business efforts to intimidate and harass workers when considering joining a union thus making it easier for workers to unionize is essentially dead. It has been stripped of most of its features, and lies tabled somewhere in congressional committee. It died without hardly any fight from Democrats or the President – neither of whom seriously wanted the fight.

But now to the matter at hand. The health care reform has been uglier and nastier that just about anything I can remember. And the White House has looked flat on its heals in the debate and tragically naive about the nature of politics in Washington. Obama’s seeming preoccupation with seeing himself as some sort of political messiah who can magically bridge the divides between Democrats and Republicans and find common ground has distracted him totally from any effective political strategy for delivering actual reform.

Now, thanks to months of what can only be described as political idiocy, the American people are set to pay the price. Essentially after screwing it up but being too triangulating to see how they were being played, the White House now is so desperate to pass a bill for the political victory that it’s ready to accept almost anything and call it “reform.” That ought to disgust anyone who believes that true health care reform (and not just delivering a captive populating into the greedy hands of eager insurance schemers though a mandatory insurance requirement) is a necessity.

So now, if we are going to advocate for actual health care reform, we should identify the things that ought to be present and that we could potentially win in this round:

One - Prohibition on Insurance Companies Denying Coverage Based on Preexisting Conditions

Two - Prohibition on Insurance Companies Dropping Coverage Because of a New or Current Medical Condition

Three - Caps on Annual Out-of-Pocket Cost and Expenses Paid by Consumers for deductibles and co-payments.

Four – a competitive Public Insurance Option, competing with Private Insurance as an option for consumers.

Of all of these, the Public Option is possibly the most important. Many people think they know what a public option, as it is being discussed by congress, is when in fact they are mistaken about some key facts.

Most importantly for people on the left, the only public option(s) even being talked about in congress are extremely limited in scope. So anyone under the mistaken impression that a public option being proposed in the house would be some kind of open-to-all public competitor with equal resources and capacity to a private insurer are gravely mistaken.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the current public option as written in House draft legislation would only insure approximately 10 million people at most. So let me repeat this again: the “public option” being talked about is not anything remotely close to single payer, or even government run health care of any stripe.

So they obvious question to ask is, “if this is true then what is the point of supporting a public option? Perhaps its not such a bad idea to simply get rid of it if it means getting other reform done.”

The simple answer is that even a limited and weak public option would be a major victory, because it is a foot in the door. This is a door that has been nearly impossible to crack over half a century or more. Edward Kenny fought his entirely life for universal health care, and died without seeing it happen. Even a limited public option would lay the groundwork for a ramp-up to a full public competitor to private insurance. So breaking this barrier, getting even a foot in, would be a very important step.

So yes, despite the incorrect assumption in the minds of some that the Public Option being discussed would amount to a full and robust public health care system for anyone and everyone who wanted it, it is still something very much worth fighting for.

Which Comes First: Working Americans or Establishment Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:47:00 +0000

Some personal reflections…

Lately I’ve been asking myself why I maintain Practical Vision. Why do I bother to reflect on politics and policy at all? I’m under no illusions that many people visit my blog, nor under the misguided impression that my own opinions are particularly important in the grand scheme of things. So why do it?

Why Not?

I maintain Practical Vision because I hope to encounter some like-minded individuals who believe in a "radical" concept of a working class agenda, who deplore unjust violent wars, who have a keen awareness that a tiny faction of powerful privileged interests have gained near total control of American politics, and that it has been decades if not generations since the American people were put first in public policy.

I also write to persuade others to look these realities square in the face, and not rationalize them away for the sake of feeling more comfortable. But I write with the intent of addressing Democrats and self-proclaimed liberals or “progressives” rather than conservatives, because I feel that they are often just as responsible for the injustices and inequities in our society but less honest about their intentions.

Mostly, I write to bring the issues that affect me, a bottom-fifth quintile American, and my family, friends and neighbors in working class America to the forefront of discussion, and not bury them because they disturb a sense of "happiness" at having Democrats control all branches of government.

I admit to attempting to persuade. I want others to look at the issues I feel are too often ignored, because I believe that they are critical.

Issues like the fact that simply wishing for a so-called economic "recovery" that puts us right back to where we were before last year's mainstream-acknowledged crisis only worsens our long term economic health and societal well-being.

Issues like understanding that the destruction of organized labor - the ability for ordinary Americans to bargain collectively and have equal representation in workplace decisions - is one of the key root causes of the continuing decline.

Issues like understanding the ways in which a small number of super-rich extensively fund almost all politicians in Washington, in either party. Their investments constitute a sizable piece of nearly every politicians campaign funding, and in many cases represent the bulk of their campaign funding.

They have a significant say in whether or not politicians will face hostile 527s in primaries and general elections, which is a very large stick to wield. They have significant say in whether or not politicians will have influence or power while in Washington, another very large stick. And they have significant say in whether or not politicians will enjoy luxury, perks, and special treatment.

Issues like understanding that our violent aggression around the world - be it in the form of direct military occupation or in the forum of insidious destabilization of democratically elected governments - has never been about keeping ordinary Americans "safe" from anything. If the only issue at hand was the safety of ordinary Americans, we'd never go to war.

Some politicians may buy into the narrative created by privileged interests and feel some sense of obligation to continue wars on "terror" or interventions in key regions. That is to say a few politicians may be purely dupes, who don't understand how they are being used. But most, I believe, know the implications of what they are supporting, just as they know who the primary beneficiaries of their actions are.

The lie desperately willed to be truth is that somehow everything listed above can be true, and yet we really have some serious hope at a government that will pass laws or advocate policy that works for the bottom 90% of American that is not super-rich. And yet here we are, going around acting like if we just "Call congress right now!" everything will be okay.

These are the things I feel must be clearly understood, and each and every one of these things are issues that transcend party. Insofar as democratic politicians stand on the right side of these issues, we should support them. Insofar as they don't, we should find the courage to oppose them, or at the very least be honest about their colossal failure of the American people.

Perhaps it is true that if we did not continue to support even the Democrats who clearly demonstrate their total apathy, if not animosity, toward working class American interests, somehow the alternative (namely, Republicans) would be even worse. But that does not excuse us from truthfully acknowledging the implied reality that no one in Washington is sufficiently representing we the people. It's like saying "I'll chose a rapist over a murderer because at least I won't die" but then not having the courage to acknowledge that rape is still wrong, existing within a spectrum of violence – all of it unjust.

Establishment politics and every politician that plays to privileged interests exists within a spectrum of injustice and working class exploitation. And both Republicans and Democrats are frequently complacent in this travesty.

Post-Post-Partisanism

The truth is, I have become a different sort of "post-partisan" than the kind Barack Obama used to talk about. I'm not "post-partisan" because I want establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans to come together and focus on the establishment areas where they agree to get an establishment agenda accomplished. I'm "post-partisan" in the sense that I no longer care about what letter political representatives have after their name. I'm done (and have been done for a while, some might say) defending "Democrats" as a generic group.

I'm not interested in a new party, a third party, or any party. I'm not anti-Democrat, but I'm also longer pro-Democratic Party as an abstract concept. I'm interested in people standing up for working class interests and against the influence of an oligarchic minority. Some of those people will be Democrats. Few or none of those people will be Republicans. And many more will likely be seen as "outsiders" apart from the establishment political mainstream.

The solution to our problems is not simply to "vote Democratic" then blindly support them no matter what they do. It is better to put the issues of working class Americans first, and from that foundation evaluate the actions of politicians.

There should be nothing wrong with criticism of even the people we vote for, and we should be voting with our eyes wide open. Our political system is already broken. Those who enter into it are entering into a con game with overwhelming pressure to bend to the will of those who control the con. Even politicians with noble intent would find themselves feeling largely powerless in a system so utterly corrupt.

We cannot even hope to do anything about what's broken until we have agreement about the scope of the problem. As long as we find ourselves unable to even agree about what's wrong, and as long as some continue to put the idealized notion of "Party" before the cold reality of the issues of working Americans, we really are stuck.

An Inconvenient Truth

This is the mentality that keeps America trapped: it is the mentality that sides with rulers rather than workers. It is most common among those who have a measure of prosperity without truly being among the wealthy elite - those who have just enough power and privilege to either want more or be terrified of losing what they have. Thus, this mentality is tragically common in upper-middle class America.

That is not to say that achieving a certain measure of success is a bad thing. The problem is not financial comfort or even wealth directly. The problem is with mindset. The more comfortable this system makes an individual, the greater the temptation to desire the status-quo, the greater the risks of losing touch with the plight of the working class, or the injustice of our political-economic structure.

Let me reiterate this point: a person can be wealthy or impoverished and maintain solidarity with the people. Thus, material "success" in and of itself is not the problem. But honesty requires that we acknowledge the escalating difficulty in maintaining solidarity as one increasingly benefits from an exploitative system.

We must find the courage to confront this difficult truth. We must seek to better understand the ways in which the limited power and privilege afforded the comfortably middle-class can breed complacency. We must better recognized that the comfortable frequently find themselves defending the status quo, siding with controlling privileged interests against the interests of the majority of Americans or even against their own best interests.

The reason this system of corruption continues to exist is because much of the middle class allows it and reinforces its existence. The solution is not to eliminate the middle class as some of other political leanings might suggest. Instead, I believe the solution is to fight as hard as possible for an awakening.

The working poor often have the desire, but not the means to resist political exploitation alone. The middle class often have the means, but not the desire. The key is to find the courage to look at what is wrong in our system, wake up, and unite.

What Must Be Done?

This unity is a unity of values - placing the interest of working Americans over the interests of a ruling elite. Our goal and our vision should not be the elimination of the middle class, nor an absolute equality of resource and materials among all persons. There will always be those who have more than enough and those who do not have enough. This has been true across every civilization of any political structure, no matter what the intention or goal of that structure.

Our goal should be one that we have historically attained in times past - the shrinking of the number of poor, the shrinking of the number of super-rich, and the renewed expansion of the middle-class.

Any hope of truly achieving this will not come from small or incremental changes to our current political structure. Our current political structure is simply completely incompatible with a growing middle class. And it has been so deeply corrupted and co-opted that small reforms do not have the power to change our national course.

A renewed expansion of the middle class will require nothing short of a political revolution. Obviously, if one accepts that statement, its implications are both discouraging and frightening. Discouraging because the likelihood of a political revolution seems so remote. So many things would have to happen.

Corporations would have to be completely stripped of their power and position - personhood revoked, limited duration of corporate charters restored, and monopolies broken. Working class Americans would have to have a restored power of collective negotiation. That means the full revival of organized labor, and the promotion of employee-owned businesses.

Taxation would have to return to responsible levels, as they were when the United States desired to prevent a controlling oligarchy. Progressive tax rates were 70% on the richest Americans prior to Ronald Reagan, and as high as 90% on the wealthiest one percent during the times of our broadest middle class expansions. This serves not only to fund the social investments necessary to sustain a healthy robust society free of shackling debt (things such as infrastructure development and maintenance, public utilities, security and protection, social investment in society's elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken, etc) but also as a preventative measure against the emergence of dynastic families - passing on unearned wealth from one generation to another.

Many other things would have to happen for there to be a true political revolution that would make an expanding middle class possible. But this above all would be essential: the end of money in politics. All federal elections would have to be publicly financed and financial contributions to political candidates before, during or after elections would have to be completely banned. As long as money plays a role in our electoral politics, those with it have a disproportional voice compared to those who do not. And as long as that is the case, politics will continue to reflect the interests of the financially elite over the interests of everyone else.

Acceptance of the need for political revolution is also frightening. Frightening because it seems unlikely - so many forces oppose the radical change required to achieve a more just and sustainable society. Frightening because such a revolution would likely require sacrifices from those who have some measure of comfort and security right now.

And frightening because any thought about dramatic political change is so completely foreign to most people. Such talk is totally shut out of any national discourse, given that such discourse is largely facilitated by corporate controlled media and corporate public relations firms. Such talk is carefully labeled as "fringe" or "loony" in a well-orchestrated attempt to insure that no public awakening will ever occur.

There is no Guarantee

The truth is, such an awakening may never occur. We exist at a unique point in history, with unprecedented mechanisms for the dissemination of propaganda and distractions. We drown in entertainment, info-tainment, and escapist activities offered to each of us multiple times each and every day. We should accept the possibility that we are beyond hope of a public awakening or a push for radical change.

If that is the case, not every shred of hope is lost. For better or worse, this current system is truly unsustainable. Every decade our economy grows more volatile, our debt is skyrocketing, our business practices becoming ever more corrupt and ridiculous. The elite players hardly even mask their utter corruption anymore. The one certainty is that the controlling oligarchy of wealthy elite interests is driving our society into the ground. If nothing else, amidst the ashes of that demise the people can unite for something new.

So, why do I maintain Practical Vision? Because I do not believe I am alone in waking up to the stark realities of our political and social condition. Further, I believe that pro-labor, anti-ruling elite attitudes that want big money out of government and want the interests of working American put first are welcomed by many – even when such beliefs lead one to criticize Democratic representatives who fail to live up to those principles.

I certainly am not a yellow dog, voting a straight (D) ticket without thought every (or any) year no matter what. And so I’ll use this tiny space with tiny readership to continue shouting into the void. Until I am no longer able, I’ll continue to advocate the issues that I believe to be critically important for our future, whether it makes current Democratic representatives look good or not.

Weekly Economic Roundup: August 15th

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:12:00 +0000

What follows is a collection of economic news and opinion gone unreported or underreported in the top media outlets of the country.

In the Age where “news” is now an entertainment industry for profit rather than to serve the public interest, news selection is predicated on an assessment of what will generate ratings, keep an appropriate consumer base, etc. This means in many cases, critically important yet “unsexy” news is ignored in favor of the latest car wreck, local homicide, or plane crash. So here are some of the stories you might have missed:

NEWS

Biggest Bank Failure This Year - Colonial, a property lender based in Montgomery, Alabama, had about $25bn of assets, said the US regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) …The collapse is expected to cost the FDIC about $2.8bn. The total number of bank failures is now over 70 in 2009.

Bankruptcy Judges, Justice Dept. Rip Mortgage Companies - “Systemic abuse [1].” “Extraordinary incompetence [2].” “Reckless [3].” In a growing body of legal cases, judges and the Justice Department are breaking from legal jargon to starkly chastise mortgage companies.

ECONOMIC SCENE: ‘Tax me,’ some rich Americans tell Obama - Raise my taxes, says millionaire Chuck Collins. The scion of the Oscar Mayer family supports a House panel’s healthcare plan that would boost taxes for families earning more than $350,000 a year. He also advocates ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich right away, rather than when they expire at the start of 2011, and closing foreign tax havens to Americans. Although the financial burden would be sizable, Mr. Collins is busy urging other wealthy Americans to sign a tax-me petition.

Broadband Companies to Feds: Keep Your Stimulus Money - Major broadband carriers are turning their backs on stimulus money [1], reports The Washington Post. The stimulus package offers $7.2 billion in grants to spread high-speed Internet access, but three big players — AT&T, Verizon and Comcast — have decided not to apply for the funds, according to industry sources. The companies are reportedly concerned about the scrutiny that would come with accepting the money, as well as a condition that would prevent them from favoring some applications and content over others, a rule known as net neutrality.

Obama Administration Redacts Contract Details for Recovery.gov - Back in July, a software company named Smartronix [1] landed an $18 million contract to build a Web site where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money. It was just another part of the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to bring transparency to stimulus spending, we were told. But it seems the drive for transparency doesn’t cover the contract itself. After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the General Services Administration released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless.

Don’t believe us? Take a look.

Contributions from Health Sector to Lawmakers Increased 7 Percent in Second Quarter - Federal lawmakers collected about half a million dollars more from the health sector between April and June of this year than they did in the first quarter of the year -- a total of $15.3 million for 2009. This slight boost is likely the result of the increased intensity of the health care reform debate.

OPINION

Decline and Fall of the American Empire - After ruling much of the known world for centuries, Rome fell due to a number of factors that, historians believe, would not have been fatal in isolation, but that proved terminal in combination. Military overspending and overreach, an untenable economic system, and currency debasement all played a role. As has been well documented, the Roman emperors attempted to distract the populace from the increasingly dire reality of their situation by providing bread and circuses. But entertainments could not stop the nation-state from yielding to the pressure of its own weight.

There are numerous parallels between the end of the Roman Empire and the path the 226-year-old American republic is now on.

Taxing Wealth for the Common Good – (Note: this article is written by the same Chuck Collins of the Oscar Myer family, who was quoted in the above news article, “’Tax me,’ Some Rich Americans Tell Obama”)

When members of Congress proposed paying for expanded health care with a tax surcharge on America's wealthiest citizens, the attack was swift but predictable. Taxing the top was labeled "class war," an attack on the successful, and bad for business and the economy. So it was refreshing when the high-income members of a new network -Wealth for the Common Good (WFCG) -stepped forward to essentially say "Sure, raise our taxes." Why? Because it's fair, and because they can afford it.

Real News in the Age of Infotainment: Weekly Economic Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:49:00 +0000

Note: This news is from the week of August 2nd through August 8th, but was not posted to Practical Vision due to a technical error. The articles are still relevant, so they are being published now

What follows is a collection of economic news and opinion gone unreported or underreported in the top media outlets of the country.

NEWS

Costly COBRA: For the jobless, health care costs may exceed unemployment benefits - The lack of affordable health care in the United States is especially acute among the country’s growing ranks of unemployed. Thanks to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986, workers who are laid off from their jobs may keep their employer-sponsored insurance — at their own expense — for up to 18 months. Without additional federal supports, these COBRA costs would easily consume the bulk of an individual’s unemployment benefits.

Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show: Rich-Poor Gap Tripled Between 1979 and 2006 - New data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that in 2006, the top 1 percent of households had a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income, and the middle and bottom fifths of households had smaller shares, than in any year since 1979, the first year the CBO data cover. As a result, the gaps in after-tax incomes between households in the top 1 percent and those in the middle and bottom fifths were the widest on record.

African Americans see weekly wage decline - Over the last two years (from the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009), black workers 25 to 54 years old experienced a 3.7% decline—a drop of about $23—in their inflation-adjusted median weekly wage (see Chart). No other major racial or ethnic group showed a decline over this period.

A Hardcore Debate Awaits on Campaign Finance, Soft Money - The Supreme Court is preparing to re-hear oral arguments in a major campaign finance regulation case -- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -- that could change the nation's entire campaign finance system, including laws that today prohibit corporations and unions from making independent political expenditures.

Stimulus Spending Fails to Follow Unemployment, Poverty - Since the economic stimulus bill passed nearly six months ago, the Obama administration has repeatedly pledged that the money would reach middle America, seeping into the communities hardest hit by the recession. But analysis of the most comprehensive list of stimulus spending to date found no relationship between where the money is going and unemployment and poverty.

Oregon, Florida Banks Fail Friday - Three more banks failed Friday, bringing the total for the year to 72. Two of the casualties were in Florida, and the third was in Central Oregon. The banks were small players in their respective states, and their closings cost the FDIC’s deposit fund only a combined $185 million. The FDIC selected out-of-state buyers to purchase the deposits of the failed institutions.

Consumer Spending Up Because Prices are Higher - Another "green shoot" that has brown splotches all over it: the latest report of higher consumer spending for June appears to be the result of higher prices for basic goods like food and energy, rather than any newfound desire of consumers to part with their dwindling stash of greenbacks.

U.S. Running Out of Benefits - [Unemployment Benefits] The program was created in the 1930s as a means to sustain the unemployed through their toughest times, but the fund is quickly running out. According to The New York Times, 500,000 beneficiaries will be cut off by the end of September. An additional million or more will lose benefits by the end of the year. With initial unemployment claimants on the rise and the job market looking particularly bleak, there may be little help for those who run out.

OPINION / ANALYSIS

What to Watch For in the New Census Income and Poverty Numbers - While improvements in incomes and poverty would certainly be good news, they should be viewed within the context of the expansion as a whole. 2007 marked the sixth — and probably the last — full year of the expansion, which began in late 2001. (See box below.) During the expansion’s first several years, median incomes fell, while poverty rose. (See Figure 1). In recent economic cycles, incomes have often fallen and poverty risen for a year or two after a recession ends, but the post-2001 expansion took longer than previous ones to show improvements in these areas.

As a result, the 2007 figures may well show something unprecedented. For the first time on record, poverty and the median income of working-age households may be worse at the end of a multi-year economic expansion than they were at the bottom of the previous recession.

Robert Reich: New Employment Numbers - Things are Worsening More Slowly - The economy is getting worse more slowly. That's just about the only clear reading that's coming from the economic reports, including this morning's important one on employment. The pace of job losses slowed -- payrolls fell by 247,000, after a 443,000 loss in June, and the official jobless rate dropped from 9.5 to 9.4 percent.

Socialized Health Care? Here’s 20 More Socialist Things We Need to Stop

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:09:00 +0000

A WARNING to sensitive readers – this video contains some strong language.

Taking on Guns

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:17:00 +0000

I don’t usually write on second amendment issues, gun rights or gun restrictions or the debate over the right to carry weapons in our society. But the issue is coming to a head right in my backyard, so I’ve decided to comment.

The Oregonian is reporting that the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation filed suit in the Oregon Court of Appeals asking the court to rule on the legality of the University of Oregon’s ban of firearms on its campus.

This is an example of an advocacy group taking an extreme corner case example, and attempting to exploit it. The extreme corner case in question is the tragedy of the Virginia Tech shooting. The OFEF is of the opinion that had there been no ban on firearms on campus, that tragedy would have been minimized or prevented.

As Oregon is now my home state, and I live in the city in which the University of Oregon is located, I have this to say:

If people could separate the fanaticism out of their pro or anti-gun positions, we would be able to accept some truths and use them as a framework for responsible policy.

#1 It is true that if someone brings a gun into a place where guns are restricted, there is an increased sense of helplessness, and the probability of increased risk to life in that situation.

#2 The frequency of instances in which someone brings a gun into a place where guns are restricted is exceptionally small - its the extreme exception to the rule, not any sort of rule. For example, the likelihood that anyone attending University for four years would ever end up confronted with a armed gunmen are infinitesimally small.

#3 Simply arming everyone, or encouraging a culture in which everyone is carrying a weapon, exponentially increases the changes of harm and violence on a day to day basis, while only helping the situation in a tiny fraction of extreme abnormal situations. And we actually have good data on this.

The number of incidents of people killed or wounded by stay bullets fired by a law-abiding citizen discharging a weapon he or she was carrying staggeringly outweigh the tiny number of instances in which a law-abiding citizen carrying a weapon has made a dangerous situation better by using that weapon.

#4 An individual right to bear arms exists in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

#5 It's also clear that the intent of the individual right to bear arms was so that citizens of the colonies would never be deprived of the ability to organize and army to respond to threats - this was at a time when there was not "standing army" of the United States. We have that now. We also have organized police, fire, emergency and all sorts of other things.

#6 Regardless of whether or not an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry any sort of personal weapon ought to be honored, it is simply an undeniable fact that no one involved in writing the second amendment could possibly have imagined a modern world full of millions of handguns and rifles, or a world in which some would hope to be able to walk down the street and into any public place strapped and armed to the teeth. That would have stuck them as obscenely uncivilized.

The second amendment is in many ways, arcane. The constitution also says that black men count as only three fifths of a "real" person - you don't believe that part of the constitution should still be honored or guide our social decisions or laws today do you?

There are many things in the constitution which simply do not work with the conditions of our modern society. The second amendment interpreted to mean a universal right to carry weapons in any situation is certainly one of those things - the right needs to be revisited.

#7 Whatever new laws we make in support of a right to carry weapons or restricting such a right should have an evidence-based. I'm tired of constantly making policy based on peoples emotions about an issue! We have a problem with gun-based violence in this country. That's simply a fact.

Gun violence in America is significantly greater than that of peer nations. If people think that revising gun laws or passing new guidelines for or restrictions on their use, these laws should have sunset provisions, and be written with funding included to support the gathering of RESEARCH to establish an actual evidence-base about the success or failure of such laws.

If laws really do correlate to a decrease in gun-related crime and violence, then I say we keep them. But if well intentioned laws show no evidence-based correlation to any decrease in gun-related crime or violence, then I say eliminate the law.

This is what the debate would look like if you took all the emotion and sensationalism out of it.

This Cartoon Says it All

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 05:00:00 +0000

A Drop of Good News Amidst a Sea of Troubles

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:53:00 +0000

Today new job numbers were released, and to virtually everyone’s surprise job losses came in less than expected.

While the consensus among analysts was that new job losses would be higher and that overall unemployment would rise, it instead fell from an already staggering 9.5% to 9.4% in July. Below are Five Notes about these numbers – some encouraging and some not:

Note One: only about 6% of the nearly 800 billion dollar stimulus package has actually even been spent yet.

This is because getting this money flowing into state governments and from state governments to contractors and projects or agencies and services is difficult and complicated. It faces the obstacle of obstructionist governors attempting to stall fund distribution or reject funds that would clearly help the state on purely partisan political grounds.

It requires the lengthy process of states proposing arrays of projects or funding needs to the federal government, the federal government awarding money to the state, state departments submitting proposals and legislators hammering out how to spend stimulus money, individual contractors or agencies submitting proposals for funding, and on and on.

Most of the 6% that has occurred already has been in the form of more direct spending. Thus whatever one’s opinion about the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act all in all, Democrats probably have a point when they point out that its far too early to attack a stimulus package that has not even been fully implemented yet.

What this means is potential increasing good news for American workers over the next year. If a drop in job losses and overall unemployment continues as a trend through this quarter, and that is followed up by some 600 billon more dollars of stimulus still making its way into the economy, its possible we may stop and reverse job loss before it tops 10%.

Note Two: in balance to be previous observations, it is critically important to remember just how deliberately inaccurate unemployment numbers are.

Economy in Crisis published an op-ed by author and columnist David Lindorff that perfectly describes the willful distortion of unemployment numbers for political purposes:

But, and here’s a crucial point, many of them simply don’t get recorded by the government statisticians as being unemployed. Anyone who works even a few hours a week at some odd job, or for free in a family business, is not counted. Anyone who sees no job prospects out there and just gives up isn’t counted. Anyone who finds a half-time job, but needs a full-time job is counted as employed.

It didn’t use to be this way. In a more honest time, more than three decades ago, such people were counted as unemployed, but politicians pushed to have them excluded to keep the official unemployment numbers looking lower. If all such people were added to the unemployment numbers we would have unemployment in the US at over 18 percent, and possibly closer to 20 percent. That’s one in five Americans out of work.

So while it is good news of job losses have slowed and if unemployment has stopped its freefall, however that news must be balanced with the reality of unemployment far more widespread than officially reported.

Note Three: while we should always cheer even government sanitized news if it indicates that less people are being thrown out of work, its important to truly understand the severity of conditions as they really exist.

Understanding that real unemployment numbers are guaranteed to be much larger than official numbers, but continue on to realizing that our perpetual quarters – now year(s) – of negative economic growth officially classify current conditions as an economic depression.

Politicians will never use the word “depression” ever again, no matter how bad things get. But Americans, especially the comfortably middle class who have not yet suffered job loss, need to appreciate they seriousness of conditions on the ground.

Just the other day someone said to me, “things are better, and at least there are no Hoovervilles like there were in the 1930s.”

That picture is from Reno, Nevada late 2008. Other tent cities full of jobless, newly homeless and economically displaced since the economic collapse can be found in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many if not most other cities around the country.

Note Four: if we are in the process of stabilizing job loss as a first step toward some modest recovery, that is a mixed blessing at best.

Again, anyone with a heart feels some relief at news that less people may be thrown out of work and into crisis. But what could have been a wake-up call to a country economic policies are spiraling out of control towards total implosion was instead largely ignored. Efforts to address the crisis focused on stabilizing Wall Street and Banks and restoring the status quo.

The economic “status quo” is a rigged game of corrupt profiteering, social irresponsibility and economic sustainability creating a never ending cycle of smaller “booms” and larger more dangerous “busts.” That status quo is characterized by a money-making game in which the players bribe the referees and thus gain the power to write and rewrite their own rules in order to win, or to ignore the rules without any consequences.

Our current economic structure exists in levels of excess and inequality not seen since right before the crash of 1929. Economic Royalists have strategically solidified their total dominance of national politics, bought controlling stakes in most politicians of either party, undone a system or progressive taxation that played its part in the generally superior era of broad middle class prosperity of the pre-war, post-Reagan years and replaced it with a plundering system of exploitation that has created an oligarchy of elite hyper-wealthy rulers and exploited serfdom for most everyone else.

Crisis times such as these serve as both warnings and opportunities. They are warnings that a system where the players buy the referees and change all the rules to suit their benefit is not sustainable. And they are opportunities to shake people out of complacency and come together to demand radical change.

Note Five: Unfortunately, too many people looked to one man – Barack Obama – to somehow lead that radical change movement. Too many people expected him, or someone “else” to do the work. Too many people voted, then went home. Unfortunately Obama’s message was never one of radical change, and it reflected a highly establishment view of what “change(tm) you can believe in” would mean.

At the height of an American awakening to the ills and unsustainable excesses of a tiny, wealthy, ruling class, the President was racing into the embrace of the business and financial establishment, with a vision of restoring the economy to a Clinton-era status quo.

But that status quo was unsustainable, and it was also a period in which the super-wealthy increased their wealth by staggering amounts while ordinary Americans saw their wages stagnate or decline over the same period. More wealth was shifted into the hands of a tiny few, and fewer permanent jobs were created than during any other time of economic boom.

We don’t need small reforms or a simple return to any economic status quo. We need a dramatic dismantling of the system of crony capitalism that is driving us towards social collapse through its unsustainability. And we need to form a new system – one of healthy responsible rule-making over the business “game” by independent entities, and socialist principles.

A socialist democracy is not incompatible with competitive enterprise, markets, or technology. But it does require more than mere “reform” of the plunder capitalist state that is currently spiraling toward collapse.

Maddow Names Names

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:32:00 +0000

It's interesting to see a media host really upset - Rachel names names of Corporate Lobbyists and Washington Republican Operatives who created, executed and ARE the fake "grassroots" movement being bused around from state to state to stage riots and shout down local citizens trying to have town hall meetings with representatives from their districts.

File This Under, “We Told You So”

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:12:00 +0000

From CBS News.com

Food Stamp Stimulus Felt Coast-to-Coast

Higher Payments to Food Stamp Recipients Provide Greater Economic Stimulus than Infrastructure Spending or Tax Cuts

By Terrell Brown

John Sweredoski is seeing the green shoots of economic recovery on his own farm in southern California

"I'm hiring people. I've never sold so many vegetables in my life," said Sweredoski, co-owner of Takahashi-Sweredoski Farms.

Sweredoski is reaping the early benefits of President Obama's economic stimulus program which gives poor families additional food stamp money to spend each month.

One Los Angeles market has had an 88 percent increase in food stamp purchases and that has given Sweredoski more money to spend on expansion.

"I recently bought a new John Deere tractor," he said, a purchase that hopefully added - or at least saved - American jobs in another part of the country.

Starting in April, a family of four on food stamps received an extra $80 a month - from $525 to $606.

The Department of Agriculture estimates that every $5 of food stamp spending results in $9.20 worth of economic activity.

That's why the food stamp boost is also helping this in New York City, where one supermarket manager says his sales are up 10 percent since the stimulus program started.

"We're actually thinking of hiring more people," said Jose Almonte, the manager of an Associated Supermarket.

"Food stamps have the biggest bang for the buck of any kind of stimulus," said Moodys.com economist Mark Zandi.

That's because food stamps put money into the hands of people who will spend it quickly.

It's estimated that a $1 increase in food stamps creates $1.73 in stimulus. Infrastructure, another high-impact stimulus creates $1.59 for every dollar spent. Compare that to tax cuts which generate only $1.03 for every dollar returned to taxpayers

The food stamp stimulus, while powerful, is temporary. But it's a spark that can ignite business - and put more food on the table during difficult times.

____________________________

You can file that under “we, who understand the invalidity of Friedmanist economics and the validity of Keynesian stimulus theories, told you that flat government spending on direct social services will have the most stimulus effect.” Not tax cuts, not long term, abstract projects. See for yourself the which stimulus approaches have the most bang for the buck:

And yet, economic stimulus provided by the stimulus bill is not working fast enough, and has not changed the trajectory of unemployment – approaching 10% nationally, already as high as a staggering 15% regionally. Nor has it jump started credit lending, or helped reverse the tide of people losing their homes.

The nearly 800 billion dollar stimulus bill was diluted with inefficient tax cuts added purely to appease Republicans, none of whom voted for the bill. It was also diluted with amendments designed to stall the distribution of stimulus, or weaken the governments ability to implement stimulus programs by giving governors veto power over stimulus money, or add layers of deliberate bureaucracy in efforts to cause stimulus spending to fall – all added to appease republicans and gain their support for the bill. Not a single Republican voted for the bill, despite all this capitulation.

The fact that Democrats continue to appease Republicans and accept their obstructionist Amendments on issues such as health care and energy despite the fact that they have no intention of supporting the Presidential agenda should lead anyone to conclude the following:

Either Democrats are the stupidest idiots ever to serve in public office, by continuing to capitulate to Republicans in the belief that they will then support their agenda – despite the fact that the Republican party is at all time historic powerlessness nationally and record minorities in both Houses of Congress – or Democrats do not seriously want the policies that they tell their constituents they are fighting for.

We weren’t “confused” about how to have a stimulus bill that would have worked many times as well as the one we currently have. But we were sold out by Washington politicians playing politics and appeasing their corporate owners while the country burns.

And in Other Unreported News, Bank failures Hit Record pace

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:54:00 +0000

Source: Propublica

Five banks failed on Friday, pushing the total number of failures for the year to 69. Together the five failures cost the FDIC about $911.7 million.

Regulators haven’t closed banks at anywhere near this blistering pace since the tail end of the savings and loan crisis in 1992, when 120 institutions failed. Bank failures have eaten an estimated $14.4 billion out of the FDIC’s deposit fund in 2009, according to Bloomberg.

These are always quietly announced on Friday, and every Friday more banks continue to fail. Meanwhile, how about some updates on the latest bailouts, also no reported anywhere in the corporate mainstream media:
$573 billion of taxpayer money has been allocated or promised to 665 companies and 12 programs.

Jul 24, 2009 American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc
Incentive Payments for Home Loan Modification $1.3 billion

Jul 24, 2009 Mortgage Center, LLC
Incentive Payments for Home Loan Modification $4.2 million

Jul 24, 2009 Mission Federal Credit Union
Incentive Payments for Home Loan Modification $860 thousand

Jul 24, 2009 Community Bancshares, Inc.
Purchase - Preferred Stock w/ Exercised Warrants $3.9 million

Jul 24, 2009 Florida Bank Group, Inc.
Purchase - Preferred Stock w/ Exercised Warrants $20.5 million

Jul 24, 2009 First American Bank Corporation
Purchase - Subordinated Debentures w/ Exercised Warrants $50 million

Jul 24, 2009 Yadkin Valley Financial Corp
Purchase - Preferred Stock w/ Warrants $13.3 million

Jul 17, 2009 Brotherhood Bancshares, Inc.
Preferred Stock w/ Exercised Warrants $11 million

http://bailout.propublica.org/

Thoughts on the term “Intellectual”

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:51:00 +0000

Recently a discussion sprung up on another discussion forum in which groups of people will using the term “Intellectuals” to label themselves and contrast themselves with (I am assuming) “non-intellectuals.”

This kind of binary labeling really makes me uncomfortable, so I was pleased to see on individual make the following comments:

Intellectuals are people who have chosen to use ideas to impose their will on others.

Merchants are people who have chosen to use money to impose their will on others.

Moralists are people who have chosen to use emotion to impose their will on others.

Soldiers are people who have chosen to use physical force to to impose their will on others.

And so on...

I like this. Which is why a goal, I think, might be to live in such a way as to defy labeling.

I happen to be well educated, thanks to a combination of privilege, luck and personal sacrifice. But I loathe the term "intellectual." I wholly dislike labels, though I'm aware that some labeling might be sadly unavoidable, because to me its simply another way to create false stratification.

I am no different from other human beings, in that we all ask questions and formulate answers to the problems that we consider to be important to solve. Some of us have a wider variety of tools available for solving problems, some of us may have been privileged to have a bit more formal training in asking critical questions - but there is far more that unites all of us than divides us.

The trouble is that a term like "intellectual" is primarily used by two types of persons, both of which are difficult for me to stomach.

Type 1
The first type are the persons who use the term to describe themselves with pride. These are the folks that desire to see a divide between their "special" selves and the "ordinary person." These are the people who tend to look with condescension at the "masses" and see themselves as special and superior to most others.

I have a real problem with what I consider to be an elitist and ruling-class attitude toward other people. The notion that the "masses" are too stupid or inept to take care of themselves and must be "shepherd" by a small group of elite thinkers, or elite politicians, or elite tyrants, etc. is a notion that seems to serve the rulers well, but has little provable basis in reality.

Type 2
The second type are the persons who use the term condescendingly to describe others. We have heard the phrase "anti-intellectualism" to describe a notable trend in contemporary American society of hostility toward higher learning, academia, or professional expertise. Most of us would be familiar with the phrase "Ivy-league intellectual" uttered with a sneer or some other variant on the same theme.

Theories as to why this strain of anger and resentment of higher learning has taken such hold on American society are many. Clearly this sentiment is strongest in rural America, thus one could speculate that there is some have/have-not resentment as one root.

Certainly it is plausible to assume that Type 2s are highly irritated if not infuriated by Type 1s - who wouldn't be? And unfortunately, higher learning has been politicized in America, so that many conservatives associate advanced education with political "liberalism" (as defined in the U.S. spectrum of politics) and the entire notion of advanced education and knowledge seeking becomes politicized.

Because these two types represent the primary ways in which the term "Intellectual" gets used, I am very averse to the term itself. Just because I, for example, have some more formal education in certain areas does not remove from the "masses." I am part of the "mass" with everyone else, and all of us have our own unique strengths, weaknesses, areas of knowledge and areas of ignorance. We all have something to offer each other and teach each other.

Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Below is a copy of a post that appeared at Please Cut the Crap – a blog dedicated to deconstructing misinformation and lies that tend to circulate virally via email and in the blogosphere. Tomorrow I will post a follow-up with more thoughts and comments about this piece and the health care debate in general. For now, please read this:

---------------------------

The right's lies about the current health insurance proposals before Congress have rarely been compiled in such concise form before. What follows is an article from the Right Wing Blog ChronWatch [which Practical Vision will not provide a link to] written by Alan Caruba

“Page After Page of Reasons to Hate ObamaCare”

The problem is, there's something missing, such as context. See, the writer is expecting the reader to take everything as gospel, and agree that it's bad, without any sort of explanation. It's a list of all of the things that are wrong with the current state of the health care reform bill before Congress. If you'd like to follow along, feel free to click here to go to the bill itself. In fact, I would encourage you to look at it for yourself; it's an easy way to learn what's actually in it, without having to read through all of the legalese.

We're not called Please Cut the Crap for no reason. Below each item the right wing assures readers we're supposed to hate, I've inserted context, and explained why you really shouldn't hate it. Unless you should. All of my responses are italicized and printed in red, so that you can tell whose words are whose.

I'll warn you, this is a long one, but it's an important one, so get a glass of tea, print this out, and read it to everyone who spews one of these talking points, because this really does touch on pretty much all of the right's talking points. And now you'll be able to refute them. Isn't that cool?

Now, let's continue with the article.

Here are just a few very good reasons to hate ObamaCare:

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

First of all, it starts on page 21, not 22, and it simply mandates a study of risk on the part of all companies that choose to provide self-insurance, to make sure they are capitalized properly. This is something that private insurance companies are required to do; it's to protect the consumer. Say you work at a company with their own health insurance system; how would you like to find out after you've received a $100,000 bill for a hospital stay, that the insurance pool can't pay the bill?

This is also important because when they can't pay the bills, then everyone else with insurance ends up picking up the slack. Got that? That's the reason health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years, and are scheduled to double again in the next ten, if nothing changes.

Anyway, why should companies acting as health insurance companies be allowed to operate under different rules than insurance companies? Isn't that unfair competition?

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

The section actually starts on page 26, and it's entitled:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

There is absolutely NO section in there, from page 26 through page 30, that indicates rationing of any kind. Looking at Page 29 specifically, it contains a section called "Annual Limitation." A-HA! See? It's a LIMITATION! That's the same as rationing, right? Didn't they admit rationing?

Well, no. Because the limit is on the amount that people will have to pay out in cost-sharing, should the agency implementing the bill decide to use a version of cost-sharing. The limit is on how much a patient will have to pay, not a limit on the health care the patient receives.Watch how many times these tools bring up the "rationing" canard. It's almost as often as they mention ACORN. (I kid you not. Just wait.)

See what I mean when I say we have to watch these people, and check their "facts?"

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

The section on Page 30 establishes an advisory committee, and yes; they will decide which treatments and benefits you get. I'm unsure as to why this is a bad thing. I don't want my health insurance premiums going to Britney's boob job, even if I have private insurance. Which reminds me; does this bozo actually think private insurance companies don't have a list of acceptable treatments and benefits?

There is one difference here, though. The committee's recommendations will be published and the public will have access to them. Which means they will be able to offer input to the process.

Oh, and there is nothing here about "no appeals process." The Committee will simply recommend processes for implementation. Not only that, but varying appeals processes are laid out in detail throughout the bill. So, he lied about that...

• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

See above. The Commissioner will simply oversee implementation of the rules that are decided upon by the Commission. He or she will be responsible for making sure that everyone is held accountable up and down the line. Nothing in the bill gives power to a "czar," who will make health benefits decisions. The commission and the Secretary will make decisions on benefits as changes become necessary. Again; I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, except that right wingers don't seem fond of accountability.Well, unless we're talking about unskilled poor people who get welfare money.

• Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Now, when you read something like this, you half expect to see something mandating that non-US citizens be given "free health care."

The funny thing is, the word FREE only appears one time in the entire bill, and it is not coupled with the term "health care." People will be provided with a new health care choice, based on their income, to a certain extent. So we can toss that little red herring off the boat right away. NO ONE will receive free health care. I mean, unless they win some sort of sweepstakes or something.I guess that's possible.

No, the section the wingnut refers to is entitled:

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

What is says is:

"… [A]ll health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

The word "free" isn't in there. It just means that no one can be denied insurance coverage or health care because of their looks, or because they're wearing robes or a burqa. But nothing in there says undocumented immigrants will be able to scam "free" health care. In other words, you can only call that a lie.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

No, it says everyone who opts into the public insurance system MAY be issued a health identification card, if the commission thinks that's a good idea. But the bill doesn't mandate it. It's quite possible the insurance commission will recommend that states implement the public health insurance option, and some states may put the information on your driver's license or state ID card. And again; the only people who will need a card are those with public insurance.

And what's wrong with this idea, anyway? I've never had health insurance from a private company from which I didn’t receive an identification card.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Wow. Is that scary, or what? Only one problem; it's a lie. And I don't mean he's mistaken; I mean, he's lying. Here's what it says:

‘‘The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to… (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

It clearly refers to payment for the health care, not payment of the premium. Most health care companies love this, and will adopt it. But it is still their choice, just as it could be your choice to pay your health insurance premiums by direct transfer, check or payroll deduction. As is the case now.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Once more, it doesn't say that. What it does say is:

SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.

13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

Okay, you'll note the word PARTICIPATING in the above. To anyone who would bother to slide down a couple of paragraphs, past the definitions, all of which define the terms in the above, and do not include the word "mandatory" anywhere, to Page 67, we find:

(b) PARTICIPATION.—To be eligible to participate in the reinsurance program, an eligible employment-based plan shall submit to the Secretary an application for participation in the program, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary shall require.

So, it's all voluntary. Not only that, but it's REINSURANCE, which means the participating plan will be providing their capital to the federal government to fund the plan. I would also point out that members of unions such as SEIU and UAW are also taxpayers, and they currently purchase private insurance for retired members. And if ACORN isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. I'm not aware that ACORN provides health insurance to anyone. But hey; it's not true racist wingnuttery until you invoke ACORN, eh? This isn't the last time you'll see it.

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

This is a phenomenally stupid complaint from a right wing ideological perspective, and it lays bare the moral bankruptcy in their arguments against universal health care. These are the same people who are always touting competition and choice as the most important aspects of capitalism. The point of the insurance exchange is to give people an obvious and transparent choice of health insurance options. A private insurance company can participate and offer their wares alongside the public option, if they so choose. If they don't want to participate, they're free to conduct business as usual, and they won't have to conform to any government rules. Well, except for the ones they must already conform with, whenever the Bush Administration's not in office. They've always had to conform to government rules to participate in Medicare, and I don't see any of them dropping out of business for that.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Again, this is a lie. There are requirements for those choosing to participating in the Health Exchange, but there is absolutely no mandate to join. And if there is going to be competition, it should be on a level playing field, which is what the Exchange creates. It creates an easy-to-read set of options, which insurance companies are free to enhance, and all companies who participate are instructed to offer several levels of plans. If you really think about it rationally, and not the right wing way, the Exchange actually enhances the private insurance companies' chances of survival. But these idiots want to kill it. If there's a public option available at a competitive price per month, insurance companies can offer two other tiers of service, with whatever enhancements they want to include, for a higher price. So, rather than offering "total government control," it actually allows insurance companies an opportunity to offer several tiers of "enhanced" service, to enhance their profitability.

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

There's that perpetual racist component again. My great-grandmother couldn't read English well enough to follow medical instructions when I was a kid in the 1960s, and she had been in this country since she fled the Nazis in the 1930s. I know this, because she used to have me read stuff to her when I was 6. By the way, she was from Poland, and she was very, very white. Hundreds of thousands of people come here legally from all over the world, without knowing English sufficiently, and they occasionally get sick. Hell, half the right wingers in this country legally can't speak English well enough to read a Congressional bill, let alone a doctor's instructions. Obviously.

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

Once more, they invoke ACORN. The above is too silly to even bother with, except to say that informing people of their options and helping them sign up seems remarkably similar to the teams of people the private insurance companies send out to workplaces during "open enrollment." Just saying...

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

Those eligible for Medicaid already have public health insurance. The reason they qualify for Medicaid is because they are poor and have no choices. What sense does it make to have two separate public health plans; Medicaid and this new plan. I mean, this is purely stupid, folks. Page 102 makes clear that Medicaid will be folded into this new plan when it passes. It's a no-brainer.

But I will say this; people on Medicaid will actually have just as much choice as they've always had; probably more.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

This is also extremely inaccurate, if not an outright lie. There is no "price-fixing." First of all, the bill refers to the same rate-setting statutes the government has always followed with Medicare and Medicaid. It has to do with the rates they pay for procedures, and the process includes medical providers and follows them very closely. The doctors and medical corporations still set the prices in that system, and private insurers will be free to negotiate higher or lower payment prices if they wish. They don't pay the same as Medicare and Medicaid for procedures now, and no one's complaining about "price fixing."

You know what? This isn't just inaccurate, it's dishonest.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Once again, the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the language is almost exactly the same as the language in Medicare, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone's "wages." The entire section is about rates for procedures and treatment, and physicians are free to apply in any category they choose, just as they are now with Medicare.

The level of dishonesty in this one is astounding. Every single private health insurance company in the market negotiates rates for procedures with participating physicians, and physicians are not allowed to charge any more than that amount. In other words, they do the same thing Medicare does. The only difference is, Medicare pays every claim short of fraud, while insurance companies routinely deny claims, and try every trick they can think of to not pay at all. And they wonder why we're gunning for them...

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

This one is pure crap. There's no other way to put it. Here's what it actually says:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.—The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either

through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.— The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.8 (3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

In other words, IF the employer opts into the public insurance system, THEN he must provide for the autoenrollment of employees… again a choice. But here's the really dishonest part. Just a few paragraphs later, there is this little section (Page 148):

(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

Remember; this lying wingnut said "no alternatives." Strange, but I see an employer being able to choose not to participate in the public insurance system. And every employee has the choice to opt-out; it says so right in the bill. Those seem like alternatives. Even if you're not the best at math, you have to know that two is greater than zero, right?

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Again, an absolute lie. The page number is 146, not 126, which is a quibble. But employers are not required to pay healthcare bills for anyone. IF they CHOOSE to participate in the public insurance system, they are required to autoenroll employees in the insurance, unless the employee chooses to opt out. But the INSURANCE pays the bills, not the employers. Employers will not be required to pay for the procedures themselves, unless they opt to self-insure. But that's hardly a mandate, is it?

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

More lies. The section ONLY refers to any employer who doesn't offer ANY insurance to his employees. If they offer either private insurance or the public insurance, they do not have to pay the 8%, regardless of the size of their payroll. The purpose of the public insurance system is to cover as many people as possible. An employee of such an employer who wants to buy the public insurance will have to pay an amount indexed to the probably meager pay the cheapskate employer is paying. (Think fast food franchise where everyone works for $8 an hour or less.) The fund created by this tax will subsidize the purchase of health insurance for these people.

An employer with a tiny payroll will pay considerably less, but again; ONLY if he doesn't participate in the public insurance system. Here's the table.

If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent

Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent

Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent

Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

So, if they have a really small business, say 10 employees making $24,000 each, and don't offer insurance, they get off scot-free. In fact, if they have 20 employees making $15,000 per year, they only pay $6,000 into the fund.

If you ask me, there's a gap here. Really small cheapskate business owners are going to get off light, and all other taxpayers will have to foot more of the bill as a result.

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Yay! Finally, they got one right. Well, partially right, anyway.

Anyone without health insurance -- specifically those who choose to run around without health insurance because they're too cheap and stupid -- will now have to pay something into a system that is required to take care of them when they contract a serious illness or get hit by a bus. Let's see… if the guy makes $100,000 per year, the total tax is $2,500, which is far less than he would pay for health insurance now. And for those who think this is especially unfair to rich people who choose not to carry insurance because of their immense wealth, don't worry; the amount is capped at the size of the average health insurance premium. In return, the rest of us won't have to pick up the tab when the uninsured numb nuts is wheeled into the emergency room for a trauma because he was riding his dirt bike and slammed into a tree while not wearing a helmet. .

In other words, this is something to applaud, not to hate. It should encourage people to opt into the insurance system, which saves everyone money.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

This wingnut sure does have an obsession with immigrants. By the way, NON-RESIDENT ALIEN means someone who doesn't LIVE here. In almost all other countries, there is a national health insurance system, and their government will pay for their health care. Why would we tax them for something they won’t use in most cases?

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

And we get back to the lies.

The agency will have extremely limited access to SOME information contained in IRS TAX records for those individuals choosing to participate in the public health insurance system, in order to determine eligibility for certain premium discounts. There are strict limits on the info they will have access to, and there is a strict prohibition on passing the information anywhere else.It is most certainly NOT "ALL American financial and personal records."

• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.

No, actually, it doesn't. What is it about wingnuts that makes them think they can put a period anywhere they want, and change the meaning of something, and no one will notice? Here's what it REALLY says:

‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.’’'

I can't explain what this means. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't "really say" what they say it says...

•Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

This is also a lie. The entire section has to do with reducing the number of physician services used to compute health care growth rates from 2011 on. There is absolutely no provision to reduce services for Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid will be folded into the public insurance system, which makes the above assertion just insane.

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

See above. Another lie. It's another part of the section dealing with predicting costs. Specifically, it deals with "conversion factors. There is nothing in there mandating what anyone gets paid for anything.

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

These are just insane. The first one doesn't set values for anything. It simply adjusts the method for coming up with values later on. Which makes sense, because covering everyone will drop the health care inflation rate tremendously, especially after the first few years. The second evaluates productivity and offer incentives to increase efficiency and productivity. As for the last one, why wouldn't the government regulate the rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs they intend to buy? You think private insurance companies just go to Wal-Mart? And read it carefully; all it does is extend Medicare regulations to the public insurance system. Why is it suddenly not good enough?

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

They love that word "rationing." If only they knew what it meant.

Essentially, there is no rationing anywhere in this bill. And anyone who doesn't think private insurance rations health care has never encountered a denied claim. But not only does the section they point to NOT impose anything close to "rationing," it promises to pay EXTRA to hospitals that specialize in cancer treatment. EXTRA!

Since when does "rationing" constitute EXTRA anything? Bet our grandparents are pissed to know that gas rationing during World War II meant they could get extra.

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

Okay, the first one's not entirely a lie, although it doesn’t say "preventable readmissions;" it says "EXCESSIVE readmissions," and there is a significant difference. It merely extends a policy that's been standard under Medicare for years. It encourages doctors to make sure they aren't treating the hospital as an assembly line and making sure people are treated properly the first time. It also goes a long way to keeping hypochondriacs out of the hospital to a significant degree, and keeping costs down.

The second one, on the other hand, is completely made up. First of all, the page number is wrong. But it rewards efficiency. Think about it this way. Suppose you take your car in to have the air conditioning repaired, and the shop charges you $200. If you have to take it in two more times for the same problem, are you going to accept them charging you $200 more each time? Of course not. Well, why shouldn't doctors be encouraged to do everything possible to fix a problem the first time? Not only that, but imagine a medical office scamming the insurance company/government by purposely not treating everything the first time, so that they can get more money for more readmissions? This measure actually increases efficiency.

Imagine that; these wingnuts actually have a problem with the government encouraging efficiency and waste, and keeping the cost of health care down.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

Surprise; more lies The bill prohibits doctors from referring patients to hospitals in which they have a significant ownership interest in, without disclosing to the patient that he indeed has an ownership stake in the hospital. The government also prohibits "self-referral" under most circumstances. That's actually fair to all of the other hospitals. There is absolutely zero prohibition on doctors having ownership of hospitals. What this tool is citing has to do with rural areas. It's to prevent one physician from effectively controlling all aspects of health care in a region, where possible.

But once more; doctors are not prohibited from doing anything, except creating a monopoly and locking others out of a market. And the "community input" provision is just common sense. Note, another ACORN reference, and there is no way it applies here at all. I'm not aware of ACORN being involved in hospital expansion in rural areas.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

I don't even have to look this one up, but I did anyway. Another joke/lie.

Outcome-based healthcare is common sense. And it has nothing to do with "rationing." In fact, rationing is the exact OPPOSITE of "outcome-based" care. By emphasizing quality care, you reduce the number of ER and urgent care admissions, and you reduce the number of readmissions, as well. Again; it's the opposite of rationing. Rationing is what private insurance companies do. I'm reminded of that guy at the beginning of Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," in which some poor guy had a choice of which finger he would like to have reattached. "Outcome based" care would have repaired both fingers and made the guy a productive citizen again. Health care "rationing" forced him to choose the cheapest finger to reattach.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

They already have the ability to regulate and disqualify Medicare Advantage plans.. In other words, this maintains the status quo . Oh, and it says absolutely nothing about "HMOS, etc."

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

No. That's not what it says. What it says is, it will begin to phase such special needs individuals into the public health insurance system. IOW, those people who qualify for Medicaid and people under 65 who qualify for Medicare will be eligible for this system instead. Seriously, can wingnuts read at all?

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

More bureaucracy than the private insurer's tendency to automatically deny claims over $1500, and force you to call them in order to get the bill paid? Have you ever been to a hospital's administrative offices? There is no more bureaucracy than in the private health insurance industry.

That said, Telehealth has been around for years, and has saved Medicare countless dollars by directing seniors to services. This merely expands the concept to people covered under the public insurance system. Imagine; more service; what a concept, right?

The rest are pure paranoia. The Advance Care Planning Consultation system has also been around for years, and I'm unaware of a spate of senior suicides or euthanasia as a result. It simply encourages people to consult with their doctors, and get all of the options available for either planning for the end, or working to create a higher quality of life. I'm sure almost everyone knows someone with a debilitating disease, such as multiple sclerosis or diabetes; advance care planning reduces the likelihood that these people will constantly show up at urgent care or the ER for minor problems that they themselves can take care of.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

Two more gratuitous mentions of ACORN. And what's wrong with either of the above?

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

This one is silly, of course. Unless the government starts mandating marriage and family therapy, and then conducts the therapy themselves, the "intervention" isn't happening. I mean, many health insurance plans cover psychiatric services under some conditions, but no one is suggesting that Blue Cross or CIGNA is trying to control your mind.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Of course, it merely adds them to the Medicare mix. There is nothing to define, create or ration them in this bill.

I guess they became tired, because they got tired of lying about halfway through the bill. There are over 500 more pages to this thing.

“A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called ObamaCare. “

Yes, thank him for lying his ass off, and giving me a chance to cut the crap, big time. I'd been working on a piece about right wing health care lies, and this gave me a chance to dispel most of them in one fell swoop. I mean, all of these lies in one piece. How do these people sleep at night?

“Write, e-mail, fax, or call your senators and your representative and tell them to vote NO!”

If you tell them that, you're a fool. The CBO estimates that, with no changes to the health care system, premiums will increase by $1800 per year for the next ten years. That means an family will pay an average annual premium of more than $32,000 by then. And that's assuming that the 47 million people without insurance doesn't increase tremendously. This offers everyone a chance at affordable health insurance, and stops the health care inflation that has crippled our economy for decades. But more than that, it will make us a proud nation, that cares about its people once again.

Stop letting these wingnut idiots lie their asses off. Read what I wrote above, and compare it to what's actually in the bill. It's really not as long as it sounds, by the way; if the bill was written single spaced, with normal margins, it would probably be a couple of hundred pages at best. But look through it, and what you'll find is a plan that is very thoughtful and measured, and provides access to everyone.

Posted by Milt Shook on July 28, 2009 at 05:54 AM

Health Insurance Reform Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:05:00 +0000

By the Way, Anyone Remember Promised Corporate Regulatory Reform?

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:58:00 +0000

Do you remember how - during the heat of the financial and economic meltdown, when it was crystal clear that corporate recklessness and excessive irrational greed beyond all reasonable boundaries was responsible for the disaster, when even corporations themselves were contrite and admitting culpability for the calamity – we were promised that one stage of the economic recovery plan would be strict reform of how business gets done on Wall Street?

From February 2009:

What has happened since then? Since then tough talk and a sense of urgency has been watered down and slowed down.

Quite simply, tough talk is for the public. The public hears it, feels better, and then goes back to their own business. When public attention has faded, the actual talk is dramatically softened. Evidence? Two case studies.

First, consider the current debate on health care legislation. Admittedly, the government is wrapped up in this issue, which is part of the reason regulatory reform has been pushed to the back. We note in the health care debate the slow shifting away from key ideas that the American people were sold on, and the steadily increasing number of concessions made to powerful corporate lobbies.

Second and perhaps even more powerful as an example, consider the days of Enron, WorldCom and Xerox. Company after company after company was caught lying and cheating its way to the top, breaking all the rules and threatening economic stability. In the face of significant public attention and anger, President Bush promised sweeping regulatory reform of corporate accounting practices and of the actions permissible by corporate executives.

Over the next few weeks, the public was placated and satisfied, and largely returned to their day to day lives after being briefly awakened from slumber. While American people weren’t looking weak, powerless completely non-binding “regulation” was passed that did not change the way businesses operate in the slightest. But it could be referred to as “sweeping reform” whenever the Bush administration needed to signal that it was “fair” or “tough” on Wall Street.

These are two examples, offered as evidence to support my basic conclusion, which is that tough talk is purely an act for the public, and that our national political system simply will not allow true and serious reform of the status quo on any level. Not when it comes to corporate business practices, not when it comes to health care, not when it comes to green technology, not when it comes to foreign policy, and so on.

And so it goes.

Obama Shifts on Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:08:00 +0000

Source: The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama pledged Wednesday that health care legislation he is seeking will bar insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions and include numerous provisions to hold down the cost of care for consumers.

This is a shift in message. Now, rather than focusing on the millions of uninsured Americans and the need to cover everyone or continue on with the President's prior claim that a strong public option is needed for real reform, the President is essentially conceding defeat, now tamping down expectations and shifting the talking points so that defeat can be spun as "victory" when congress delivers a bill that does not truly reform health care.

Obama retooled his pitch for legislation to overhaul the nation's health care as Democrats in both houses struggled to show progress before lawmakers leave the Capitol for a monthlong vacation.

The president plans to make this argument, according to the White House: "if you already have health insurance, reform means more security and stability." Back in Washington, aides will spread that message using e-mail and social networking sites.

Many, if not all, of the consumer protections the White House highlighted are included in legislation under discussion in both houses.

Many, if not all of the "consumer protections" the White House highlighted are already included in legislation considered in both houses because its not controversial and insurance companies are ready to live with it, as long as they can ensure that real health care legislation never sees the light of day.

Dr. Howard Dean spoke the painful truth best, when he said this week that Congress isn't working on health care, they are working on insurance reform - not the same thing.

The insurance lobby and corporate-dominated Republican and (I am sad to say) Democratic parties are winning the battle over health care, and the Obama administration is all but conceding defeat with this shift in message strategy.

In addition to a ban on insurance denial based on pre-existing conditions, the White House said industry would be required to renew any policy as long as the premiums are paid in full. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums because of gender, and they would be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on coverage.

No doubt there will be an army of new fans ready to defend and support this shift in message, just like there was an army of fans ready to throw single payer supporters under the bus, just like there was an army of fans ready to throw public option supporters under the bus. After all, these insurance reforms sound great right?

Setting aside the fact that we aren't addressing the underlying problem of ineffective health care focused on treatment rather than prevention which is virtually guaranteed under a for-profit system. The fact remains that the only reforms currently being discussed are the ones the insurance industry are comfortable with. One example:

The list of consumer protections made no mention of curbing the current practice under which insurance companies charge far higher premiums for customers with pre-existing medical conditions.

So, the talking point now is to highlight the fact that legislation will bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But of course, those companies will remain free to charge anything they want to individuals and to increase fees based on preexisting conditions. That's the same thing, just under a different name.

The point of my comments is not to single out Obama for personal blame. It's possible that the system is so entrenched in corporate corruption that no one could win the kind of victories we need at the national level without first going state by state and winning smaller victories, or by a complete collapse of our plunder capitalist system and its replacement with something else.

I'm simply commenting on what's happening, with the hope that people will have the courage to admit that health care reform is failing, rather than deceitfully trying to spin this loss into some sort of victory when it isn't.

Do June Housing Numbers Indicate a Return to the Status Quo?

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:31:00 +0000

So. Great news today, and the first news from the housing market that seems to be truly good, rather than just news Wall Street tries to inflate by denying paired bad news (example: saying home sales are up but staying silent about record foreclosure rates for the same month.)

Home sales rose 11%, or highest one month rise in eight years, according to the Associated Press.

I believe that our economy has fundamental flaws and that those flaws are deep, and that social and economic justice demand that we engage not just in superficial "reform" but in a massive restructuring of the way we do business in America. I felt that we had a glimmer of an opportunity for that kind of serious transformation during the heat of the economic crisis.

Unfortunately, our political masters were too effective and quelling the outrage of the public and returning Americans to their passive slumbering consumerism. Therefore in one sense signs that our economy is "recovering" or, returning to the status quo, are saddening.

However, my compassion for the tragic effect of this economic crisis on individuals and families is also real. It compels me to breathe a sigh of relief at a major indicator that economic conditions for ordinary people might be stabilizing.

So I can't help but be happy in the short run for struggling Americans, because I care about real people's lives. But I also can't help by feel sad for a squandered opportunity to dismantle our obviously broken system of plunder capitalism and, under the guidance of an alert and engaged public, demand a new system:

(1) ...that correctly starts from the premise that labor creates all wealth and thus enshrouds the rights of the worker against the exploitation of industry, and guarantees every individual a personal stake in the organization for which that individual works,

(2) …that protects against the hyper-consolidation of wealth into a tiny handful of ruling families by implementing an effective progressive tax structure indexed to / adjusted by changes to income disparity indicators between richest and poorest Americans,

(3) ...that appropriately recognizes that what has been called social "welfare" programs in the past are in fact social investment programs, the existence of which benefits the entire society by ensuring a healthy workforce and a consumer base with enough personal security in shelter, food, clothing, health care and educational needs to enabling the purchase of consumer goods that drive our economy,

(4) ...that recognizes that corporations and the business community at large are not moral bodies and not designed to consider public good or societal needs. They therefore cannot be expected to "police themselves" or "referee their own game" and require an independent, transparent, autonomous regulatory body with no connections to the players of the game. That "body" should be the government of the people of the United States, and therefore requires:

(a) that corporations no longer be incorrectly recognized as person's under the law - this is a perverse distortion of the 14th amendment. Corporations shall not own stock in other corporations, nor have the right to sue or be sued in court, and shall be subject to the terms of the corporate charter as established by the state in which they reside, which shall be revoked if the State determines the corporation does not act in good faith

(b) that all federal, state and local elections for public government office shall be publicly funded, and private spending to promote any candidate for office or attack any candidate for office shall be a violation of election law,

(c) that any financial contribution to any politician by any organization or individual shall be considered bribery and subject to criminal prosecution. Individuals and organizations shall have the right to make their requests heard before government representatives, but shall not have the power to bride them,

AND

(5) ...that centralizes and regulates the financial system, eliminating the practice of financial speculation, derivatives trading and other irresponsible behaviors in the market while implementing policy that promotes market investment rather than market speculation, for the purpose of eliminating profiteering and extemporaneous risk-taking within core financial institutions.

Oh well.... back to business as usual.

Nice Discussion of the Complexities of “Piracy” and Copyright Law

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:12:00 +0000

By Salamander Davoudi and Tim Bradshaw

In April, when a Swedish court sentenced the founders of Pirate Bay to one-year prison terms for promoting copyright infringement on the world's largest filesharing website, the music and film industries gave a standing ovation. But their triumph was short-lived.

The four men, who "tweeted" vigorously on Twitter during their trial, may not be able to communicate so freely from their prison cells. But their struggle for internet freedoms has developed into a political issue: Sweden's Pirate party , dedicated to the legalisation of file-sharing, won a seat last month in the European parliament.

The war being waged by the entertainment industry against online piracy was further weakened when its powerful ally and champion of internet policing, Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, had his anti-piracy bill watered down by his country's highest court in April.

Ten years after the launch of Napster, the first online file-sharing service, the music industry is no closer to solving the problems created by digital piracy. As advances in technology make television, film and video games companies more vulnerable to piracy, that decade-long failure to change consumer behaviour threatens to undermine business models across the media industry.

Piracy has helped to create momentum around legal and intellectual challenges to copyright law. "Piracy has gone from being a simple argument about infringement or using something without permission to questioning the very basis of copyright," says Gregor Pryor, a digital media partner at Reed Smith, the international law firm.

For most music and film fans, its appeal is more simple. With a little technological know-how, they can find and download free copies of the latest releases. Many albums and films appear online before they reach the shops or cinemas.

In removing the cost of distribution, the internet has proved itself a perfect piracy incubator and has made it harder for those involved to be prosecuted successfully. The Pirate Bay case is due to go to appeal later this year. But the scale of the problem for content owners is worldwide.

Russia, China, Spain, Mexico and Canada were this year singled out by the US Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus as having the highest rates of copyright infringement, largely as "the result of a lack of political will to confront the problem". Russia's lack of progress in respecting intellectual property rights now threatens its accession to the World Trade Organisation.

"In Russia there is no concept of copyrighted recorded material. They get away with selling it and only paying publishing royalties, not recording ones," says James Bates from Deloitte, the consultancy.

The statistics make uncomfortable reading: the music industry has been decimated by online piracy, which remains the default way of consumption for many. For every track bought online, 20 were downloaded illegally last year, according to IFPI , the international music industry lobby group.

The film industry is fearful of repeating the mistakes of the music business. Hollywood executives have waded into the debate, while large media companies such as NBC are joining forces with trades unions as rising unemployment levels focus their attention on the threat to members' jobs and incomes from copyright breaches. IFPI has been working with the Motion Picture Association of America to share information on anti-piracy and enforcement.

The statistics are not encouraging, however. A total of 13.7m films were distributed on peer-to-peer networks in France in May 2008, for example, compared with 12.2m cinema tickets sold, according to Equancy and Tera, two Paris-based consultancies.

But the entertainment industry does not always endear itself to consumers by painting itself as the pained victim. A widely reported study in the UK this year said downloading cost the economy £120bn ($198bn, €139bn). Other industry associations scrambled to lament the losses. But the figure was later revealed to be an error - the estimate was really £12bn.

Such estimates commonly assume each downloaded album is a lost sale, ignoring other studies that show the most prolific downloaders also buy more music. One of the few people to be hired by the music industry who dared to suggest pirates were also labels' best customers - ex-Googler Douglas Merrill - left EMI after less than a year.

An industry that portrays itself as the victim while suing single mothers and other ordinary consumers for big sums has only helped the cause of Pirate Bay and those downloaders who are trying to make an ideological point by stealing music and movies. An anarchic and nihilist foe - which is yet to make a coherent argument for how content production would be paid for in a copyright-free future - is a tough opponent.

But the majority of file-sharing sites are commercial, not political, in motivation. Few of the pirates want to build a business to take on Universal Music or EMI. Like a market stall selling pirated DVDs, they just want to make a small profit from a virtual commodity and do not mind whose business model they ruin to do so. What started out as a hobby for computer geeks such as Sean Fanning, who developed Napster, has become big business for website owners.

Most piracy sites rely on advertising for their income. Global Gaming Factory X, a group that is planning to buy Pirate Bay , told industry blog PaidContent it could make $40m (€28m, £24m) a month from advertising. But while that figure has been met with scepticism, many sites make substantial sums from advertising placed around other people's content.

"These kinds of sites often generate significant profit through advertising and advertisers will pay a lot of money," says Helen Saunders, head of internet investigations at the BPI, which represents the UK recorded music industry. "Just think about how many people are going on to them. They can be very attractive to companies whose target audience is 16-24 year-olds."

Questionable legality means most mainstream advertisers try to avoid media sharing sites such as Pirate Bay and Mininova, even though they attract millions of visitors. Most ads are for gambling, "adult" chatrooms or dubious offers of free iPods. But some big brands - such William Hill and even Microsoft - have found their ads appearing alongside pirated content, even if that was not the advertiser's intent.

The ads may not always be genuine - the appearance of such brands boosts sites' appearance of legitimacy. But more often it is simply a factor of advertising space being sold across "blind" networks of so-called remnant inventory, typically yielding very low revenues for site owners.

"It's very much like a spam e-mail business," says Eric Garland of Big Champagne , a research firm. Low costs and high volumes mean it only takes a few gullible victims to click on an ad - and perhaps be tricked into downloading computer viruses - to turn a profit.

Pirate Bay, which has about 10m users in more than 30 countries, carries ads for online games, dating, lottery, mobile ringtone and computer screensaver sites. It was alleged by the Swedish government and IFPI to have generated more than $3m in annual revenue from advertising. That would be low for a mainstream media site with such substantial visitor numbers, yet one of Pirate Bay's founders argued that these figures were an overestimate.

Recent surveys suggest peer-to-peer piracy is no longer increasing and that legal downloads of digital music at Apple's iTunes are also starting to plateau. "Music piracy has almost found its high watermark," says Mr Garland. "Clearly there is a saturation point for digital media."

But if peer-to-peer is peaking, new technologies are rising up to replace it. Teenagers are experimenting with techniques - such as swapping computer hard drives or trading songs on mobile phones via Bluetooth - that are near-impossible to detect.

A more severe new threat to content owners does not rely on swapping songs or movies at all. Streaming video sites - using similar technology to the BBC iPlayer , Hulu or YouTube - allow media to be viewed or heard with just one click. That makes streaming video much less complex to use than Pirate Bay-style sites. Streaming "is a problem emerging so fast that it makes my head spin", says Mr Garland, who expects it to be the industry's main concern within a year. Specialised search engines, which aggregate links to these video sites, also operate in a legal grey area but attract substantial traffic by improving the usability of pirating sites yet further.

As technology speeds ahead of legal precedent, some experts argue that chasing new sites will remain a futile effort. So content owners have turned to broadband operators as their last hope to control internet piracy. By monitoring traffic on their networks, content owners argue, internet service providers could spot breaches of copyright and throw persistent offenders off their networks.

But the European Commission has now suggested that cutting off an individual's internet access is an infringement of human rights. That has stymied Mr Sarkozy's "three strikes and you're out" proposals. The UK's Digital Britain report this month stopped short of proposing anything so drastic, instead leaving it to record labels to take legal action individually against frequent file sharers who ignore warning letters from their broadband providers.

Content owners seeking ways to limit the damage are also using their commercial clout to bring broadband operators to the table. In a pioneering deal, Universal Music has agreed to let Virgin Media, the UK cable company, offer an unlimited downloading service to its broadband customers - as long as Virgin also helps Universal clamp down on piracy.

But even if this "all you can eat" model offers a user as much content as piracy does, it will struggle to compete on price. Whether it is films, TV shows or music, consumers are becoming accustomed to getting what they want for free.

Before too long, another pirate is likely to face court accused of copyright infringement. The content industry may well celebrate another Pyrrhic victory. Whether motivated by ideology or profit, the media-sharing movement seems set to reinvent itself again and again.

Illegal yet ever easier to do

Illegal file-sharing is almost as old as the internet itself. It began with friends exchanging files on private discussion boards but hit the mainstream with the arrival of Napster in 1999. Napster used peer-to-peer technology but its central index of songs made it vulnerable to legal action. Successors such as Kazaa and Gnutella obviated the need for a central site. The path to Pirate Bay - founded in 2003 - was paved by the 2001 release of BitTorrent, a more efficient form of peer-to-peer technology. Now, the fastest growing form of piracy is streaming video. Streaming - similarly to legal sites such as Hulu and BBC iPlayer - does not require a copy of the content to be downloaded. Viewers can click and watch shows or movies instantly.

Legislation

The battle is on to reshape copyright rules for the internet age

Internet piracy has become so difficult to control because it is now ingrained behaviour among consumers, analysts say.

"It's a social norm," says Eric Garland of Big Champagne, which tracks file-sharing. "Somewhere along the line in the last 10 years, it became in most places in the world socially acceptable to infringe copyright."

A study by Entertainment Media Research found 71 per cent of those file-sharing gave "free music" as their main reason for doing so.

But the motivation of the individuals uploading copyrighted content to file-sharing networks - who make it possible for others to download - is more complex. "These guys operate a bit like the hacking community and are mostly doing it for kudos," says Helen Saunders of the BPI, which represents the UK recorded music industry. "They compete with others to be the first to put the content out and are not looking to make a profit."

Pirate Bay, the most notorious file-sharing site, sets the ideological bar somewhat higher. Its founders in Sweden sent out a clear challenge when they announced that any proceeds from its sale would go to fund projects on freedom of speech, freedom of information and the openness of the internet.

That cause will be taken to the European parliament after Sweden elected Christian Engström, the first MEP from the Pirate party. The party's stated intent is to reduce the term for commercial copyright protection to five years. It also believes that "non-commercial copying and use" - including file-sharing - should be legalised. Content owners argue that few other MEPs share Mr Engström's views.

Just as businesses that used to deliver ice to households were unable to make refrigerators illegal, content owners should not be able to use the law to protect an obsolete business model, he says. Instead they should build profitable services around "non-commercial file-sharing", such as search engines.

A key plank of the Pirate party's logic is that copyright was not designed for the internet age. To that end, Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, has devised a system of "copyleft" - a new content licence that encourages the kind of sharing, remixing and non-commercial reuse that is common on the web.

While some artists have experimented with Prof Lessig's "creative commons" licence, few content owners see the merits of a debate about copyright. Its protection is still seen by labels and studios as the best incentive to create and invest in content.

Fair Use Notice: This web site contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Internal Memorandum from Goldman Sachs (New Yorker)

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:18:00 +0000

From The New Yorker:
The Times.
Internal Memorandum No. 8121b

ATTN: Employees of Goldman Sachs

We did it. Bottom of the ninth, down by three, bases loaded, and we cranked another grand slam to the moon. They may have shot Lennon, but nothing can kill the Beatles.

I admit things looked bleak for a minute there. We had to convert to a bank holding company and were forced to accept a taxpayer bailout. It felt un-American. Terribly unbanksmanly. But we accepted the money, knowing that we could magically weave it into a much larger mountain of money.

We had a few hard months there, didn’t we? They regulated our corporate jet so that we could no longer use it to fly from hole to hole on the green. Dave had to drain his money pool to half capacity. I stopped injecting gold into my blood. They don’t call it a recession for nothing. One day, we’ll look back on the year we received only five-figure bonuses and laugh.

Wanting to celebrate our renewed success is natural, but it’s important that we don’t go crazy here. Remember, ten per cent of the non-bank country is unemployed, and even those who are working have “real” jobs, where payment is proportional to the creation of a “product” or a “service.” Those poor bastards. So I ask that, in celebrating our raping of the stock market, we show restraint in the following ways:

Please limit high-fives and chest bumps to a dozen a day.

Don’t wear your crowns, except around the office.

Stop paying for things in Monopoly money—I understand it is the same as real money to us, but there have been some complaints.

For now, let’s take down the giant scoreboard that reads “Main Street: zero. Wall Street: a billion gazillion bajillion.”

Furthermore, to avoid drawing criticism from the press, this year the bonuses, expected to be comically large, will be distributed in blood diamonds, which can be easily concealed in a briefcase so it looks like we’re working.

I’d like to thank everyone who made this possible—for a second time. Respect to President Obama for keeping us in the green. Thanks to the big guy upstairs (me).

And let’s not forget all the ordinary Americans, who, for some unfathomable reason, have refused to put us behind bars. We are literally taking money out of their wallets. Seriously, with these returns we are making Madoff look like a little kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar. Amateur!

Yours in money,
Lloyd Blankfein, C.E.O., Goldman Sachs

Democrats Cut Labor Provisions, Kill EFCA

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:04:00 +0000

There is a tactic in politics called “throwing a story out with the trash.” This refers to the practice of holding stories that might be unfavorable to the the party in question until late Friday and then “dumping” them on the Press after its too late to include them in anything but the weekend new sources –which few pay attention to.

Thrown out in the Friday "trash" news cycle:

Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.

The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

...

The card-check provision was so central to the legislation that it was known as “the card-check bill.” Labor had called the bill its No. 1 objective, and both labor and business deployed their largest, most expensive lobbying campaigns ever in the battle over it.

Strong labor is one of the keys to any sort of serious restoration of anything good in our political-economic system. Without so-called "card check," the bill is effectively useless. It doesn't even reflect its name, the "Employee Free Choice Act" because work forces are still free to spend millions of dollars hiring anti-union busting "consultants" to intimidate workers and launch overwhelmingly powerful anti-union campaigns before and during, the time leading up to a "secret ballot."

The number one reason workers say they would not support a union in their workplace when asked is overwhelmingly: fear and intimidation. Now whatever legislation that will pass will do little to nothing to address that.

This must be clear to everyone: employers, not employees have huge leverage and power in any discussion of unionization.

That is why strong labor unions have withered and died on the vine over the past thirty years. And with their death, wages have decoupled from productivity and stagnated or declined for the majority of Americans - something that was unheard of for most of the 20th century.

Big Business just got everything they want, because the only provision of EFCA that they seriously cared about was "card check" - because it was the only provision that had the power to really change the way they do business. It was the only provision with the chance to seriously increase unionization.

With that out of the way, everything else is less important. Oh, they'll oppose other provisions on principle, but they won't spend real money on it. Their real ultimate has already been won.

The abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party’s more liberal legislative efforts. Though the Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.

...

Several moderate Democrats, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have voiced opposition to card check, convinced that elections were a fairer way for workers to unionize. They were swayed partly by business’s vigorous campaign, arguing that card check would remove confidentiality from unionization drives and enable union organizers to bully workers into signing union cards.

So, allowing a simple majority vote is "undemocratic." Democrats elect to listen to anti-labor, anti-worker, exploitative business elite, and let them have the unmitigated gall to suggest that it is a simple majority vote that would be undemocratic and that unions would intimidate workers. When it is business that has the well-documented history of massive worker intimidation, harassment, even illegal firing, in its efforts to destroy unions.

That any Democrat would have the guts to call a provision finally throwing labor a small crumb of hope "undemocratic," while standing up for the total domination of the work force by corporate interests over the last thirty years, is sickening. It's really simple, folks. Countries with low poverty, smaller income disparities, high living standards, and better social programs (health care, paid leave, etc.) are countries with strong Labor.

We are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world], losing any claim to our so-called "greatness." Meanwhile, corporate whoring shills within the Democratic Party ensure that real change continues to be elusive. What we have just seen in congress is what then-candidate Obama claimed to despise: politics-as-usual.

Democrats won the House in a veritable landslide. They control a huge majority in the Senate. They won the Presidency of the United States. A Washington Post Poll shows that a mere 21% of all Americans even identify with the Republican Party.

GOP leadership is in shambles and disarray. The party itself is in the midst of an internal civil war and has never, in my lifetime, looked as ineffective and helpless as it does today.

And despite all of this, the American people continue not to get real change that they need. We should ask ourselves, what good is a Democratic majority if congressional democratic representatives are bought and paid for by the very same privileged elite that own the Republican Party? Do we really only have a pro-choice and anti-choice wings of one Corporate party?

As an answer to that question, I offer this response.

One Giant Leap to Nowhere

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:21:00 +0000

This week the New York Times published an Op-Ed lamenting the fact that with Neil Armstrong’s first step on the moon, turned out to be the death knell of significant exploration and advancement of our space discovery.

While NASA had full plans for continued exploration and discovery beyond mere landing on the moon, once the race against the Russians was won, the political will for space discovery was lost.

On one hand its difficult to justify the cost of a significant focus on space exploration during our current economic recession. In fact, some would find it difficult to justify the cost even during times of economic “expansion” as long as our nation poverty rates continue to be in double digits overall (and almost double for persons of color.)

Those are fair points. And yet, when I think about all of the amazing scientific advances (in space and elsewhere) that occurred during my parent’s lifetime, it feels as though we’ve entered a period of discovery-stagnation and a stagnation in our national curiosity and thirst for advancement.

To be far, its possible that our since of excitement over innovation has simply changed focus over the last couple decades. Certainly in the world of silicon, advancements are coming at an exponential rate. Computer technology is rapidly evolving, almost so quickly that I think sometimes I take it for granted.

But we also see that innovation based on marketability seems to be the only sort of innovation making significant headway. We have rapid computer technology innovation because private businesses believe the technology is highly profitable.

That’s great, but what happens to the science that isn’t “popular” in a market-economy? The answer is that there may be situations in which we want the government to subsidize some of our scientific pursuits. And the government certainly does this. However, the level at which the government (i.e. the people, through taxes) support science has dramatically declined over the years.

Which leads me back to my original point: whether it be space exploration, or quantum investigation, I feel like the rate of our discovery and breakthroughs has stagnated as the priorities of our culture shift. I don’t have the answer for how we find the balance between supporting the creativity and innovation of humanity with providing for the general welfare of our citizens. But I’m not sure we’ve struck the right balance as it stands.

House Health Bill’s High-Income Surcharge: A Reasonable Approach

noreply@blogger.com (Political Heretic) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:51:00 +0000

My Comments: unfortunately I have been tied up with job seeking, moving to Oregon, and other issues to update my blog with original content. However, I do want to keep publishing articles from sources covering news and issues not getting enough attention in the mainstream media. I hope to return to writing original comments or analysis in the future.

House Health Bill’s High-Income Surcharge: A Reasonable Approach
Impact on Small Businesses Would Be Modest

PDF of the full report (6pp.)

By Chuck Marr

July 17, 2009

Reforming the health care system to provide universal health coverage is an urgent priority. But, facing huge projected budget deficits that have the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path, the White House and Congress must enact a health reform plan that is also fully financed and that reduces the growth rate of health care costs over the long term.

Policymakers have been considering two major proposals to help finance health care reform that represent sound tax policy: (1) limiting the tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits, and (2) capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent or a somewhat higher level. Capping the exclusion has the added benefit of helping slow the growth of health care costs. House Democrats have now advanced a third major proposal that also represents sound tax policy: imposing a graduated surcharge on high-income taxpayers.[1]

The House surcharge proposal is reasonable and well-targeted. In recent decades, incomes have grown disproportionately for households at the top of the income scale, while their tax burden has fallen substantially. Moreover, despite charges to the contrary, the proposal would have only a small impact on small businesses. The congressional Joint Tax Committee estimates that it would have no impact at all on 96 percent of small business owners — broadly defined as any taxpayer with as little as $1 of business income — and that only half of the 4 percent of small business owners who would be affected derive more than a third of their income from a business.[2] At the same time, the House plan would enhance the ability of small businesses to offer affordable, quality health insurance to their employees (see box below).

High-Income Households Have Far Outpaced Others in Recent Decades

The surcharge would affect only the highest-income 1.2 percent of taxpayers, according to the Joint Tax Committee. Very high-income households have benefited handsomely — both absolutely and compared to the rest of the population — from both recent trends in pre-tax incomes and recent changes in tax policy. Congressional Budget Office data show that between 1979 and 2006 (the most recent year for which these data are available): [3]

The before-tax income of the top 1 percent of U.S. households increased by 226 percent, on average (after adjusting for inflation), compared to an increase of just 15 percent for families in the middle fifth of the income spectrum.

The effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent of households — i.e., the share of their income that they owe in taxes — fell substantially, from 37 percent to 31.2 percent.
The after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households increased by 256 percent, after adjusting for inflation, compared to an increase of 21 percent for families in the middle income quintile.
As a result, the share of the nation’s total after-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, from 7.5 percent in 1979 to 16.3 percent in 2006. Altogether, households in the top 1 percent of the population had $617 billion more income in 2006 (or $656 billion more if measured in 2009 dollars) than they would have had if the 1979 income distribution still prevailed.

The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the surcharge would raise $81 billion in 2019.[4] The Administration estimates that the tax increases for high-income households proposed in its budget[5] would raise $96 billion in 2019.[6] Thus, the combined effect of the Administration’s proposal to let tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of 2010 for people with incomes over $250,000 and the House Democrats’ new surcharge proposal would be to raise $177 billion from high-income households in 2019 ($153 billion when measured in 2009 dollars).

This means that the revenue raised from high-income households as a result of the surcharge plus the other Obama tax proposals would amount to less than a quarter of the $656 billion in after-tax income that has shifted to this group since 1979.

Tax Levels for Top Households Would Remain Well Below Pre-Reagan Levels

If Congress enacted both the surcharge and the President’s tax proposals — and also allowed the tax rate on dividends to return to 39.6 percent when the 2001 tax law expires (which almost certainly will not happen, given that the President has proposed to set the top tax rate on dividends at 20 percent) — the top 1 percent of households would face an effective federal tax rate of 34.4 percent, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.[7] While well above the 31.2 percent effective tax rate that these households faced in 2006, this level would be well below the 37 percent effective rate that prevailed in 1979. [8]

Thus, the surcharge combined with tax measures that the Administration has proposed would leave the top 1 percent of households with a federal tax burden (measured in the percentage of income paid in federal taxes) roughly halfway between its level just prior to President Reagan and its level after President George W. Bush’s tax cuts were enacted. In other words, these policies would reverse only part of the large reduction in tax burdens that very high-income households have enjoyed over the last three decades.

Surcharge Would Have Modest Impact on Small Businesses

Critics of the surcharge have exaggerated its potential impact on small businesses.

More than nine in ten small businesses would feel no impact whatsoever. Some 96 percent of taxpayers with business income would not owe the surcharge, according to both the Joint Tax Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center.[9] The 4 percent of remaining “small businesses” affected by the surcharge include taxpayers that stretch the definition of the term, including partners in large law and accounting firms and investors who have stakes in Wall Street investment partnerships. Even more striking, 1.4 percent of tax filers who have any business income both derive more than half of their total income from business sources and would face the surcharge, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Only a small share of those paying the surcharge would be small businesses. Claims that most affected taxpayers would be small businesses are incorrect. Just 23 percent of taxpayers who would pay the surcharge derive more than half of their income from a business (or businesses), according to the Tax Policy Center.[10]
During the current recession, small businesses are receiving tax cuts from the federal government, not tax increases. The economic recovery package that the Administration and Congress enacted in February includes tax cuts specifically aimed at small businesses. For example, the net operating loss provision of the recovery package applies only to small businesses and allows them to use losses they incurred in 2008 to secure refunds for taxes that they paid going back five years, instead of the usual two years. Meanwhile, the surcharge proposal, which would affect just a tiny share of small businesses as noted above, would not go into effect until 19 months from now, in 2011.
Businesses can choose to be either a “pass-through entity” or a C corporation. Some critics have asserted that the surcharge would place so-called “pass-through entities” (Subchapter S corporations, sole proprietorships, and partnerships) at a tax disadvantage compared to Schedule C corporations, since only the former would potentially owe the surcharge. But firms often organize themselves as pass-through entities in order to reduce their tax liability, and they could choose to organize themselves as Schedule C corporations instead if the surcharge made that preferable from a tax standpoint.

Several Elements of House Plan Designed to Help Small Businesses

The House plan would enhance the ability of small businesses to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. At present, smaller firms are much less likely than large firms to offer health benefits to their workers. When they do offer health benefits, the plans tend to provide less comprehensive benefits and impose higher deductibles. Moreover, workers with family coverage in small firms typically contribute significantly more to the cost of insurance than workers in large firms. The House plan would:

Eliminate insurers’ ability to increase premiums for small businesses based on their workers’ health status and other factors. In many states, insurers currently can vary the premiums they charge small businesses based on a number of factors, such as firm size, industry, geographic location, and the characteristics of their employees. If a small business has a disproportionate number of older workers (or if even a single employee incurs unusually high health expenses), it may find that quality health insurance is unavailable or is priced out of reach. The House plan would prohibit insurers from varying premiums due to health status and other factors, and it would sharply limit their ability to increase premiums for firms with older workers.
Allow small businesses to buy health coverage through a new health insurance exchange in order to lower administrative costs and ensure access to quality plans. At present, small employers pay more and get less for their health insurance dollars than large corporations do, in part because their administrative costs for health insurance are considerably greater. Allowing small businesses to purchase health insurance for their workers through the new health insurance exchange, as the House plan would do, would significantly reduce their administrative costs. The plan would also require all plans purchased through the exchange to meet certain minimum benefit standards. As a result, the exchange would make it easier for small businesses to find more comprehensive health plans at a more affordable price than is the case today.
Provide tax credits for the smallest firms to help them offer coverage. The smallest businesses, particularly those with larger shares of low-wage workers, tend to be least able to offer health coverage. The House plan would provide a tax credit of 50 percent of a small employer’s health insurance costs — a significant subsidy for very small firms.

In addition, the House plan’s requirement that employers provide health insurance or otherwise contribute to the cost of coverage for their workers should not have a major effect on small businesses. As the Congressional Budget Office has explained, employers would largely pass through the cost of meeting this type of requirement to their employees in the form of lower wages than the firm otherwise would pay, just as firms that do offer coverage pass through the costs to their workers. Because employees rather than employers would bear most of the cost, CBO finds that this type of requirement would have only a relatively minor effect on employment.^aFor the same reason, such a requirement should not substantially affect employers’ bottom line.

___________________

^a Congressional Budget Office, “Effects of Changes to the Health Insurance System on Labor Markets,” July 13, 2009.

Recent history contradicts the claim that raising taxes on high-income households weakens small-business job growth. Critics of proposals to increase taxes on upper-income households often argue that they would harm middle-income households by placing their jobs at risk. Critics of President Clinton’s economic plan made this argument in the early 1990s. Subsequent history, however, contradicted this claim: small-business job growth was more than twice as strong during the Clinton years, when Congress raised taxes on high-income households, than during the George W. Bush years, when Congress cut them. This experience shows that many factors affect job growth besides tax rates on high income individuals. [11]

End Notes:

[1] For a couple, the surcharge would represent 1 percent of income between $350,000 and $500,000; 1.5 percent of income between $500,000 and $1 million; and 5.4 percent of income in excess of $1 million. For an individual, the surcharge would represent 1 percent of income between $280,000 and $400,000; 1.5 percent of income between $400,000 and $800,000; and 5.4 percent of income in excess of $800,000. If the health cost savings the bill projects do not materialize, the 1 percent rate would rise to 2 percent and the 1.5 percent rate would rise to 3 percent.

[2] According to House Ways and Means Committee Fact Sheet, “Health Care Surcharge Would Not Affect 99% of Households,” July 14, 2009, http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/healthcs.pdf.

[3] Congressional Budget Office, “Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income,” April 2009,http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm.

[4] “Estimated Effects of the Revenue Provisions of H.R. 3200, The “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,’” Fiscal Years 2010 – 2019, JCX-31-09, July 14, 2009, http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3570.

[5] The Administration proposals are to reinstate the 36 and 39.6 percent tax brackets, reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions, and impose a 20 percent rate on capital gains and dividends on taxpayers earning more than $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single).

[6] Office of Management and Budget, Updated Summary Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010, May 2009, p. 22, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf.

[7] Tax Policy Center Table T09-0348, “America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 Surcharge on High Income Individuals,” July 14, 2009, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T09-0348.pdf.

[8] Congressional Budget Office, “Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households, by Comprehensive Household Income Quintile, 1979-2006,” April 2009, http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf .

[9] According to House Ways and Means Committee Fact Sheet, “Health Care Surcharge Would Not Affect 99% of Households,”http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/healthcs.pdf; Tax Policy Center Table T09-0351, “Distribution of Tax Units with Business Income, by Modified Adjusted Gross Income Level, 2011,” July 14, 2009,http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2426&DocTypeID=7 .

[10] Ibid .

[11] Jason Levitis and Chuck Marr, “History Contradicts Claim That President’s Budget Would Harm Small Business Job Creation,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 26, 2009, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2742.