Insurance, health interests fill Baucus' coffers

By Mike Dennison, Billings Gazette, State Bureau, published June 14

As Sen. Max Baucus has taken the lead on health reform legislation in the U.S. Senate, he also has become a leader in something else: campaign money received from health and insurance industry interests.

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana Democrat and his political action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical supply firms, health service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.

Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which is drafting a major health care reform bill this month, insists that this cascade of money is not unduly influencing his work.

"No matter the issue, Max always puts Montana first," said his spokesman, Ty Matsdorf. "Max will continue to do what's right for our state, and groups like SEIU (a union representing thousands of health care workers) and AARP (a senior citizens' group) wouldn't line up in support of his health care reform effort if this wasn't true."

Baucus' office also lists numerous examples of how his proposed reforms are challenging the health care and insurance industries, such as requiring insurers to accept all customers, regardless of health condition.

Yet some reform activists and others who watch the political system say it's foolish to think this money doesn't hold some sway.

"When you spend so much of your time raising money, as members of Congress do, from those who have a compelling interest in the outcome of legislation, it has to change what you think about it, and the viewpoints that you have," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch, a Washington, D.C., group that tracks money in politics. "It's just human nature. ... and members of Congress are human."

Advocates of national, public health insurance for all -- a proposal largely excluded from the health reform debate -- say their exclusion points to the power of moneyed interests in Congress.

"I'm convinced that this (money) has a profound influence," said Quentin Young, national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program. "Otherwise, how could Baucus, an otherwise respected and wise politician, say categorically that single-payer (national health insurance) is off the table?"

Only Baucus' Republican counterpart on the Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, rivals him in terms of percentage of funds from these business sectors.

The Gazette State Bureau examined fundraising data for Baucus, Grassley, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (who chairs the Senate Health Committee, which is drafting health reform legislation), the other two members of Montana's congressional delegation, and President Barack Obama.

The data are compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks and sorts campaign donors by profession and industry. Here's a summary of what the State Bureau discovered:

From 2003 to 2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health products, $851,000 from health professionals, $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance sector money includes donations from all types of insurance company interests, including health insurance.

• Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

• Grassley, the highest-ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, received 23.5 percent of his funds from health and insurance interests but a lesser dollar amount than Baucus ($2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds).

• Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a longtime advocate of health care reforms, received only 7.5 percent of his funds from health and insurance interests, or about $1.2 million.

• Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., had minimal contributions from the health and insurance sectors.

• Obama, whose campaign raised a whopping $745 million in 2007 and 2008, received a relatively small share from health care interests ($19 million, or 2.5 percent) and insurance interests ($2 million, or 0.3 percent).

Baucus has been leading the charge on health care reform in the U.S. Senate since early 2008, holding numerous hearings and Finance Committee meetings on the issue. He released a lengthy "white paper" last November, outlining his reform ideas, and a major bill is expected to be introduced this month.

The general thrust of his proposals is to require all citizens to buy health insurance while also forcing the private insurance industry to stop practices that make coverage unaffordable for many. He supports subsidies to those who may have trouble affording insurance.

However, on a reform bitterly opposed by the insurance industry and most health care interests - a public, nonprofit insurance plan offered by the government - Baucus has been more ambivalent, saying he supports the idea but declining to specify in what form.

Baucus's office supplied nearly 20 examples of stances he has taken in direct opposition to drug, insurance and banking interests that have donated to his campaign funds.

He has supported importing lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada, allowing the government to negotiate for lower drug prices for Medicare recipients, funding research that would show when generic drugs are a better deal than brand-name drugs and reducing Medicare payments to private insurers by $13 billion over five years.

His office also points to an April 2007 Wall Street Journal article in which Baucus was quoted as telling medical industry contributors at a fundraiser, "You should worry about me coming after you."

Donnelly, the Campaign Money Watch director, says the proof on health care reform will be in the final product - and that he's not terribly optimistic.

Health and insurance interests are clearly targeting Baucus and his Finance Committee, which often have shown themselves to be receptive to their influence, he said.

"This debate on health care is a microcosm ... that even after a 'change' election, how much the special interests view (Washington) as their fiefdom," Donnelly said.

Supporters of national health insurance are even less optimistic, noting how Baucus, Obama and leaders in Congress won't even consider their proposal, which they believe would have broad public support.

"I can't think of any reason other than fidelity to your donors, to explain why they would keep us out of the debate," said Young of the physicians group. "Until we get campaign finance reform, it will be very difficult to do anything to challenge the status quo (in health care), and the status quo had better be challenged, because it's a very bad status quo."

Read more!

Health insurance industry works on an image makeover

by Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press, March 15

WASHINGTON – The health insurance industry is working on a transformation that could come right out of "Extreme Makeover."

Long cast as villains for denying coverage or refusing to pay for treatment, insurers now are representing themselves as indispensable partners in health care overhaul. In their pitch to lawmakers, the companies say they are in a unique position to help improve quality and root out waste, saving money so everyone can be covered.

"They are making inroads," said John Rother, public policy director for AARP. "They are getting past the rhetoric and starting to talk about more concrete ideas for improving quality and getting value."

In a big change from three or four years ago, insurers are writing bigger campaign checks to Democrats, now the party of power in Washington. The insurance industry gave $10.7 million to Democratic candidates for federal office in the 2006 elections, according to OpenSecrets.org. Last year, it was $20.7 million.

The stakes are high.

If the industry's pitch succeeds, insurers will be guaranteed many more customers. The industry wants all people in the United States to be required to carry medical coverage, with government providing financial help for those who cannot afford it.
Even if insurers end up making less per customer because of anticipated consumer safeguards, they still could come out ahead.

But if the overhaul that President Barack Obama has promised goes against them, insurers could find themselves trying to compete against a new government-run health plan offering cut-rate premiums to middle-class families. That's exactly what many liberal Democrats want, and Obama hasn't taken the option off the table.

"No one is naive enough to believe that insurers aren't going to have problems with parts of this," Rother said. "But they are pushing back in a rather quiet way."

Said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans and the industry's top strategist in Washington: "We understand we need to come to the table with very specific solutions."

Ignagni is hedging her bets by building ties to groups such as small businesses, whose conservative outlook and grass- roots clout could be crucial.

Yet the industry has won a measure of respect from some longtime adversaries. "I have seen very few groups, including the insurance industry, that are willing to exercise the nuclear option and torpedo reform," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group. "They have participated in a good faith manner."

Others on the left are not convinced. "Private insurance is the problem," said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, a California-based group. "Individuals can't afford to be forced into buying private insurance."

If insurers have come to see government as a partner, that's not as strange as it may seem. Employer coverage has dwindled in recent years, but government programs for older people, children and the poor have grown into a vital business. The Medicare prescription drug benefit is delivered by private insurers. Also, about 10 million older people are signed up in Medicare managed care plans. Many states operate their Medicaid programs through private insurers. The same goes for the federally backed State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Government programs "are a significant contributor to growth for us," said Angela Braly, chief executive of Wellpoint, which covers 35 million people in 14 states. "We think we can be a significant part of the solution for the uninsured."

Insurance companies can do more than just pay claims, Braly said. They can use the data in their files to monitor whether doctors and hospitals are providing the right level of care — not too little, not too much.

For example, a soon-to-be released study by Wellpoint looks at treatment of back pain, a condition that costs roughly as much as cancer or diabetes to treat. Most back pain clears up in about six weeks, and national guidelines recommend postponing surgery and sophisticated imaging tests. But the study found that 35,000 patients had imaging tests and an additional 1,000 had surgery before the six weeks were up. Potential savings over a 12-month period: $23.6 million.
In the future, insurers could use such findings to cajole doctors into changing the way they practice.

"We think we can play a central role in delivering value," said Braly.

Wellpoint says such studies don't always endorse the low-tech option. Its research also found that a costly medication for multiple sclerosis was worth the investment, because it helped patients avoid relapses. But there's concern that insurers and government could one day use such studies to deny coverage for expensive new treatments and diagnostic tests.

It's hard to tell whether the industry's makeover will work. So far, the Obama administration doesn't seem to be sold. While Obama invited Ignagni to the White House health care summit, he's also asking Congress to slash payments to private insurance plans in Medicare. Far from being efficient, Obama says the plans get 14 cents more on the dollar than it costs to care for older people in the traditional program.

Read more!

Mark Weisbrot: Health Care Reform Is Needed Now More than Ever

Published on Monday, March 2, 2009 by McClatchy Newspapers

With the U.S. economy's downward spiral still accelerating and the federal government looking at its largest budget deficits since World War II, some are saying that this is not the time to expand health care coverage to all Americans.

But this is exactly the time for the Obama administration to move boldly on its campaign promise to implement a universal health care system.

Obama wants spending that stimulates the economy in the short term, but he also wants to reduce the long-term deficit problem after the economy recovers. This is exactly what health care reform will do.

In the short run, health care spending, like other government spending on goods and services, creates jobs and generates income. This will help arrest the economy's downward spiral.

With the collapse of private spending, the federal government must act as the consumer of last resort - hence the vital importance of the $787 billion stimulus package that Congress passed last week. Fortunately this package did contain at least some health care stimulus. In included $87 billion for Medicaid payments to the state governments, $25 billion towards helping unemployed workers extend their employment-based health insurance after being laid off, and $19 billion for health information technology.

But health care reform would do vastly more. President Obama has proposed a reform that would, while keeping the employer-based health insurance that covers most Americans, create a public health insurance system for the 46 million that do not have insurance. Large employers would be required to either pay into this system or provide their employees with insurance that is at least as good as the federal system. Individuals without insurance could buy into the public system, and the federal government would subsidize these payments so that they would be affordable for low-income households and those without ties to the labor force.

The White House estimates that their plan would cost $50-65 billion annually, but it would be better to spend much more than this, with more federal subsidies to employers to cover uninsured workers and improve existing coverage. As big as it may seem, the $787 billion stimulus bill passed by Congress amounts to less than 2.7 percent of GDP. This is not nearly enough to counteract our deep recession: the Congressional Budget Office estimates the output gap (i.e., how much output is below the economy's potential) at $2.9 trillion over the next three years.

Besides saving thousands of lives by providing health care to the uninsured, and supplementing the fiscal stimulus, health care reform has another huge advantage: it can drastically reduce future federal budget deficits. The vast majority of our government's long-term shortfall is due to exploding health care costs in the private sector. These spill over to the public sector, which currently finances about half the nation's health care costs. The United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as other high-income countries, and yet has worse health outcomes, including life expectancy and infant mortality.

The main economic reason for this colossal failure is that our system of private insurance and powerful monopolies is vastly more wasteful and inefficient than the health care systems of other developed countries. Insurance companies spend tens of billions trying to insure the healthy, avoid the sick, and deny payment for claims. Pharmaceutical companies take $350 billion of our health care dollars for drugs that cost a small fraction of that sum to produce.

The Obama health care plan won't eliminate most of these perverse incentives and waste - eventually we will need a truly national, single-payer system like Medicare to accomplish that. But it would be a big step in that direction, creating a nearly universal insurance system and laying the foundation for a sustainable system that can contain costs.

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. His column is distributed to newspapers by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Read more!

A Mother Asks President Obama To Be Honest About Healthcare

Note: The video from Wednesday's briefing on the Massachusetts healthcare system, which Donna Smith discusses here, is available online from Healthcare-Now.

by Donna Smith. Published on Friday, February 27 at CommonDreams.org

I am haunted again. Two stories told in very different venues and for very different reasons are nagging at my conscience. And I ponder the President's budget points designed to begin some down payment on healthcare reform. All I know for certain is that the two stories and the human suffering associated with them do not add up with Obama's confident campaign assertion of healthcare as a human right or the 10-year plan he'll now support as he charges Congress to work on larger reform issues.

We need honesty going forward. We need full disclosure of our options. We need courage and clarity. And we cannot have that if this President and this Congress participate is a pre-choreographed dance to reward the big health industry interests at the expense of the rest of us. Simply asking for-profit insurance giants to bid on Medicare Advantage business that is robbing many seniors and disabled folks of access to care they were promised under traditional Medicare is simply a poor attempt at gilding the lily - it is not reform.

During a briefing held in DC on Wednesday, Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School (we still think those credentials adequate, do we not?) recounted the shortcomings of the Massachusetts model for health reform. Plan after state plan has cost more than anticipated, covered fewer than the promised universal claims and left states like Massachusetts and those that came before them in the same mess now faced throughout the land with soaring costs, inadequate delivery of what is sold as the financial protection called "health insurance," and with health systems begging for more cash.

Yet it was Dr. Himmelstein's final points that left me shaken. He said he has just treated yet another cancer patient who has decided to decline chemotherapy because he or she cannot afford the co-pays associated with the treatment. Dr. Himmelstein will have no choice but to honor the patient's declination of treatment for what they both know is a curable cancer. My heart breaks just thinking about it. Getting a cancer diagnosis stinks. I know. My cancer ripped open my life. I had to fight like Obama's mother to make sure I kept my job and got care - even though I had insurance. And knowing another cancer patient is deciding to die due to a lack of cash in the state some want us all to model is barbaric. And I didn't fight for this hope for change to remain in a barbaric state of healthcare delivery and financing.

I do not think for one minute that my new President has truly internalized this struggle - nor that of his own mother - as this Massachusetts cancer patient decides to die rather than bankrupt his or her family. Some kill themselves more abruptly. Others live longer but often fight with insurance companies as Obama's mother did. But this person in Massachusetts is hurting - this American citizen is dying a preventable death. And I am at a loss about how President Obama would explain his down payment on reform to this patient or the patient's kids or spouse... especially when it could be fixed.

Then I listened to ABC News tell the story about a McDonalds employee in Arkansas who came to the defense of a female customer being attacked in the restaurant by another man. The abuser shot the McDonalds employee in the chest. And now the McDonalds workers comp insurance company has decided that the employee's medical bills of more than $300,000 should not be covered because the employee was not acting during the normal scope of employment. Huh? Apparently, McDonalds thinks employees who see crimes being committed should first remember that flipping burgers and salting fries are their duties, not defending customers. Again, how very barbaric. But no sign of our President on this one either, no siree.

But, he tells us, he gets it. Really? Either I need to take President Obama at his word that he gets the immediate suffering of the American people and is willing to allow insurance companies to dictate life and death - quite literally - for years longer and become even more powerful dictators of the value of American life or he is just flat lying and he doesn't get it at all. I don't really like either of those possibilities.

If either of these patients - one with cancer in Massachusetts or the other trying to recover from a gunshot wound to the chest in Arkansas - lived in any one of the other industrialized nations on earth, they'd be treated with dignity and get the care they need without going broke. Maybe hero pilot Sully can fly them to another nation that respects human life enough to help? Somehow I think that would be fitting. Sick Americans need a hero long about now - a 10-year plan or a lousy expansion of the defective product known as private health insurance won't cut it.

Making the insurance industry bigger and more powerful through expansions of "coverage" to the millions of uninsured is not the only answer. It isn't even the best answer. And the severity of the crisis demands intellectual and policy design honesty from the get-go. If the American people get three years down the road and have another and deeper mess in healthcare robbing them of health and financial security brought to them by this President and this Congress, it won't matter much who inherited what - especially if this part of the process was tainted by dishonesty and special interest powers.

Lofty rhetoric cannot hide a basic dishonesty of discourse and this President knows it. Doing what's right requires us to fully explore every option available. "Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Set You Free," seems maybe a verse we may want to explore. And this President is not allowing that -- yet. He is tightly controlling who offers opinion and testimony, and only those already friendly to his pre-selected agenda are welcomed.

Let's open next week's summit to all plans and ideas - all we have to fear is - well, we know the finish to that line. If we see all reform ideas explained, studied for their costs (and scored by the Congressional Budget Office), their benefits and evidence of their viability, and we hear testimony from clinical RNs and practicing doctors invited and prized in the same way as the opinions from corporate docs and industry vetted officials and industry friendly voices, then we'll know that our President is serious about honest reform.

So far, many who advocate for the publicly financed, privately delivered option for health reform have been purposely and carefully screened out. That's dishonest and shows a lack of confidence that if all the facts were known clearly by the American people that they would choose the currently preferred political strategy -- to keep the defective product of for-profit health insurance and expand it and truss it up with massive amounts of taxpayer money and package it as healthcare reform. If that is the outcome that has already been promised to the health insurance industry that so heavily invests in this President and his friends, then tell us that up front, skip the expense of the forums and the summits and the exercises in self-congratulatory polls and just tell the patients in Massachusetts and Arkansas that you don't give a damn - you have friends to whom you are beholden above and beyond the citizens of this nation.

On the other hand, if Dr. Himmelstein's cancer patient in Massachusetts deserves at least some of the care afforded another prominent Massachusetts cancer patient - Senator Ted Kennedy - then let's open up the process, be as honest as we can and get to it. Because if we let another 10 years go by, more than a million Americans will die preventable deaths with the life and death decisions administered by those who don't care about any one of us anywhere near as deeply as they care about profits.

Mr. President, fully vet and fully disclose every available option for healthcare reform. Invite all voices into the summit - even a patient or two. To do otherwise would dishonor your mother's struggle and the two patients haunting my thoughts. And as the mother of three sons, I hope I can trust that even political ambition cannot trump a son's love for the woman who gave him life and fought for his welfare even as she fought her own cancer.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for the California Nurses Association and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

Read more!

Josh Gerstein: It's Not Universal Health Care, but…

Published on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 by Politico.com

To the casual listener, President Barack Obama's promises on health care Tuesday may have sounded like an unequivocal vow to get all Americans health insurance coverage by the end of 2009.

But in reality, that's not exactly what he pledged Tuesday night.

Obama stressed the importance of "quality, affordable health care for every American" and struck an urgent tone. "Let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait and it will not wait another year," Obama said.

But in truth, Obama's speech contained several caveats and deliberately avoided language that could box in Obama as he turns swiftly toward health reform in coming weeks.

For one thing, Obama spoke of making a "down payment on the principle" of getting affordable health care for every American. It's a phrase that shows Obama believes that it could take some time to get everyone on board, and that helping everyone is a goal rather than a reality that will be achieved in the near future.

Parsing his statements even more closely, Obama never actually said he would get insurance coverage for all, just "quality, affordable health care."

And he stopped well short of setting any final timetable on broad-based healthcare - and also avoided the sweeping notion of providing "universal health care" to Americans, a phrase Obama himself largely avoids.

During his campaign, he was more specific than he was last night. ''We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama told a union convention in March 2007.

But if Obama left himself some wiggle room on the timing and particulars of a plan, he made clear he'll tackle it soon - even amidst the economic meltdown.

In fact, Obama said he believes solving the health-care crunch is an integral part to solving the recession - that he must do one to accomplish the other. In fact, Obama's talk on health-care often seems to spring more from the brain of an economist than the heart of a caregiver, as he often paints the solution in budgetary terms rather than in humanitarian ones.

"It's a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come," Obama said.

Obama pledged to convene a health-summit next week that will bring together "businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue."

And advocates on both sides at the issue will get a clearer picture of what Obama has in mind when he releases his first budget Thursday.

Already some who favor universal coverage are watching Obama's words - and actions - very closely.

Ron Pollack of Families USA said he would accept a bill that phased in universal coverage. But he said before Obama's address that "piecemeal" legislation that covered some people now and left others to be dealt with later would be "truly troublesome."

Obama's delicate dance on health care reform is made more difficult by the fight he had with Hillary Clinton over the issue during the Democratic primary contest last year. Clinton favored requiring all Americans to get insurance-in policy parlance, a mandate.

Obama rejected that approach, saying he expected that most uninsured people would buy coverage if it was cheap enough. Obama isn't expected to endorse the mandate many experts say is essential to achieve "universal" coverage - but he's also expected to go along in the likely event that Congress includes one in health reform legislation.

A blogger with the American Prospect, Ezra Klein, reported Tuesday that Obama's new budget will strike an aspirational tone, by urging Congress to "aim for universality." White House spokesmen declined to confirm that language, though one top budget official did take issue with a portion of the Prospect report that said the budget's wording on health care "is changing hourly."

"The budget overview has been at the printer since Friday," said the official, who asked not to be named.

Read more!

PNHP: Massachusetts Is No Model for National Health Care Reform

Another reason to urge your Representative to attend a briefing this Wednesday on the serious problems with Massachusetts health care reform. A new study by Physicians for a National Health Program reveals serious gaps and inadequacies in the state's mandated individual coverage. Physicians and this public interest group now urge Sen. Kennedy to introduce single-payer legislation.

The Massachusetts health care system, widely regarded as an example of how to provide universal coverage and keep costs low, is in fact faltering badly and should not be held up as a national model for reform, according to a study released this week by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and Public Citizen.

The study comes at a time when the health insurance industry is reportedly weighing in heavily in secret talks on Capitol Hill in favor of an individual mandate, a legal obligation requiring persons to have or to buy health insurance. The insurance industry's position was described in today's New York Times.

However, such mandates - which have been a cornerstone of the Massachusetts health reform - have failed to assure universal coverage, the new study says. For example, the state's most recent figures show that it had to exempt 79,000 residents from the mandate in 2007 because they could not afford to buy insurance.

The Massachusetts plan has also failed to make health care sufficiently affordable or to control costs, the report says.

The groups urged Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to reject his home state's approach and, instead, introduce Senate legislation crafted after the House's United States National Health Care Act, H.R. 676, which would implement single-payer financing of health care while maintaining the private delivery system. The two groups also released a letter to Kennedy signed by approximately 500 Massachusetts physicians and health professionals urging the senator to embrace single-payer reform.

"Massachusetts physicians have the unique opportunity to observe the effects of this reform on patients every day," said Dr. Rachel Nardin, president of the Massachusetts chapter of PNHP and lead author of the study. "The nearly 500 doctors who have signed the open letter to Sen. Kennedy see that the reform is deeply flawed." [Read Dr. Nardin's statement here.]

PNHP's study of the Massachusetts model found that the state's 2006 reforms, instead of reducing costs, have been more expensive than expected. The budget overruns have forced the state to siphon about $150 million from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics.

Many low-income residents, who used to receive completely free care, now face co-payments, premiums and deductibles under the new system - financial burdens that prevent many of them from receiving necessary medical treatment. Since the state's reforms passed, premiums under the state insurance program have increased 9.4 percent. The study found that if a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan got sick, he or she could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.

Many residents remain uninsured or have inadequate insurance.

Under a single-payer system, doctors, hospitals and other health care providers are paid from a single fund administered by the government.

"We are facing a health-care crisis in this country because private insurers are driving up costs with unnecessary overhead, bloated executive salaries and an unquenchable quest for profits - all at the expense of American consumers," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "Massachusetts' failed attempt at reform is little more than a repeat of experiments that haven't worked in other states. To repeat that model on a national scale would be nothing short of Einstein's definition of insanity." [Read Dr. Wolfe's statement here.]

The study reported that a national nonprofit single-payer system could save Massachusetts about $8 billion to $10 billion a year in reduced administrative costs. Currently, Americans spend 31 cents of every health care dollar on administrative costs, by far the highest rate in the world and much higher than the 17 cents spent in Canada, which has single-payer universal health care.

"Big hospitals and insurers have gotten rich off reform, but a survey shows that more people directly affected by it have been harmed that helped," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a PNHP co-founder and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who helped prepare the study. "We're seeing patients who now can't afford vital medications and treatments that they've been on for years because of the new co-payments and deductibles imposed by the law." [Read Dr. Woolhandler's statement here.]

To read the PHNP report, click here. For a letter from Massachusetts labor organizations to President Obama, click here. To read about how the Massachusetts law has affected some residents, see this article at Public Citizen.

Read more!

Cognitive Dissonance: The Healthcare Reform Battle's State of Mind

by Donna Smith. Published on Friday, January 30, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

It seems everyone in the healthcare reform movement is hitching up his or her britches and feeling mighty proud of the prospects for action under President Obama and the adoring Democrats in his Congressional arsenal. Even some prominent Republicans are inching ever closer to supporting change to the broken health system. But I'm feeling significant dissonance between the words spoken and the policy offered to move forward.

So listening to the speakers here at the Families USA Health Action meeting this week has been upsetting - OK, it is outrageous to watch these folks being self-congratulatory while also promoting those purporting the overhaul of the health system with the biggest bailout we've yet given any industry in recent months. The proposed mandates for all Americans to purchase private, for-profit health-insurance (or buy into a public pool that will be weakened by the insurance interests) is being sold to us as reform and it simply is not. And my brain hurts from the disconnect.

I cannot reconcile Princeton's Uwe Reinhardt's message that we've become an aristocracy - not a middle-class society or even a democracy - with his embrace of the insurance industry and expansion of the broken healthcare system that clearly provides better healthcare protection for our American royalty and not the peasants among us. He carefully charts for us the rising debt of American families - including crushing medical debt assumed under the for-profit health insurance based system-and the lack of savings by Americans in recent years. But there is little acknowledgment that some of the debt and lack of savings directly relates to the increased costs American families and workers must shoulder for health coverage - health coverage that doesn't adequately protect financial standing.

Sen . Charles Grassley of Iowa assured the crowd that there's a big difference between the Hillary Clinton plans of years gone by and the Obama plan now - "He (Obama) will stick to his guns on a private-public mix (for insurance)." Grassley goes on to say everyone knows you get over-utilization when you have "gold-plated" plans. The implication is always that if you give access to care then millions of us will clamor to sit in doctors' offices and get procedures and tests done simply because we have the means to do so. I actually think the gold-plated stuff will be reserved for Sen. Grassley and his cohorts - the rest of us will work hard to even get a plan that can assure minimal coverage or care. Grassley said they'd remind the Democrats that they said they'd adhere to a "pay as you go" with healthcare reform and other programs. Here's the nod to the "bi-partisan" efforts we hear will guide the day for us all - the new agenda, the cooperation that will bring us all to the promised land of expansion of the insurance industry.

Then the Dems. I hear Rep. Steny Hoyer rightfully cite his outrage about a Maryland child dying for want of a tooth extraction, yet stay safely and clearly away from angering the insurance industry. I listen as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan talk about her compassion for families struggling for care yet quickly adding when she talks about providing healthcare for immigrants that we should reward with healthcare those doing "the right thing." I have a hard time reconciling the disconnect between the suffering unfolding every day - death by death by denial by denial - as the dance continues.

We want a "uniquely American" answer to the healthcare nightmare, they all say. I've heard that until my brain hurts just considering it. Oh, we're unique all right. We're the only industrialized nation on earth that tolerates the killing of its citizens on our own soil at the hands of this healthcare system and then wants to fix it all by handing more business, more money and more power to the same industry committing the murders. That's unique enough.

None of this sounds like the language of basic human rights. And I think I heard our new President say that he clearly understood healthcare to be a human right in response to a debate question just a few months ago. That was such a gift just to hear the words spoken. I just know he knows that this basic human right is not going to be protected by hoodwinking the American people into bailing out the insurance industry.

The heavily funded activists (come on folks, that alone should send up big, red flags - heavily funded activists for human rights?) pushing for a private-public national healthcare policy are in and of themselves a conundrum to me. I hear on the one hand the message that the private, for-profit health insurance industry is very bad indeed - blocking healthcare through denials and high premiums and all the practices the American people have had to endure for years. But then I also see the activists and the industry folks co-mingling ever so deftly in a dance of political theater aimed at convincing us all that in response to demands for insurance regulation and restriction the industry will put up a fight but then capitulate to the demands or risk being left behind.

Look at the list of bedfellows and trust your instincts America. Like our moms and dads taught us, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what? It's a duck. A bailout called healthcare reform is still a bailout even if we're told otherwise. If AARP and UnitedHealth Care and Wal-Mart and SEIU and the others in the HCAN coalition are joining hands and forces, is there anyone among us who doesn't know that's about money and power and influence still? That's a duck. And that's going to be a very well treated duck.

So, let me get this straight... the insurance industry has been a big part of the problem. Worse. The industry has allowed the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year in order to protect profits.

I think of dead -- 2-year-old Mychelle Keyes and dead 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan and dead 38-year-old Tracy Pierce, and that dead little boy with an infected tooth in Maryland -- and I don't wonder at all what the new for-profit insurance-friendly political coalitions are fighting to protect. And it isn't the future Mychelle's or Nataline's or Tracy's. They are fighting to protect the folks who killed them.

All of these dead were killed at the hands of the industry now being simultaneously chastised and coveted. This same greedy industry can be trusted to roll over just a little while helping craft their own industry's regulations going forward? Oh, yes, that seat at the table is firmly fixed and being kept ever so warm for the insurance folks. In exchange for setting some of their own regulation, the insurance industry will be rewarded with the business of millions more of us who have had absolutely no say in the matter. None.

Those Americans not acting as political operatives for the quasi-activists organizing the reform transition for the insurance industry are not exactly anxious to hear from you and me. No, they have well-heeled and well-connected leaders who rub elbows and move easily within all of the halls of power where we can never go.

And unless we rise up and say we know what is going on and we smell a lot of big, fat rats, reform that expands the broken system and enriches the already elite of the healthcare profit-mongers will be sold to us by bipartisan bluffing and insurance company operatives slip-sliding us forward.

As for me, I will keep listening to Rep. John Conyers talk about human rights and healthcare for all and the long arc of history leaning towards justice. Oh, and his talk about how the automakers just barely across the river in Canada can build cars much more cheaply than in his native Michigan because they don't suffer the health-insurance nightmare. Huh? Human rights and good business. I do like the quack of that. And my dissonance subsides...

Donna Smith is a community organizer for the California Nurses Association and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

Read more!

Robert Scheer: Why the Rush on TARP 2?

First published on Truthdig, reposted January 14, at The Nation.

Why rush to throw another $350 billion of taxpayer money at the Wall Street bandits and their political cronies who created the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression? And why should we taxpayers be expected to double our debt exposure when the ten still-secret bailout contracts made in the first round are being kept from the public?

We don't have time, President-elect Barack Obama's key economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, insisted in a letter to Congress on Monday, promising that the new infusion would not be squandered as was the first installment. But given that Summers is personally as responsible for this meltdown as anyone, why should we trust him on this? Yes, it sounds wonderfully bipartisan that Obama is backing President Bush's request for spending the money now, short-circuiting congressional inquiry, but it was just that sort of bipartisan politics that created this nightmare.

How insulting that we must now accept Summers's assurance that the Obama administration will "move quickly to reform a weak and outdated regulatory system to better protect consumers, investors and businesses." This from the guy who, as President Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, pushed the deregulation legislation making the subsequent financial crimes of Wall Street legal. The "toxic derivatives" that we taxpayers are now forced to purchase from the Wall Street hustlers were deliberately shielded from all government regulation, thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Summers got Congress to pass in the closing days of the Clinton administration with the same urgency that he now pushes for the new Wall Street handout.

Back then, Summers was a disciple of Robert Rubin, who just last week resigned from his director's position at Citigroup, the financial conglomerate that grew to unmanageable and corrupt proportions thanks to the empowering legislation that Rubin initiated when he was Clinton's first treasury secretary. Rubin has been paid more than $115 million plus stock options at Citigroup, and despite his horrid record is a close Obama adviser. It is one of the great swindles of US financial history that Citigroup was bailed out with $45 billion in a deal that could eventually cost taxpayers an additional $269 billion to guarantee those toxic assets that would have been illegal if not for the legislation backed by Rubin and Summers.

How did Obama allow himself to become ensnared with the very same folks who are the most culpable? His treasury secretary nominee, Timothy Geithner, is another Rubin protégé, who, as head of the New York Fed, worked tirelessly with Rubin to concoct the Citigroup bailout. When candidate Obama gave his major economic address back on March 27, he couldn't have been clearer in condemning the deregulation that Rubin and Summers had engineered:

"Unfortunately, instead of establishing a twenty-first-century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one--aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner-take-all, anything-goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy."

He was referring to the deregulation legislation that Summers hailed on the day that Clinton signed it into law as "a major step forward to the twenty-first century." Now Obama is relying on Summers to reverse a disaster of his own creation. It's like returning to the same surgeon who almost killed the patient in the first operation to once again cut open the body to repair the damage.

What we need is a second opinion.

Where is the openness and accountability that Obama promised? Why not pause for a few weeks for congressional hearings on how to spend the new money? We don't even know where the last batch went. On Monday, the Treasury Department finally agreed, and only after a subpoena threat, to turn over to Sen. Carl Levin and his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations the ten secret contracts that it signed with top Wall Street firms in the first round of the bailout. Unfortunately, the subcommittee has no plans to make those contracts public, according to a Levin aide quoted in the New York Times.

That is outrageous. This is our money we're talking about. Why don't we get to read the fine print in what will end up being trillions of dollars in taxpayer obligations? Because we are suckers, that's why, and the folks who swindled us into this disaster can count on it.

Read more!

Legal Fights, Policy Debates Deepen Over Voting Problems and Solutions

By Steven Rosenfeld, posted on October 29 at AlterNet

With one week to go before the 2008 presidential election, the differences between the political left and right over what is wrong in American elections – and the solutions for Election Day – may be at their most stark and divisive in decades.

On the political right, led by Republican officials and officeholders, is an ever-increasing drumbeat that illegal voters are poised to steal the election. This claim is not hyperbole, but the opening line of a new radio ad by the Ohio Republican Party that began airing Tuesday. Meanwhile, in Lake County, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, the Illinois Republican Party is suing to force all voter registration forms turned in by a low income advocacy group – not ACORN – to be separated, flagged and treated as a second-class of ballots that would have to be validated after Election Day before being counted.

The legal action comes after Lake County Clerk, Willard Helander, a Republican, said that she had received about 1,000 questionable voter registrations from this group, in a county with 400,000 registered voters. Never mind that the number of voter registrations in question, at least when Helander was interviewed two weeks ago, was .25 percent of her county’s total voters, or as Stephen Weir, President of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, said in a recent e-mail, for registration drives the “rough rule of thumb, (is) 44 percent are new registrants, the others are change of name, change of party, change of address, and some are just duplicates.”

The point is that Republicans, first and foremost, see an American electorate that is more interested in voting than at any time since the civil rights era of the 1960s, and instead of embracing those voters, their response has been to demonize the citizenry, vilify voter registration groups, and go to court to create bureaucratic obstacles to block a free and fair vote.

On the center-left, led by voting rights groups whose philosophical roots are in the civil rights movement, are lawyers and voting rights activists who believe that the historic promise of American democracy is based on expanding the right to vote and engaging Americans in elections. Their priority is to ensure the widest possible voter turnout, especially among new voters. This places them at philosophical odds with today’s Republicans -- who are not exactly emulating the party of Lincoln.

These modern civil rights groups have been fighting -- and winning -- most court battles with the GOP in recent weeks over who can vote and which ballots will count. But there are new concerns in recent days that have overtaken their attention. Groups such as the NAACP, Advancement Project, Voter Action, Demos, and others now believe some swing states are not prepared to accommodate a big turnout on Election Day. Moreover, when scrutinizing plans -- such as voting machine and poll worker assignments and new voter registration data -- they see many instances of white communities receiving a disproportionate share of resources when compared to minorities.

In Pennsylvania, this conflict is seen in litigation filed this week against that state’s Democratic secretary of state for a failure to provide back-up paper ballots if voting machines fail. On a more local level -- because county officials run elections -- are machine allocations may have drastically underestimated minority precincts.

The NAACP this week sued the state of Virginia, which has a Democratic governor, urging election officials reallocate voting machines and poll workers. Here is how a Washington Post op-ed by Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean of the U.C. Berkeley Law School, summed up the voting rights community’s philosophy and the current situation on the ground, which was extensively documented by the Advancement Project:

"Suppose in your neighborhood there are 600 registered voters per machine, while across town there are only 120 per machine. (That's a 5 to 1 disparity, which is what exists in some places in Virginia today.) On Election Day, your line wraps around the block and looks to be a four-hour wait, while in other areas lines are nonexistent.

"This ought to be a crime. It amounts to a 'time-tax' on your right to vote, and some of your neighbors will undoubtedly give up and go home. This scenario raises three questions: Nationwide, will it discourage tens of thousands, or untold millions? Which presidential candidate and down-ballot candidates might benefit from this 'tax'? And what can be done in the next few days?"

These voting rights advocates are at odds not just with the GOP in courtroom battles in swing states, but also with election officials, some of who are Democrats. But there is yet another slice of the political spectrum that has its own views about what is wrong with American elections. This is a segment of the activist left, which almost exclusively focuses on the problems associated with computerized voting machinery.

As early voting has begun across the country, there has been a rising tide of reports about voting machine failures and corresponding cries of alarm aimed at the election officials, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party for not taking these problems seriously -- because voting machine failures mean an inability to accurately record and count votes. Two websites that have chronicled the machine failures are VotersUnite.org, which has a daily digest of news reports, and Bradblog.com, which increasingly predicts a massive meltdown will occur on November 4.

There are several real questions with the electronic voting problems. The first concerns magnitude or scale: how many votes will be affected. A news account of a vote jumping between candidates only tells of one or two voters, but if that machine stays in use it could affect hundreds. The second concern is whether public officials -- or the private contractors they hire to run the voting machines -- are able to fix the problems before Election Day, when turnout will spike. Finally, the machine-related problems that have surfaced thus far have not involved counting the vote, only recording it. Thus, a larger and more significant test of these machines is yet to come.

As John Gideon, the editor of VotersUnite’s Daily Voting News wrote in his October 28th report, the Election Day prognosis is not good:


"This morning is the revelation that some Georgia polling places have had lines with as long as 8 hours waiting time due to their voter registration data base being slow. The state claims that the problem is the turnout but that explanation does not make sense in the real world. The number of poll site computers feeding into the central data base computer dictates how fast that system is; not the number of voters. On Election Day there will be many, many more poll site computers all feeding into the central computer at the same time. Things will probably get much, much slower and lines will grow longer."

The key question is what can be done in the next few days to prevent a meltdown on Election Day. In some cases, the answers -- or obstacles -- will follow partisan lines, most notably where the GOP is still seeking to litigate, such as in Lake County, Illinois, or in Ohio where the White House has even asked the Justice Department to intervene on the behalf of the Ohio Republican Party. In other cases, the question of what positive steps can be taken may be more one of political will than available answers.

On Tuesday, though some legal questions remain, Florida’s Republican Governor, Charlie Crist -- perhaps the most progressive national figure in his party on voting issues -- ordered early voting hours be extended to accommodate voters. In Georgia, another GOP state, more early voting centers opened, despite a computer crash that delayed voting for hours.

These responses underscore that there is still time left for some common sense solutions in battleground states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. However, it is notable that those two states do not have early voting. That means that the mistakes and problems that have emerged in early voting in 34 other states -- which theoretically can be addressed by Election Day -- will not surface in these two states until next Tuesday.

“This is new territory and remedies must be pushed through Election Day,” said Eddie Hailes, an Advancement Project Senior Attorney, speaking of the need for proactive steps in those two states. “We have more voter advocates and resources than ever before to push for creative, meaningful alternatives to disenfranchising people who are unable to stand in long lines while others in different zip codes breeze through their voting experiences.

“Election officials can permit voters in DRE (paperless voting machine) jurisdictions to opt for paper ballots if they are in lines for longer than 45 minutes, provide additional ballots with clip boards for voters who don't demand privacy booths, and convert demonstration machines into machines that are available to all voters on Election Day.”

No matter what happens between now and Election Day, voting and voting issues are now before the American public with a depth that has not been seen in decades. The lines that are being drawn by partisans will not go away after Election Day. Whatever unfolds between now and next Tuesday will frame upcoming battles in Congress and in state legislatures starting next January.

Yet beneath all the partisan fury and legal and technical details are a few basic questions that frame the conflicting viewpoints: are new voters being welcomed or rejected; what more do election officials need to do to accommodate voters; and can the technology be trusted to accurately record and count votes.

Read more!

Kennedy & Palast in Rolling Stone: It's already stolen (maybe)

Up on the Rolling Stone website: "Block the Vote," an investigative report by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast that reveals "a systemic program of 'GOP vote tampering' on a massive scale.

Among the finds:

• Republican Secretaries of State in Colorado have purged one out of six names from the voter rolls--ten times the state's average rate of removal.
  
• 2.7 million new voters have had their registrations rejected under new registration provisions--which Kennedy sees as a return to Jim Crow-era tactics designed to block African-American and Latino/a voters.
  
• A fired US prosecutor has accused Republican of criminal acts in their attempts to label bona fide voters as fraudulent.
  
• In 2004, caging blocked 1.1 million voters from voting. Three weeks from now, says Palast and Kennedy, the numbers will be much higher.
  

Palast and Kennedy have found more voters scrubbed from the rolls than a recent investigative report in the New York Times. Their conclusion: "If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat McCain at the polls--they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering."

And don't miss Steal Back Your Vote, a 24-page comic detailing who's threatening election integrity, why, and what we can do about it, written by Palast and Kennedy with art by Lukas Ketner, Lloyd Dangle and Ted Rall, available for download for a donation of any amount, from 1 cent up. 

Historically, stealing elections has been a non-partisan activity: both Democrats and Republicans were happy to disenfranchise voters and mess with the rolls and the ballots. But this new wave of GOP anti-voter activity has been part and parcel of the party's 1990s resurgence, according to Kennedy and Palast:

Suppressing the vote has long been a cornerstone of the GOP's electoral strategy. Shortly before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Paul Weyrich — a principal architect of today's Republican Party — scolded evangelicals who believed in democracy. "Many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo goo' syndrome — good government," said Weyrich, who co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. "They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

The Rolling Stone report details six areas where the GOP, empowered--ironically--by reforms created by the Help America Vote Act--has been eagerly blocking citizens from voting.

Read more!

Can Obama See the Grand Canyon: On Presidential Blindness and Economic Catastrophe

by Mike Davis, author of In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire. First published on TomDispatch.com on Wednesday, October 15

Let me begin, very obliquely, with the Grand Canyon and the paradox of trying to see beyond cultural or historical precedent.

The first European to look into the depths of the great gorge was the conquistador Garcia Lopez de Cardenas in 1540. He was horrified by the sight and quickly retreated from the South Rim. More than three centuries passed before Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives of the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers led the second major expedition to the rim. Like Garcia Lopez, he recorded an "awe that was almost painful to behold." Ives's expedition included a well-known German artist, but his sketch of the Canyon was wildly distorted, almost hysterical.

Neither the conquistadors nor the Army engineers, in other words, could make sense of what they saw; they were simply overwhelmed by unexpected revelation. In a fundamental sense, they were blind because they lacked the concepts necessary to organize a coherent vision of an utterly new landscape.

Accurate portrayal of the Canyon only arrived a generation later when the Colorado River became the obsession of the one-armed Civil War hero John Wesley Powell and his celebrated teams of geologists and artists. They were like Victorian astronauts reconnoitering another planet. It took years of brilliant fieldwork to construct a conceptual framework for taking in the canyon. With "deep time" added as the critical dimension, it was finally possible for raw perception to be transformed into consistent vision.

The result of their work, The Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District, published in 1882, is illustrated by masterpieces of draftsmanship that, as Powell's biographer Wallace Stegner once pointed out, "are more accurate than any photograph." That is because they reproduce details of stratigraphy usually obscured in camera images. When we visit one of the famous viewpoints today, most of us are oblivious to how profoundly our eyes have been trained by these iconic images or how much we have been influenced by the idea, popularized by Powell, of the Canyon as a museum of geological time.

But why am I talking about geology? Because, like the Grand Canyon's first explorers, we are looking into an unprecedented abyss of economic and social turmoil that confounds our previous perceptions of historical risk. Our vertigo is intensified by our ignorance of the depth of the crisis or any sense of how far we might ultimately fall.

Weimar Returns in Limbaughland

Let me confess that, as an aging socialist, I suddenly find myself like the Jehovah's Witness who opens his window to see the stars actually falling out of the sky. Although I've been studying Marxist crisis theory for decades, I never believed I'd actually live to see financial capitalism commit suicide. Or hear the International Monetary Fund warn of imminent "systemic meltdown."

Thus, my initial reaction to Wall Street's infamous 777.7 point plunge a few weeks ago was a very sixties retro elation. "Right on, Karl!" I shouted. "Eat your derivatives and die, Wall Street swine!" Like the Grand Canyon, the fall of the banks can be a terrifying but sublime spectacle.

But the real culprits, of course, are not being trundled off to the guillotine; they're gently floating to earth in golden parachutes. The rest of us may be trapped on the burning plane without a pilot, but the despicable Richard Fuld, who used Lehman Brothers to loot pension funds and retirement accounts, merely sulks on his yacht.

Out in the stucco deserts of Limbaughland, moreover, fear is already being distilled into a good ol' boy version of the "stab in the back" myth that rallied the ruined German petite bourgeoisie to the swastika. If you listen to the rage on commute AM, you'll know that ‘socialism' has already taken a lien on America, Barack Hussein Obama is terrorism's Manchurian candidate, the collapse of Wall Street was caused by elderly black people with Fannie Mae loans, and ACORN in its voter registration drives has long been padding the voting rolls with illegal brown hordes.

In other times, Sarah Palin's imitation of Father Charles Coughlin -- the priest who preached an American Reich in the 1930s -- in drag might be hilarious camp, but with the American way of life in sudden freefall, the specter of star-spangled fascism doesn't seem quite so far-fetched. The Right may lose the election, but it already possesses a sinister, historically-proven blueprint for rapid recovery.

Progressives have no time to waste. In the face of a new depression that promises folks from Wasilla to Timbuktu an unknown world of pain, how do we reconstruct our understanding of the globalized economy? To what extent can we look to either Obama or any of the Democrats to help us analyze the crisis and then act effectively to resolve it?

Is Obama FDR?

If the Nashville "town hall" debate is any guide, we will soon have another blind president. Neither candidate had the guts or information to answer the simple questions posed by the anxious audience: What will happen to our jobs? How bad will it get? What urgent steps should be taken?

Instead, the candidates stuck like flypaper to their obsolete talking points. McCain's only surprise was yet another innovation in deceit: a mortgage relief plan that would reward banks and investors without necessarily saving homeowners.

Obama recited his four-point program, infinitely better in principle than his opponent's preferential option for the rich, but abstract and lacking in detail. It remains more a rhetorical promise than the blueprint for the actual machinery of reform. He made only passing reference to the next phase of the crisis: the slump of the real economy and likely mass unemployment on a scale not seen for 70 years.

With baffling courtesy to the Bush administration, he failed to highlight any of the other weak links in the economic system: the dangerous overhang of credit-default swap obligations left over from the fall of Lehman Brothers; the trillion-dollar black hole of consumer credit-card debt that may threaten the solvency of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America; the implacable decline of General Motors and the American auto industry; the crumbling foundations of municipal and state finance; the massacre of tech equity and venture capital in Silicon Valley; and, most unexpectedly, sudden fissures in the financial solidity of even General Electric.

In addition, both Obama and his vice presidential partner Joe Biden, in their support for Secretary of the Treasury Paulson's plan, avoid any discussion of the inevitable result of cataclysmic restructuring and government bailouts: not "socialism," but ultra-capitalism -- one that is likely to concentrate control of credit in a few leviathan banks, controlled in large part by sovereign wealth funds but subsidized by generations of public debt and domestic austerity.

Never have so many ordinary Americans been nailed to a cross of gold (or derivatives), yet Obama is the most mild-mannered William Jennings Bryan imaginable. Unlike Sarah Palin who masticates the phrase "the working class" with defiant glee, he hews to a party line that acknowledges only the needs of an amorphous "middle class" living on a largely mythical "Main Street."

If we are especially concerned about the fate of the poor or unemployed, we are left to read between the lines, with no help from his talking points that espouse clean coal technology, nuclear power, and a bigger military, but elide the urgency of a renewed war on poverty as championed by John Edwards in his tragically self-destructed primary campaign. But perhaps inside the cautious candidate is a man whose humane passions transcend his own nearsighted centrist campaign. As a close friend, exasperated by my chronic pessimism, chided me the other day, "don't be so unfair. FDR didn't have a nuts and bolts program either in 1933. Nobody did."

What Franklin D. Roosevelt did possess in that year of breadlines and bank failures, according to my friend, was enormous empathy for the common people and a willingness to experiment with government intervention, even in the face of the monolithic hostility of the wealthy classes. In this view, Obama is MoveOn.org's re-imagining of our 32nd president: calm, strong, deeply in touch with ordinary needs, and willing to accept the advice of the country's best and brightest.

The Death of Keynesianism

But even if we concede to the Illinois senator a truly Rooseveltian or, even better, Lincolnian strength of character, this hopeful analogy is flawed in at least three principal ways:

First, we can't rely on the Great Depression as analog to the current crisis, nor upon the New Deal as the template for its solution. Certainly, there is a great deal of déjà vu in the frantic attempts to quiet panic and reassure the public that the worst has passed. Many of Paulson's statements, indeed, could have been directly plagiarized from Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, and both presidential campaigns are frantically cribbing heroic rhetoric from the early New Deal. But just as the business press has been insisting for years, this is not the Old American Economy, but an entirely new-fangled contraption built from outsourced parts and supercharged by instantaneous world markets in everything from dollars and defaults to hog bellies and disaster futures.

We are seeing the consequences of a perverse restructuring that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan and which has inverted the national income shares of manufacturing (21% in 1980; 12% in 2005) and those of financial services (15% in 1980; 21% in 2005). In 1930, the factories may have been shuttered but the machinery was still intact; it hadn't been auctioned off at five cents on the dollar to China.

On the other hand, we shouldn't disparage the miracles of contemporary market technology. Casino capitalism has proven its mettle by transmitting the deadly virus of Wall Street at unprecedented velocity to every financial center on the planet. What took three years at the beginning of the 1930s -- that is, the full globalization of the crisis -- has taken only three weeks this time around. God help us, if, as seems to be happening, unemployment tops the levees at anything like the same speed.

Second, Obama won't inherit Roosevelt's ultimate situational advantage -- having emergent tools of state intervention and demand management (later to be called "Keynesianism") empowered by an epochal uprising of industrial workers in the world's most productive factories.

If you've been watching the sad parade of economic gurus on McNeil-Lehrer, you know that the intellectual shelves in Washington are now almost bare. Neither major party retains more than a few enigmatic shards of policy traditions different from the neo-liberal consensus on trade and privatization. Indeed, posturing pseudo-populists aside, it is unclear whether anyone inside the Beltway, including Obama's economic advisors, can think clearly beyond the indoctrinated mindset of Goldman Sachs, the source of the two most prominent secretaries of the treasury over the last decade.

Keynes, now suddenly mourned, is actually quite dead. More importantly, the New Deal did not arise spontaneously from the goodwill or imagination of the White House. On the contrary, the social contract for the post-1935 Second New Deal was a complex, adaptive response to the greatest working-class movement in our history, in a period when powerful third parties still roamed the political landscape and Marxism exercised extraordinary influence on American intellectual life.

Even with the greatest optimism of the will, it is difficult to imagine the American labor movement recovering from defeat as dramatically as it did in 1934-1937. The decisive difference is structural rather than ideological. (Indeed, today's union movement is much more progressive than the decrepit, nativist American Federation of Labor in 1930.) The power of labor within a Walmart-ized service economy is simply more dispersed and difficult to mobilize than in the era of giant urban-industrial concentrations and ubiquitous factory neighborhoods.

Is War the Answer?

The third problem with the New Deal analogy is perhaps the most important. Military Keynesianism is no longer an available deus ex machina. Let me explain.

In 1933, when FDR was inaugurated, the United States was in full retreat from foreign entanglements, and there was little controversy about bringing a few hundred Marines home from the occupations of Haiti and Nicaragua. It took two years of world war, the defeat of France, and the near collapse of England to finally win a majority in Congress for rearmament, but when war production finally started up in late 1940 it became a huge engine for the reemployment of the American work force, the real cure for the depressed job markets of the 1930s. Subsequently, American world power and full employment would align in a way that won the loyalty of several generations of working-class voters.

Today, of course, the situation is radically different. A bigger Pentagon budget no longer creates hundreds of thousands of stable factory jobs, since significant parts of its weapons production is now actually outsourced, and the ideological link between high-wage employment and intervention -- good jobs and Old Glory on a foreign shore -- while hardly extinct is structurally weaker than at any time since the early 1940s. Even in the new military (largely a hereditary caste of poor whites, blacks, and Latinos) demoralization is reaching the stage of active discontent and opening up new spaces for alternative ideas.

Although both candidates have endorsed programs, including expansion of Army and Marine combat strength, missile defense (aka "Star Wars"), and an intensified war in Afghanistan, that will enlarge the military-industrial complex, none of this will replenish the supply of decent jobs nor prime a broken national pump. However, in the midst of a deep slump, what a huge military budget can do is obliterate the modest but essential reforms that make up Obama's plans for healthcare, alternative energy, and education.

In other words, Rooseveltian guns and butter have become a contradiction in terms, which means that the Obama campaign is engineering a catastrophic collision between its national security priorities and its domestic policy goals.

The Fate of Obama-ism

Why don't such smart people see the Grand Canyon?

Maybe they do, in which case deception is truly the mother's milk of American politics; or perhaps Obama has become the reluctant prisoner, intellectually as well as politically, of Clintonism: that is say, of a culturally permissive neo-liberalism whose New Deal rhetoric masks the policy spirit of Richard Nixon.

It's worth asking, for instance, what in the actual substance of his foreign policy agenda differentiates the Democratic candidate from the radioactive legacy of the Bush Doctrine? Yes, he would close Guantanamo, talk to the Iranians, and thrill hearts in Europe. He also promises to renew the Global War on Terror (in much the same way that Bush senior and Clinton sustained the core policies of Reaganism, albeit with a "more human face").

In case anyone has missed the debates, let me remind you that the Democratic candidate has chained himself, come hell or high water, to a global strategy in which "victory" in the Middle East (and Central Asia) remains the chief premise of foreign policy, with the Iraqi-style nation-building hubris of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz repackaged as a "realist" faith in global "stabilization."

True, the enormity of the economic crisis may compel President Obama to renege on some of candidate Obama's ringing promises to support an idiotic missile defense system or provocative NATO memberships for Georgia and Ukraine. Nonetheless, as he emphasizes in almost every speech and in each debate, defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, together with a robust defense of Israel, constitute the keystone of his national security agenda.

Under huge pressure from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats alike to cut the budget and reduce the exponential increase in the national debt, what choices would President Obama be forced to make early in his administration? More than likely comprehensive health-care will be whittled down to a barebones plan, "alternative energy" will simply mean the fraud of "clean coal," and anything that remains in the Treasury, after Wall Street's finished its looting spree, will buy bombs to pulverize more Pashtun villages, ensuring yet more generations of embittered mujahideen and jihadis.

Am I unduly cynical? Perhaps, but I lived through the Lyndon Johnson years and watched the War on Poverty, the last true New Deal program, destroyed to pay for slaughter in Vietnam.

It is bitterly ironic, but, I suppose, historically predictable that a presidential campaign millions of voters have supported for its promise to end the war in Iraq has now mortgaged itself to a "tougher than McCain" escalation of a hopeless conflict in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal frontier. In the best of outcomes, the Democrats will merely trade one brutal, losing war for another. In the worst case, their failed policies may set the stage for the return of Cheney and Rove, or their even more sinister avatars.

Read more!

Kaptur: Don't let Congress seal this deal!

Slamming the fact that Congress had less than 24 hours to review legislation crafted by and for the same people who pushed the economy off the cliff, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) calls for a "no" on the bailout and urges Congress members to meet with experts on alternatives to the current plan.

Read more!

David Sirota: Top 5 Reasons to Vote Against the Bailout

Analysis and lots of links to alternative viewpoints--first published on Blog for Our Future on September 28.

There's news this Sunday afternoon of a congressional deal to bailout Wall Street fat cats with $700 billion of taxpayer cash (you can read the draft legislation here). Though the deal negotiated between congressional leaders and the White House is better than what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson originally proposed early last week, it remains an insulting atrocity, having omitted even basic aid to homeowners, bankruptcy reforms and any modicum of future financial industry regulation.

Now, the New York Times reports that the Democratic leadership may not have the votes to pass this bailout. So without further ado, here are the top 5 reasons (in no order) why every single member of Congress - Democrat and Republican - should vote this sucker down. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into an email to your congressperson. They are deciding right now - let them hear your voice.
1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSE
When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's akin to check kiting, which is is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane.

It didn't have to be this way, of course. As I noted in my newspaper column this week, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout. Similarly, Blue Dog Democrats proposed a future tax on financial firms if and when taxpayers lose cash on the deal. These proposals were discarded in favor of language asking the government to "submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses," according to the Associated Press. Not only is that language toothless, but it opens up the possibility of a plan being submitted that says we should raise middle-class taxes or slash middle-class social programs to pay for Wall Street's misbehavior.

2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE

Primum non nocere is the latin phrase for "first do no harm" - the priority principle for any EMT working on a sick patient. It should be the same priority for Congress at this moment - and a growing group of esteemed experts on both the Right and Left are insisting that this bailout bill could make things worse. Here's a review:

The Washington Post reported on Friday, almost 200 academic economists "have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear."

NYU's Nouriel Roubini, the visionary who had been predicting this meltdown, says "The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan."

Harvard's Ken Rogoff, a Former Federal Rerserve and IMF official, insists that the prospect of this bailout is, unto itself, taking a manageable problem and making it into a more intense crisis. He says that credit is frozen primarily because banks want to avoid dealing with other banks that might drive a hard bargain, and instead would rather wait for free money from the government. Without the prospect of that free money, Rogoff suggests that credit would probably begin moving again, if slowly.

Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research says that spending so much cash so quickly on such a poorly conceived plan could have the effect of making it impossible to fund economic stimulus that is the real way out of this mess. "Suppose the Paulson plan goes through," he writes. "It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble...When families respond to their loss of home equity by cutting back their consumption it will deepen the recession. In this context it might prove very important to have the resources needed to provide a substantial stimulus. [and] there is no doubt that this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell politically."

Meanwhile, it's not even close to clear that this is a problem that requires such an enormous response. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion - an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending."

The questions, then, are simple: In the face of this bipartisan opposition from objective experts, why should a lawmaker instead believe the same Bush officials who helped create this crisis with their deregulation, the same Bush officials who just months ago said everything was AOK? Shouldn't there be almost complete unanimity among both objective and partisan observers before spending 5 percent of our entire economy after just one harried week of White House demands? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It's time, as The Who said, that we "don't get fooled again."

3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES

The mantra throughout the week has been that America has "no choice" but to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion giveaway - that, in effect, there are no alternatives. But that's an out-and-out lie - one with a motive: Making it seem as if the only thing we can do is hand the keys to the federal treasury over to both parties' corporate campaign contributors.

The truth is, there are a number of alternatives. Here are just a few:

In the Washington Post last week, Galbraith outlined a multi-pronged plan shoring up and expanding the FDIC, creating a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrecting Nixon's federal revenue sharing, and taxing stock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal.

The Service Employees International Union has drafted a plan based around a massive investment in public services and national health care, and regulatory reforms preventing foreclosures and forcing banks to renegotiate the predatory terms of their bad mortgages.

For those in the mindless, zombie-ish "someone has to do something, so we have to do what the White House says!" camp, consider the possibility that you are under the spell of the same kind of White House fear that led us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed WMD. Consider, perhaps, that there may not even be a compelling basis for doing anything just yet (or at least not anything nearly so huge), and that the whole reason there is this urgent push right now has nothing to do with the financial situation, and everything to do with creating the political dynamic to pass a wasteful giveaway - one that couldn't be passed otherwise without a sense of emergency. And ask yourself why you would listen to this White House instead of listening to those experts who have been predicting this crisis and are now advising against this bailout - experts like CEPR's Baker. In two separate posts (here and here), he says that letting the problem play out could be the best path, because Treasury and the Fed may already have the tools they need. Following this path, the worst thing that happens is "The Fed and Treasury will have to step in and take over the banks [which] is exactly what many economists argue should happen anyhow," Baker writes. "So the outcome of the worst case scenario is a really frightening day in which the whole world financial system is shaken to its core, followed by a government takeover of the banks. Eventually the government straightens out the books and sells them off again. But the real threat here is not to the economy, it is to the banks."

Then there is the idea of simply taking the $700 billion and simply give it to struggling homeowners to help them pay off part of their mortgages. This hasn't even been discussed but the thought experiment it involves is important to understanding why there is, indeed, an alternative to the Paulson plan. If the root of this problem is people not being able to pay off their mortgages, and those defaults then devaluing banks' mortgage-backed assets, then simply helping people pay their mortgages would preserve the value of the mortgage-backed assets and recharge the market with liquidity. That would be a bottom-up solution helping the mass public, rather than a top-down move helping only financial industry executives.
On this latter proposal, some may argue that giving any relief to homeowners is "unfair" in that those homeowners created their problems, so why should taxpayers have to help them? But then, is helping homeowners any less fair than simply giving all the money away to Wall Street, no strings attached? I'd say no - and helping homeowners also serves a second purpose: namely, keeping people in their homes, which not only helps them, but helps an entire neighborhood (as any homeowner knows, nearby properties can be devalued when foreclosures hit).

4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
As a preface, let me state that I think we live in a country where politicians too often listen to their donors and to the Establishment rather than their constituents, not the other way around. America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of "Statesmanship" and "Seriousness" and their supposed hatred of "pandering" to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic). So, in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with this bill being "politicized" by coming down the pike right before an election - in fact, I think it's a good thing because the election - and the fear of being thrown out of office forces our politicians to at least consider what the public wants. I mean, really - would we rather have this decision made after the election, when the public can be completely ignored?

Polls overwhelmingly show a public that sees voting for this bill as an act of economic treason whereby the bipartisan Washington elite robs taxpayer cash to give their campaign contributors a trillion-dollar gift. As just two of many examples, Bloomberg News' poll shows "decisive" opposition to the bailout proposal, and Rasmussen reports that their surveys show "the more voters learn about the proposed $700 billion federal bailout plan for the U.S. economy, the more they don’t like it." Put another way, this bailout proposal has unified both the Right and Left sides of the populist uprising that I described in my new book and that is now even more angry than ever.

Any sitting officeholder that votes for this - whether a Democrat or a Republican - should expect to get crushed under a wave of populist-themed attacks from their opponents. We've already seen it start. In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley (D) is airing scathing television ads hammering Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for potentially supporting the deal. Similarly, this morning on Meet the Press, we saw Republican Senate challenger Bob Schaffer (CO) dishonestly papering over his own votes for deregulation and ripping into his opponent Rep. Mark Udall (D) for potentially supporting the deal. Incumbents, get ready for that kind of election-changing heat in your face if you vote "yes."
This, by the way, could play out in the presidential contest. Barack Obama has been taking the advice of the Wall Street insiders in his campaign in endorsing this bailout. McCain has endorsed the vague outline, but he may ultimately back off once he sees the details, allowing him to then run the last month of the campaign as the economic populist in the race. I'm not saying it would work, considering McCain's 26-year record of supporting the deregulatory agenda that created this crisis. But such a move could end up help him flank Obama on the defining economic issues of the race.

5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE ARE SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND AMERICA KNOWS IT
The amount of brazen corruption and conflicts of interest swirling around this deal is odious, even by Washington's standards - and polls suggest the public inherently understands that. Consider these choice nuggets:

Warren Buffett is simultaneously advising Obama to support the deal, while he himself is investing in the company that stands to make the most off the deal.

McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists from the companies that stand to make a killing off a no-strings government bailout.

The New York Times reports that the person advising Paulson and Bernanke on the AIG bailout was the CEO of Goldman Sachs - a company with a $20 billion stake in AIG.

The Obama campaign's top spokesman pushing this deal is none other than Roger Altman, who Bloomberg News reports is simultaneously "advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc." - that is, who have a direct financial interest in the current iteration of the bailout.

Add to this the fact that the negotiations over this bill have been largely conducted in secret, and you have one of the most sleazy heists in American history.

If this bill passes, it will be a profound referendum on the dominance of money over democracy in America. That - and that alone - would be the only thing an objective observer could take away from the whole thing.

Money will have compelled politicians to not only vote for substantively dangerous policy, but vote for that policy even at their own clear electoral peril. Such a vote will confirm that the only people these politicians believe they are responsible for representing are are the fat-cat recipients of the $700 billion - the same fat cats who underwrite their political campaigns, the same fat-cats who engineered this crisis, and want to keep profiteering off it. Any lawmaker who takes that position is selling out the country, as is any issue-based political non-profit group - liberal or conservative - that uses its resources to defend a "yes" vote rather than demand a "no" vote. This is a bill that forces taxpayers to absorb all of the pain, and Wall Street executives to reap all of the gain. It doesn't even force the corporate executives (much less the government leaders) culpable in this free fall to step down - it lets them stay fat and happy in their corner office suites in Manhattan.

Even if they believe that something must be done right now, lawmakers should still vote no on this specific bill, and force one of the very prudent alternatives to the forefront. They shouldn't just vote no on Paulson's proposal - they should vote hell no. Our economy's future depends on it.

Read more!