Vote to test corporate water rights

By Ann S. Kim, Staff Writer; published May 11 by the Portland (ME) Press-Herald

A key battle in Maine's ongoing war over water will be decided in Wells on Saturday.

Voters at a town meeting will decide whether theirs will become the latest community to ban water extraction by companies like Poland Spring.

Rather than trying to regulate water extraction, the ordinance takes a "rights-based" approach by asserting that ecosystems have rights to exist, flourish and evolve naturally in town. Wells and any of its residents would have standing to seek damages in court against any company that interfered with those rights.

Under the ordinance, corporations would have no constitutional rights within the town. The Supreme Court has found that corporations have some constitutional rights – such as a right to free speech and against government taking of property without due process – but not others, such as the right against self-incrimination.

Two other Maine towns – Shapleigh and Newfield – used such an approach to adopt similar measures this year. The neighboring towns acted after Poland Spring, a subsidiary of Nestle Waters North America, started the process to drill test wells in search of a potential new water source.

In Wells, the controversy stems from a proposed 30-year contract between Poland Spring and the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District. Under that proposal – tabled indefinitely last summer because of a public outcry – the company would have been able to draw a maximum of 432,000 gallons a day from the Branch Brook aquifer. By comparison, the district's average daily water usage is about 2.8 million gallons, and peak use is about 7 million gallons a day.

The town attorney for Wells has advised selectmen that she believes the proposed rights-based ordinance violates federal and state constitutional principles, as well as state law and the town charter. Selectmen declined by a vote of 3-2 to put the ordinance on a town ballot, but supporters of the measure gathered enough petition signatures to force a town meeting.

The town's Ordinance Review Committee, meanwhile, is working on regulations for water extraction. A draft may be presented to selectmen May 27, said Bill Gosbee, the group's chairman.

The Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund promotes the rights-based approach of the water ordinances and others dealing with issues ranging from sludge spreading to corporate agriculture to mining.

Regulatory schemes have failed to protect ecosystems and have instead helped "the corporate boys build a better permit," said Gail Darrell, the fund's community organizer in New England. A different view of nature – as something that must be able to preserve itself, rather than being plundered for profit – was needed, she said.

"If we treat nature as though it has rights, we can protect it," Darrell said. "So if a corporation understands, if it destroys nature, they have to fix it. They need to be responsible for the destruction."

Darrell questions why a corporation's goals should trump those of people when people are the source of governing power and corporations are only "creations of the state." She considers court decisions giving corporations constitutional rights "illegitimate."

"'Corporation' is not in our Constitution," she said.

While corporations are artificial legal entities, courts decide whether to treat them like people when it comes to constitutional rights, said H. Cabanne Howard, a University of Maine School of Law professor. No state or municipality has the authority to negate the rights that courts say corporations have, he said.

"You can't just pass a statute saying those decisions don't matter," he said.

Dave Owen, another Maine Law professor, said a local ordinance can't trump state law, which includes a regulatory scheme that allows the extraction of water by companies like Poland Spring, with certain limitations.

Owen, who specializes in environmental law, worked as a lawyer in California with environmental groups that tried to limit water extraction and with counties that defended groundwater management ordinances against constitutional challenges.

"The better approach, if this group is frustrated with that state scheme, would be to try to change it at the state level. Passing an inconsistent local ordinance would be only a symbolic act," Owen wrote in an e-mail message.

Leah Rachin, the attorney for Wells, says the ordinance would likely be found illegal in a challenge.

If the ordinance passes at the town meeting, she said, it could be challenged by a party that has standing, one that could point to a particular injury.

Selectmen would have the option to ask a court for a determination of the ordinance's legality, Rachin said.

Poland Spring would have no legal standing in Shapleigh or Newfield, where the company has no property or business operations, said Mark Dubois, the company's natural resource manager. More work has been done in Wells, he said, but it is too early to look into whether the company would have legal standing there.

In Pennsylvania, Belfast Township in Fulton County repealed its ban on corporate farming after the state attorney general's office took action.

The office targeted the ordinance, based on others by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, because it tried to restrict activities allowed in the state constitution, said Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the office. Under a state law, the attorney general has the authority to challenge local ordinances that violate farming-related state laws.

Skip Clark of Wells, a supporter of the rights-based ordinance, worries that the water district could enter into a deal before residents fully understand the issue. In the meantime, he said, the rights-based ordinance offers protection.

"The courts decide it's not constitutional – that's no problem," he said. "It gains time for this entire issue to be thrashed out."

Read more!

The Single-Payer Taboo

by Ralph Nader. Posted May 11 at Counterpunch.

Among the giant taboos afflicting Congress these days is the proposal to create a single payer health insurance system (often called full Medicare for everyone).

How can this be? Don’t the elected politicians represent the people? Don't they always have their finger to the wind?

Well, single payer is only supported by a majority of the American people, physicians and nurses. They like the idea of public funding and private delivery. They like the free choice of doctors and hospitals that many are now denied by the HMOs.

There are also great administrative efficiencies when single payer displaces the health insurance industry and its claims--denying, benefit--restricting, bureaucratically-heavy profiteering. According to leading researchers in this area, Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, single payer will save $350 billion annually.

Yet, on Capitol Hill and at the White House there are no meetings, briefings, hearings, and consultations about kinds of health care reforms that reform the basic price inflation, indifference to prevention, and discrimination by health insurers.

There is no place at the table for single payer advocates in the view of the Congressional leaders who set the agenda and muzzle dissenters.

Last month at a breakfast meeting with reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to a question about health care with these revealing and exasperating words: "Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer."

Thus spake Speaker Pelosi, the Representative from Aetna? Never mind that 75 members of her party have signed onto H.R. 676-the Conyers single payer legislation. Never mind that in her San Francisco district, probably three out of four people want single payer. And never mind that over 20,000 people die every year, according to the Institute of Medicine, because they cannot afford health insurance.

What is more remarkable is that many more than the 75 members of the House privately believe single payer is the best option. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are among them. But they all say, single payer "is not practical" so it's off the table.

What gives here? The Democrats have the numbers and procedures to pass any kind of health reform this year, including single payer. President Obama could sign it into law.

But "it's not practical" because these politicians fear the insurance and pharmaceutical industries--and seek their campaign contributions--more than they fear the American people. It comes down to the corporations, who have no votes, are organized to the teeth and the people are not.

So, when Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a large recipient of health insurance and drug company donations, held a public roundtable discussion on May 5, fifteen witnesses were preparing to deliver their statements. Not one of them was championing single payer.

As Senator Baucus started his introductory remarks, something happened. One by one, eight people in the audience, most of them physicians and lawyers, stood up to politely but insistently protest the absence of a single payer presentation.

One by one, the police came, took them out of the hearing room, arrested and handcuffed them. The charge was "disruption of Congress"--a misdemeanor.

They call themselves the "Baucus Eight". Immediately, over the internet and on C-Span, public radio, and the Associated Press, the news spread around the country. You can see the video on http://singlepayeraction.org.

To the many groups and individuals who have labored for single payer for decades, the Baucus Eight's protest seemed like an epiphany.

Dr. Quentin Young, a veteran leader for single payer and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) e-mailed his reaction: "For our part, when the history of this period is written, we believe your action may well be noted as the turning point from a painful, defensive position to a more appropriate offensive position vis-à-vis Senator Baucus and his health industry co-conspirators."

Webster's dictionary defines "taboo" as "a prohibition against touching, saying, or doing something for fear of a mysterious superhuman force." For both Democrats and Republicans in Congress it is a fear of a very omnipresent super-corporate force.

However, moral and evidential courage is coming. On May 12, 2009, Senator Baucus is having another roundtable discussion with thirteen more witnesses, including those from the business lobbies and their consultants. Word has it that the Senator is about to invite a leading single payer advocate to sit at the table.

Here come the people! Join this historic drive to have our country join the community of western, and some third-world, nations by adopting a state of the art single payer system.

Visit http://singlepayeraction.org and break the taboo in your Congressional District.

Read more!

Is Obama Naive About the For-Profit Health Industry's Commitment to Real Reform?

by M.S. Bellows, Jr. Posted May 11 at Huffington Post

Optimism is a virtue; it leads us to see the best in people despite their worse sides, and to envision a better future even when we can clearly see the obstacles we currently face. But blind optimism is no virtue. Naive or overeager optimism can lead us to ignore the fact that most people have mixed motives, and to envision a bright future so clearly that we are blind to the obstacles that stand between a hard now and a better then. Wise optimists trust - but verify; they have faith in the better, but do not ignore the worse, angels of human nature.

On Sunday afternoon, two senior Obama Administration officials called a telephonic press conference to announce a huge, positive new development in the healthcare reform effort. When I say senior, I mean pretty darn senior. And they seemed genuinely, sincerely excited about this mysterious new development - excited enough to buzz every national journalist's BlackBerry with an invitation to the conference call in the middle of Mother's Day. They considered the development significant enough to declare an embargo, forbidding journalists to write about it until 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Because the President himself will be announcing this development officially tomorrow morning, they made the call - arranged by the White House press office - "on background," asking not to be identified by name or position.

The big news? Just this: a coalition of health insurance, hospital, pharmaceutical company, and physician trade groups, plus a major union, will promise the President Monday that they will reduce the rate of future growth in the cost of healthcare by 1.5% per year for the next decade.

That's it. And the President will be announcing it himself Monday morning, presumably with equal excitement.

Healthcare will continue to be increasingly expensive for consumers, but not quite as quickly as it was going to be. 7% per year inflation will become 5.5% per year inflation -- that is, if the participants keep their promise. Which, according to the officials, they'll do, not because there's any kind of enforcement mechanism - there isn't one - but simply because they're "Americans."

(That's a quote: Big Pharma, the health insurance lobby, the American Medical Association, hospital industry groups, et al. are going to reduce costs, and presumably profits, solely because they're good "Americans.")

The senior administration officials were hyperbolic, if not hyperventilated. One, focusing on the political battle to enact healthcare reform, called this promise by industry trade groups "a game changer."

The other official, focusing on economic issues, saw this as nothing less than the salvation of the entire federal budget:

"I don't think there could be a more significant step to help struggling families and to help the federal budget than reducing the growth rate of healthcare spending by 1.5 percentage points per year. With regard to the federal budget... the only way that we are going to restore the nation to a sound fiscal path over the long term is to reduce the growth rate in health care costs... Reducing the growth rate of health care costs overall by 1.5% per year would virtually eliminate the nation's long term fiscal gap. ... This, by an order of magnitude, is far more important [than Social Security or related reforms] to the fiscal trajectory that we're on, especially over the long term, than anything else that could be done."

Remember, we're talking about slightly reducing the rate of growth in health care costs, not a reduction in health care costs themselves. That's what's supposedly going to save both American families and the nation's fiscal problems "over the long term."

The journalists on the call, understandably, were more skeptical. The biggies queued up to ask questions: reporters from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Washington Post, NBC News, CNN, Los Angeles Times, Reuters. Some asked for wonkish, green-eyeshade details (answers were rarely forthcoming).

Other reporters questioned what mechanisms were in place for making sure those promises are kept (answer: there are none).

In response to a question from Reuters, one of the officials put his trust in the bully pulpit and the Fourth Estate, saying, "I don't know how many of you have made, in-person, a commitment to the President of the United States... There will be accountability not only through regular check-ins with the President of the United States but also through the media, because I have no doubt that you all will be checking up on them."

The other official simply believes that pharmaceutical, insurance and hospital trade groups are acting in patriotic good faith, saying, "These are very sophisticated trade associations which in the past have, one could argue, dragged their feet when it came to the subject of health care reform and certainly cost containment. They're coming forward voluntarily, approaching this President and saying, we want to be part of the solution, we want to be part of getting health care reform done... That fundamentally aligns these major provider groups with the President's goal of getting health care reform done this year. That is a game changer in our opinion."

Eliza Marcus of Bloomberg and Michael Fletcher of the Washington Post asked outright whether the healthcare industry was buying something with this concession. One of the officials dismissed the possibility denied that there have been any discussions at all about the public plan or any other quid pro quo, instead casting the industry coalition in purely patriotic terms: "They put it to me that everybody must share responsibility... they want to get everybody covered..., and they said to me, we know we have to do our part... this is them coming forward as Americans to get this done."

Am I the only one who is puzzled at the Administration taking these groups at their word? Big Pharma, for example, hasn't made a concession yet without something being in it for them. Many of the groups participating in this initiative historically have opposed health care reform and are large donors to the Republican and Vichy Dem politicians who are preparing to mount a political and rhetorical battle against health care reform, as evidenced most recently by the leak of Republican pollster Frank Luntz's so it sounds like Mandatory Gay Nazi Communism.

It's difficult to believe that the concessions being made by the for-profit members of this "patriotic" coalition are unrelated to any hope that Obama can be persuaded to drop his current proposal to include an inexpensive, government-backed, single-payer-style healthcare plan among the options available to consumers once healthcare reform passes later this year. That government-backed option scares the for-profit healthcare industry, because they know they can't compete with it; Medicare, for all its faults, still has the lowest administrative costs than any other health provider in the country, and delivers competent care to millions of Americans who otherwise would go uninsured. For-profits can't top that -- and they know that if millions of Americans sign up for federally-run healthcare and see that it works, the inertia towards single-payer healthcare for everyone may become a juggernaut.

The last question of the call, happily, went to me. I wanted, first, to confirm that the grand announcement was merely about a reduction in cost increases, not a reduction in cost, and second, to know whether Obama, himself, considered a public health care option to be beyond negotiation.

I didn't like the answers I got, though. The first tells me that the Administration is getting too excited about too little. The second fell short of the adamant reassurance I wanted to hear. But decide for yourself:

Bellows: "I have two questions. The first is following up on Michael Fletcher's and Eliza Marcus' questions: is the President still insistent that a public health plan will be among the options offered to people, or is that a bargaining chip in any way? And the second question, following up on Andrew Beatty's: is it correct that the cost per capita will still increase, just not as much as it previously was projected to?

Senior Administration Official #1: "On the second question, the answer to that is yes. Again, what we're talking about here is reducing the growth rate, so yes, health care costs, you should anticipate health care costs will continue to rise, but achieving a slowdown in the rate at which they increase is a, would be a huge accomplishment in terms of freeing up resources for other priorities and in terms of relieving pressure on the federal budget."

The official continued with a justification for accepting continued healthcare cost increases: "One of the reasons that you should expect health care costs to continue to increase is not only that the population is aging, which puts some upward pressure on health spending, but also that as incomes rise over time, it is natural that people want to spend part of their additional income on health care...."

Senior Administration Official #2 on questions one: "On the public plan, this event with the President tomorrow is not about the public plan, we've had no discussion with this group about the public plan, in fact, if I look at the list of trade associations that are part of this, there are different views about it, but the President likes the public plan, it's part of his campaign platform."

I'm not normally a knee-jerk cynic, but this simply sounds naive to me. One of the Obama administration's mantras is "don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good." But in these times, with this mandate and the American people's rare but undeniable hunger for radical change, their motto ought to be: "Don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect."

Radical health care reform - reform that doesn't shave health care costs for regular people, but slashes them; reform that doesn't force single-payer healthcare on the American people too soon, but sets the stage for their eventual, uncomplaining acceptance of it - is within Obama's grasp. He'd be wrong to settle for merely "good" health care - for health care that merely slows the rate at which costs increase, or health care that doesn't include a government-payer option that would demonstrate that a government-sponsored plan can provide better care at lower cost than any profit-driven private plan is capable of.

Single-payer, low-cost healthcare is America's future. By taking for-profit corporate lobbyists at their word, is Obama setting himself up to agree to step off the path to that future? Obama has, within his grasp, that once-in-a-lifetime rarity: a plan that is both nearly perfect, AND achievable. Will he reassure us that nothing less will do for the American people -- people who have put their trust in his commitment to do more than compromise?

Read more!

Causes of the Crisis

by James K. Galbraith, posted May 1 at the Texas Observer

Editor’s note: These remarks were delivered to a meeting of the Texas Lyceum in Austin on April 3, at a debate between University of Texas professor James Galbraith, an Observer contributing writer, and former Majority Leader Richard Armey, chief instigator of the recent Astroturf “tea party" protests. Armey had begun his remarks by noting that his rule in life was “never trust anyone from Austin or Boston,” and proceeded to declare his allegiance to the “Austrian School” of economics, a libertarian view that regards public intervention in private markets as socialism.

It is of course a pleasure to be with you today. I was born in Boston, and I am proud of it. And I have lived 24 years in Austin—and I’m proud of that.

Leader Armey spoke to you of his admiration for Austrian economics. I can’t resist telling you that when the Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial, many years ago, they invited, as their keynote speaker, my father [John Kenneth Galbraith]. The leading economists of the Austrian school—including von Hayek and von Haberler—returned for the occasion. And so my father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs of the Austrian Republic since the war, which, he said, “would not have been possible without the contribution of these men.” They nodded—briefly—until it dawned on them what he meant. They’d all left the country in the 1930s.

My own economics is American: genus Institutionalist; species: Galbraithian.

This is a panel on the crisis. Mr. Moderator, you ask what is the root cause? My reply is in three parts.

First, an idea. The idea that capitalism, for all its considerable virtues, is inherently self-stabilizing, that government and private business are adversaries rather than partners; the idea that freedom without responsibility is a viable business principle; the idea that regulation, in financial matters especially, can be dispensed with. We tried it, and we see the result.

Second, a person. It would not be right to blame any single person for these events, but if I had to choose one to name it would be a Texan, our own distinguished former Senator Phil Gramm. I’d cite specifically the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act—in 1999, after which it took less than a decade to reproduce all the pathologies that Glass-Steagall had been enacted to deal with in 1933. I’d also cite the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, slipped into an 11,000-page appropriations bill in December 2000 as Congress was adjourning following Bush v. Gore. This measure deregulated energy futures trading, enabling Enron and legitimating credit-default swaps, and creating a massive vector for the transmission of financial risk throughout the global system. When the Washington Post caught up with me at an airport in Parkersburg, West Virginia, a year ago to ask for a comment on Gramm’s role, I said very quickly that he was “the sorcerer’s apprentice of financial instability and disaster.” They put that on the front page. I do have to give Gramm some credit: When the Post called him up and read that to him, he said, “I deny it.”

Third, a policy. This was the abandonment of state responsibility for financial regulation: the regulation of mortgage originations, of underwriting, and of securitization. This abandonment was not subtle: The first head of the Office of Thrift Supervision in the George W. Bush administration came to a press conference on one occasion with a stack of copies of the Federal Register and a chainsaw. A chainsaw. The message was clear. And it led to the explosion of liars’ loans, neutron loans (which destroy people but leave buildings intact), and toxic waste. That these were terms of art in finance tells you what you need to know.

Subprime securities are inherently unsafe and should never have been permitted. They are based on loans to borrowers who cannot document their income and who may have bad credit histories, and they are collateralized by houses with fraudulently inflated appraisals, rated by agencies that did not examine the loan files. Writing in The Washington Post, Richard Cohen described one case, of Marvene Halterman of Avondale, Arizona:

At age 61, after 13 years of uninterrupted unemployment and at least as many of living on welfare, she got a mortgage. She got it even though at one time she had 23 people living in the house (576 square feet, one bath) and some ramshackle outbuildings. She got it for $103,000, an amount that far exceeded the value of the house. The place has since been condemned. ... Halterman’s house was never exactly a showcase—the city had once cited her for all the junk (clothes, tires, etc.) on her lawn. Nevertheless, a local financial institution with the cover-your-wallet name of Integrity Funding LLC gave her a mortgage, valuing the house at about twice what a nearby and comparable property sold for. ... Integrity Funding then sold the loan to Wells Fargo & Co., which sold it to HSBC Holdings PLC, which then packaged it with thousands of other risky mortgages and offered the indigestible porridge to investors. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service took a look at it all, as they are supposed to do, and pronounced it ‘triple-A.’”

The consequence of tolerating this and like behavior is a collapse of trust, a collapse of asset values, and a collapse of the financial system. That is what has happened, and what we have to deal with now.

Can “stimulus” get us out?

As a matter of economics, public spending substitutes for private spending. It provides jobs, motivates useful activity, staves off despair. But it is not self-sustaining in the absence of a viable private credit system. The idea that we will be on the road to full recovery and returning to high employment in a year or so therefore seems to me to be an illusion. And for this reason, the emphasis on short-term, “shovel-ready” projects in the expansion package, while understandable, was a mistake. As in the New Deal, we need both the Works Progress Administration, headed by Harry Hopkins, to provide employment, and the Public Works Administration, headed by Harold Ickes, to rebuild the country.

The desire for a return to normal is very powerful. It motivates both the ritual confidence of public officials and the dry numerical optimism of business economists, who always see prosperity just around the corner. The forecasts of these people, like those of official agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office, always see a turnaround within a year and a return to high employment within four or five years. In a strict sense, the belief is without foundation. Liquidation of excessive debt is now, and will remain for a time, the highest priority of American households. That is in part because for the moment they want to hold on to cash, and therefore they do not wish to borrow, and in part because with the collapse of house values, they no longer have collateral to borrow against. And so long as that is the case, there can be no strong recovery of private spending or business investment.

The risk we run, in public policy, is not inflation. It is lack of persistence, a premature reversal of direction, and of course the fear of large numbers. If deficits in the trillions and public debt in the tens of trillions scare you, this is not a line of work you should be in.

The ultimate goals of policy are not measured by deficits or debt. They are measured by the performance of the economy itself. Here Leader Armey and I agree. He spoke with approval, in his remarks, of the goals of 3 percent unemployment and 4 percent inflation embodied in the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. Which, as a 24-year-old member of the staff of the House Banking Committee in 1976, I drafted.

Read more!

Protectors Are Sabotaging Our Chance for True Reform

by Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted on Alternet on April 24

Every so often, I remember Ronald Reagan fondly -- not for his policies but for his skill at the art of persuasion. Right now, for example, I'd like to call the Gipper back to cock his head, give us that quizzical look and say "There you go again."

Yes, there they go again. They are the defenders of the health care status quo -- that is, the insurance industry and its protectors in both parties on Capitol Hill. And they have been frantically arguing these past few weeks that any coming reform of the health insurance system cannot, should not -- and will not, if they have their way -- include a public insurance plan that uninsured individuals can turn to if they find themselves without affordable insurance, or any coverage at all.

Maintaining what amounts to a monopoly on insurance for the working-age population has become a central goal of the insurance industry, which rightly fears that the government will provide more comprehensive coverage at a lower cost. This is, of course, the whole point of overhauling the insurance system. But never mind.

The industry worries that Americans will find out not only that government-supported health insurance isn't a socialist catastrophe (see, for example, Medicare) but a fairer, lower-cost and more efficient system than the expensive, inefficient -- and failing -- market-based system we have now.

Insurers have gone so far as to offer to stop charging people with existing medical conditions more for coverage, if only Congress and the Obama administration would continue to go along with a system more like the one we have now than the one that we actually need. The goal is to have health insurance reform automatically give insurers access to more customers, but without the competition they would face if the government created a plan that offered better value. In other words, universal coverage (and the taxpayer subsidies that would presumably be required to allow uninsured people to buy policies) would benefit insurance companies at least as much as it would consumers.

In essence, this is what the proponents of such a system want: a new and "reformed" health insurance system that works essentially like ours does today.

But the very reason we are again going down the politically treacherous path of attempting reform is that the system we have doesn't work, not by any standard.

At last official count, it failed to cover 45 million Americans. And that was before the recession struck with force, with millions losing their jobs and their insurance coverage with them. Based on Kaiser Family Foundation estimates, more than 6 million additional people have been left without insurance due to recent job losses.

Per capita health expenditures in the United States "are by far the highest" among the 30 countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in which the prevailing system of insurance is a national, government-supported health care system, according to a February study by three OECD economists. And though we pay more, we don't get better health in return. "The overall health status of the U.S. population, as reflected in variables such as life expectancy and potential years of life lost, appears to rank among the lower third of OECD countries," the report said.

We have known all this for some time. And for some time what we've done is take the same stale approach that relies on the private sector and the presumed magic of the market to cure our system's chronic failures.

We've tried insurance-industry managed care. We've introduced private health savings accounts for individuals, and the use of private insurance plans in Medicare to provide both overall medical coverage and prescription drug benefits. None of these efforts led to more people being covered. None led to lower costs.

In fact, government data shows that the introduction of private insurers into the Medicare system has meant higher taxpayer costs for those beneficiaries who are covered by the managed-care plans, when compared with beneficiaries of roughly the same age and health status who remain in government-sponsored Medicare.

So far we have "reformed" the health insurance system by reinforcing precisely what's wrong with it. To do this again would yield precisely the same result.

It wouldn't be a reformed system. It would be just another way for the insurance industry to game the one we already have.

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Read more!

Budget Deal Includes Fast-Track for Health Reform

by Walter Alarkon. Originally published in The Hill, Friday April 24

Democrats in Congress and the White House have struck a tentative budget deal that includes reconciliation instructions that will make it easier to push through healthcare reform this year.

The deal, which still needs approval from the full House and Senate, would allow Democrats to pass healthcare reform with just a simple majority in the Senate, instead of the 60 votes needed to pass most controversial legislation, according to a congressional aide.

The budget agreement does not include reconciliation instructions for climate change legislation, which both Senate Republicans and Democrats have argued against.

The decision to include reconciliation instructions will likely rile Republicans, who portrayed the use of the maneuver as an attack on Senate rules. But top Democrats have said that they'll resort to reconciliation rules if Republicans remain unwilling to cooperate on long-awaited healthcare legislation.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) stressed that the deal has yet to be finalized. He noted that he and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), who held talks on the budget Thursday night, still need to present "options" on the budget resolution to their fellow colleagues.

"There is still a fair amount of work to be done and colleagues to check with before we can reach a final agreement," Conrad said. "But we are hopeful we will be able to complete work next week."

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said that using the reconciliation process goes against Democrats' talk of bipartisanship.

"A reform of our health care system – a massive legislative undertaking that will impact every American – should be done through the normal debate and amendment process," Gregg said in a statement. "To circumvent that process in favor of ramming through a partisan plan that needs only a simple majority to pass is a far cry from the bipartisanship that has been promised."

Obama administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, have been meeting with congressional Democrats this week to hammer out an agreement before President Obama's 100th day in office, which is Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes to hold a final Senate vote on passing the budget resolution on Wednesday, which is also when Obama will hold a primetime news conference.

If it passes, the president will be able to tout progress toward his goals of energy independence and healthcare and education reform. The budget calls on lawmakers to pass legislation that will reform the healthcare system, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and increase access to higher education without adding to the deficit. The budget, however, does not specify how those goals would be reached and how they would be paid for.

The tentative budget deal would set the non-defense discretionary spending in 2010 at levels lower than Obama and the House's requests but greater than the request from the Senate. Obama's budget called for $540 billion in such spending, the House called for $533 billion and the Senate called for $525 billion.

The agreement would also prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) from hitting upper-middle-class taxpayers for another three years, which is what Senate Democrats had called for. The House plan wanted an AMT patch that would expire after one year, while the Obama administration had called for indexing the threshold at which taxpayers are hit by the tax to inflation, a proposal that would have generated more revenue but increased the tax burden on above-average earners.

Read more!

The Profiteers of Suffering--The Top 10 Enemies of Single-Payer

by Russell Mokhiber. Posted on CommonDreams.org on April 16

Most people, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., see it for what it is--a cesspool of corruption.

Two reasonable reactions to the cesspool.

One, run away screaming in fear.

Two, stay and fight back and bring to justice those who have corrupted our democracy.

Unfortunately, many choose a third way--stay and be transformed.

Instead of seeing a cesspool, they begin seeing a hot tub.

The result--profits and wealth for the corporate elite--death, disease and destruction for the American people.

Nowhere does this corrupt, calculating transformation do more damage than in the area of health care.

Outside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the majority of doctors, nurses, small businesses, health economists, and the majority of the American people--according to recent polls--want a Canadian-style, single payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital, national health insurance system.

Inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the corrupt elite will have none of it.

They won't even put single payer on the table for discussion.

Why not?

Because it will bring a harsh justice--the death penalty--to their buddies in the multi-billion dollar private health insurance industry.

The will of the American people is being held up by a handful of organizations and individuals who profit off the suffering of the masses.

And the will of the American people will not be done until this criminal elite is confronted and defeated.

(Remember, virtually the entire industrialized world--save for us, the U.S.--makes it a crime to allow for-profit health insurance corporations to make money selling basic health insurance.)

Before we confront and defeat the inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub crowd, we must first know who they are.

To wit, we present the Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer (listed here in alphabetical order):

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
AARP, one of DC's most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer. Why? AARP makes about a quarter of its money selling insurance through its affiliate, United Healthcare Group, the nation's largest for-profit insurance company. AARP must defeat single payer--which if enacted, would wipe out that revenue stream.

American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live. Of course, facing the death penalty, AHIP is the most aggressive opponent to single payer. No compromise with AHIP.

American Medical Association
With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong), the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors' organizations. I just returned from a health care policy forum at the Center for American Progress. As usual, not one of the panelists mentioned single payer. Only during the question period did a self-identified patient/citizen ask the single payer question. And a pit bull-like Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, ripped into the questioner. "Sounds more like a statement than a question," Nielsen said. "And clearly you have a point of view about that. And I donít happen to share that point of view." Clearly she doesn't. But just as clearly, the majority of doctors, probably even a majority of doctors who belong to the AMA, support single payer. Nielsen is in denial and must be defeated.

Barack Obama
He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. Now, ensconced in the corporate prison that is the White House, he says single payer is off the table. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table.

Business Roundtable
Dr. David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), was at a health care forum a couple of years ago sponsored by the Business Roundtable. And the moderator asked the audience--made up primarily of representatives of big business--to indicate their preference of health care reforms. And the majority came out in favor of single payer. Why then is the Business Roundtable opposed? Himmelstein put it this way: "In private, they support single payer, but they're also thinking--if you can take away someone else's business--the insurance companies' business--you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it's also a cultural thing--we don't do that kind of thing in this country."

Families USA
A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. Its chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more. In November 1991, Pollack was at a Washington hotel debating Yale University professor Ted Marmor in front of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Marmor was making the argument for single payer. Pollack against. A November 1994 article in the Washington Monthly, co-authored by Marmor, reported the result this way: "After the two advocates finished, Clinton looked thoughtful, pointed to Marmor and said, 'Ted, you win the argument.' But gesturing to Pollack, Marmor recalls, the governor quickly added, 'But weíre going to do what he says.' Even considering the Canadian system, everyone in the room agreed, would prompt GOP cries of 'socialized medicine'--cries that the press would faithfully report."

Health Care for American Now
The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies. "They are saying--we can't do single payer because Americans donít want it," said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. "That's based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can't do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can't do single payer because the American people don't want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it."

Kaiser Family Foundation
One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy. Saul Friedman is a reporter for Newsday. In February, Friedman wrote an article for Newsday arguing that single payer is suffering from a conspiracy of silence. And he says Kaiser is the most culpable of the co-conpsirators. Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money, regularly keeps single payer off the table, Friedman says. When single payer advocates released a study in January asserting that Congressman John Conyers' single payer bill (HR 676) could create 2.6 million new jobs and would cost far less than the private insurance currently paid for by individuals and employers, ìthe Kaiser Family Foundation's daily online report on health care developments at kff.org didn't mention it, Friedman reported. "Nor has Kaiser, the most comprehensive online source of health care information, made any mention of single-payer or the Conyers bill since it was introduced in 2003, despite widespread support for such a plan according to Kaiser's own polls." After a number of insistent inquiries, Kaiser told Friedman that they would publish charts in March comparing the Stark and Conyers bills. They never did.

The Lewin Group
The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies. The most recent study, released last week and widely quoted in the press, of the public plan option, showed that the insurance industry would lose 32 million policy holders if a public plan is enacted. Lewin's health reform policy guru, John Sheils, told the Associated Press: "The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether." What the mainstream press didnít report was that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest health insurance corporation. Lewin Group has conducted studies on single payer at the state level--and their studies consistently show that single payer is the most efficient cost saving system. But Lewin Group has never done a study on HR 676--which would create a single payer for the entire country and drive The Lewin Group's parent--UnitedHealth Group--out of business. When asked why Lewin Group never has done a study on HR 676, Sheils said "the President didn't propose single payer, did he?" No, he didn't. Thatís why he too is on this list. (Sheils says The Lewin Group has studied national single payer. He points to a recent comparison of the different health reform proposals floating on Capitol Hill--including one by Congressman Pete Stark (D-California). Stark's bill would give every American the option of opting into Medicare. But that's not single payer, because it keeps the private insurance industry in the game. Sheils counters that he modeled the Stark bill as single-payer. "The employer coverage option under the Stark bill is made so unfavorable that no employer would do it. We have everyone in Medicare, with the resulting savings." Sheils says that of all the plans studied, the Stark bill saves the most money.)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA)
PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a "price fixer." By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits. In recent years, PHRMA has infiltrated liberal sounding groups like America's Agenda--Health Care for All. PHRMA's Vice President for Government Affairs and Law, Jan Faiks, now sits on the board of America's Agenda and PHRMA contributes money to the group--which has worked in recent years to undermine single payer at the state level. (America's Agenda Mark Blum wonít say how much money PHRMA gives to his group.)

We have met the enemy.

And they ain't us.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter and founder of singlepayeraction.org

Read more!

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt

by Thom Hartmann. Posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at CommonDreams.org

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against health care and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.

Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.

On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town. The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it. Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into the streets.

That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.

I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."

After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."

The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

The queen's corporation
The East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned by the East India Company, which had already established the first colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen," Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.

Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.

The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that led to the modern limited-liability corporation.

After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of 218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East India Company was born on December 31, 1600.

By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.

The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.

Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.

Boston's million-dollar tea party
And so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue. The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.

The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."

That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.

In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April 19, 1775.

That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program The Thom Hartmann Show. His newest book is Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture. Learn more at www.thomhartmann.com.

Read more!

"Roll Call" names the ten congressional health care staffers to know

The DC insider take on who's who in health care. In their profiles, most are long on "consensus," short on constituent and human need. Are these folks part of the problem? Can they be part of a single-payer solution? Most are Senate staffers, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced a version of HR 676, S703, which also needs co-sponsors. 

by Stephen Langel and Katie Kindelan, CongressNow Staff and Roll Call Staff; posted at Roll Call, March 31

While President Barack Obama has made reform of the nation's health care system one of his priorities, the real work tends to get done in the legislative trenches. The responsibility for reaching an elusive bipartisan deal will fall to a number of talented legislative staff in both chambers. Here are 10 Hill staffers who will play a crucial role in whatever health care legislation is enacted.

David Bowen, staff director for Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, majority staff
Age: 43
Birthplace: Summit, N.J.
Education: B.S., Brown University; Ph.D., neurobiology, University of California at San Francisco

Bowen serves as Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-Mass.) "alter ego," taking an approach to developing policy that is based on deal-making and team building.

"I look to Sen. Kennedy as an example," Bowen said. "Throughout his Senate career, he has found his way around legislative obstacles once seen as insurmountable." And for many of those obstacles, Bowen added, he has found a way to turn "what others perceived as an obstacle into a path forward."

David Nexon, now the No. 2 at AdvaMed, the medical device trade association and Bowenís predecessor at the committee, agreed that Bowen takes such an approach. In following Kennedyís lead, Bowen goes into negotiations knowing that he needs to seek common ground in order to develop a lasting deal on policy, Nexon said. And the way to do that is to focus on broad goals rather than narrow policy differences.

Conservative health lobbyists agree. Bowen is "willing to listen to both sides and work to find common ground in order to promote good public policy," one lobbyist said.

Bowen also enjoys his work as a mentor to junior staff.

"The thing I'm most proud of is when former fellows, interns and other colleagues come up to me long after they have left the office and say that working here was the best professional experience of their career," he said. The desire to mentor comes from his own experience as a fellow in Kennedyís office, he added.


Chuck Clapton, health policy director for the HELP Committee's minority health policy office
Age: 40
Birthplace: Boston
Education: B.A., Boston College; J.D., Catholic University's Columbus School of Law

Clapton is the top health care staffer in the HELP minority office and works closely with the majority in finding health care compromises.

Clapton coordinates the health activities of the minority staff and assists his boss, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), in developing policy positions on health reform.

Clapton's cooperative approach follows the lead of his boss, who has a history of working closely with Kennedy and who believes in the 80/20 rule. That means negotiators first identify the 80 percent of a topic where there is agreement, and then try to find a compromise on the remaining 20 percent.

Like many other health care staffers, Clapton points to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act as his greatest accomplishment. Enacting the Medicare Modernization Act is "the most significant change to Medicare in a generation," he said, and demonstrates the potential to use a "competitive, market-based structure to deliver a high-quality health care benefit in a cost-effective way." (blog editor's note: You might remember that this legislation prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies and was characterized by Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker as "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.")

Clapton is seen as a strong asset to the HELP minority because of his experience working in health care in both chambers, one insurance lobbyist said.


Debbie Curtis, chief of staff to Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.); professional staff, House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health
Age: 42
Birthplace: Arlington, Va.
Education: B.A., Boston University

Curtis is quick to minimize the influential role she has played for more than a decade in setting health policy agenda on Capitol Hill.

"I am part of a talented team on the Ways and Means Committee working to pursue better health care policy," Curtis said. "We shine by the policy we accomplish."

Lobbyists say Curtis does not give herself enough credit for the many policy items she has shepherded through the House, from securing preventive benefits in Medicare to passing both the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 and the Patients' Bill of Rights.

"She's like a great player-manager in baseball," said a Democratic health care lobbyist. "She brings out the best in her boss and then can take the field and pitch a no-hitter."

Curtis says achieving health care reform will hinge on both securing a public health insurance option and the willingness of all stakeholders to approach the issue with an open mind. 

"Success hinges on consensus and the ability to maintain the momentum President Obama has clearly given to health care reform," Curtis said. "It will be the difference in our ability to put together what is a very large bill in a time frame that is not very long."



Liz Fowler, senior counsel and chief health counsel to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Age: 42
Birthplace: Taipei, Taiwan
Education: B.A., University of Pennsylvania; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; J.D., University of Minnesota

Fowler leads the Finance Democrats' health care team. She coordinates health care reform efforts and works closely with the staff of ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), along with Senate and House leadership.

The role requires Fowler to be a troubleshooter. "It is my job to find that common ground and mend fences if they need to be mended," she said.

That skill was put to the test when Fowler helped pass the Medicare Modernization Act, which provided a prescription drug benefit for seniors and was one of the hallmark health care accomplishments of the Bush administration. (blog editor's note: see above under Clapton)

This effort was "personally and professionally, one of the most challenging times in my life," Fowler said, because the issues were so complex and Democrats found themselves left out of much of the Republican-led negotiations.

Fowler believes the biggest challenge this year will be "getting the numbers to work" by ensuring that the votes are there to pass health care reform.

Various health care lobbyists cited Fowler's work on the prescription drug benefit as an example of her skill in finding compromises.

Still, Fowler's willingness to work with Republicans and the Bush administration on the MMA could be a hindrance to future negotiations, said one Senate Democratic aide, who added that many Democrats felt that Baucus undercut Senate leadership by reaching a deal with the Bush administration.

"I think a lot of old-timers are going to remember the fights over the MMA," the staffer said.



Mark Hayes, health policy director and chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff
Age: 42
Birthplace: Shelbina, Mo.
Education: B.S., pharmacy, University of Missouri-Kansas City; J.D., American University's Washington College of Law

Hayes is the lead health care adviser to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and he prepares his boss for negotiations with Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on a number of issues, including the ongoing health care reform effort.

Hayes, who also serves as a resource for other Republican committee members, has so much authority that one former Senate Democratic aide referred to him as the "101st Senator."

In working to forge a deal on health care, Hayes says he tries to step back and look at the big picture, figuring out policy differences among members and a way to bridge the gaps between them.

Like his Democratic counterpart, Hayes counts passage of the prescription drug benefit as his greatest health care accomplishment.

He served as the principal Republican staff person responsible for moving the drug benefit through committee and into law, at a time when the GOP was in the majority.

In moving his bosses' agenda forward, Hayes uses his ability to explain complex issues in easy-to-understand language, a health insurance lobbyist said. His preparation is also an asset, said Dean Rosen, the former health care adviser to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). (blog editor's note: the Hospital Corp. of America heir) "Almost no staff person comes to a debate more prepared than Mark Hayes," added Rosen, who now is a lobbyist at Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (blog editor's note: a firm that carries more than $2.25 million in contracts with pharmaceutical and insurance corporations, according to OpenSecrets.org)



Kate Leone, senior health counsel to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
Age: 37
Birthplace: Princeton, N.J.
Education: B.A., Cornell University, American studies; J.D., Columbia University

While Leone may see herself as a troubleshooter -- watching for potential problems within the Democratic caucus -- her health care peers view her as a deal-maker.

Leone, said one health care activist, is "more of a realist than an activist" who's not interested at "tilting at windmills." This approach is necessary because part of her job is to balance the various interests of the Senate Democratic Conference.

A Senate Democratic aide agrees. "I think she is going to want to guide any health reform to whatever is best for the caucus, not for what's best for certain Members' legacies." (blog editor's note: And what about what's best for the American people?)

The aide added that one of Leone's greatest strengths is to know where the caucus is on any particular issue, where individual Members are and where she can lose a Senator or two without hurting the legislationís overall goal.

Leone says her greatest accomplishment in health care thus far is helping to pass a slew of bills in 2006, including shortfalls in funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program and problems with the Medicare program -- issues that had been long stalled in Congress.



Liz Murray, senior policy adviser to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
Age: 33
Birthplace: Rochester, N.Y.
Education: B.A., Yale University; M.P.P., Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government

Murray has spent her entire career focused on health care issues. And lobbyists say it shows, describing her as someone with unmatched expertise on the issues and an ability to bring people together to get things done.

"People in my job need to be willing to meet with everyone to bring as many viewpoints back to our bosses as possible," Murray said. "The most productive meetings are ones in which people are informed and can speak to their issue, as a lobbyist but also from the perspective of an everyday American." (blog editor's note: What would she hear about health care if she listened to everyday Americans directly? Even when you call it something scary like "socialized medicine," most Americans support single payer!)

In her 10 years on Capitol Hill, Murray points to President Barack Obama's signing this year of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill as her proudest achievement to date.

She sees today's health care debate as the greatest opportunity so far for real reform because the public is finally ready for more certainty and affordability in their health care services, and an inspirational president who has made the issue a priority.

"This debate is going to have so many varied interests," said a health care lobbyist who is following the debate closely. "Liz will be the one to build consensus." (blog editor's note: This begs a serious question: consensus among whom? Constitutents? Most Americans back a single payer system. And a majority of one of the most important class of stakeholders--health care professionals--do as well. It's sad to hear the phrase "varied interests" and immediately decode it as "not us".)



Karen Nelson, deputy committee staff director for health for the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Birthplace: Elgin, Ill.
Education: B.A., Cornell University, graduate work at Harvard University

Nelson brings more than 30 years of health care and legislative experience to her role as the top health care staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including 18 years with Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Lobbyists say it shows in her ability to harness a talented staff and execute her bossís legislative priorities.

"Karen is the heart and soul of the health team," said Rich Tarplin, a Democratic lobbyist and former Clinton health care administration official. "She applies strong policy expertise with strategic ability and strong management skills to get things done."

Nelson has had a hand in almost every piece of major health care legislation to pass through the chamber in the past three decades, from holding the earliest hearings on the AIDS epidemic to developing a food labeling system and securing the Hatch-Waxman provisions that brought generic drugs to market in the 1980s.

"It helps to work for a Member who's both very dedicated to the issues and a skilled legislator," Nelson said. "That, and having a talented and able staff who can define solutions to problems and move legislation forward."

Nelson says high on the agenda for the committee this year is securing a health care reform bill that will meet the goals laid out by the president and largely shared by the Caucus and members of the committee.

"Our job is to find consensus around the goals of quality, affordable coverage for all Americans," she said, "and move that legislation forward."



Bill Pewen, senior health policy adviser to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Age: 52
Birthplace: Pasadena, Calif.
Education: B.S., health education, Southern Oregon State University; M.P.H., epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh; Ph.D., infectious diseases and microbiology, University of Pittsburgh

During a time of closely divided government, moderates in both parties are in high demand. Snowe is one of the leading Republican moderates, and Pewen is the leader of her health care shop.

Pewen says he likes the role Snowe plays. "I appreciate representing a Member who has worked to bridge divides and build consensus, as that is critical to making reform sustainable over the long term."

Snowe's unique position as a key vote to help Democrats reach the magic filibuster-proof 60 votes puts Pewen in demand and makes for an intense schedule. "He definitely has his hand in nearly everything," one Senate Democratic aide said. "He is the only person I know who carries two BlackBerrys."

Pewen's role was apparent in the fight over health information technology, where the results of his central role in ensuring more stringent privacy protections for electronic medical records were included in the economic stimulus package.

Specifically, Pewen made certain that the bill included a provision requiring that certain unintentional disclosures of patient medical data be considered breaches and thus subject to penalties.




Wendell Primus, senior policy adviser for budget and health to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Age: 62
Birthplace: Eldora, Iowa
Education: B.A., Ph.D., economics, Iowa State University

Primus encompasses the mind of a policy wonk with the political skills acquired through a 30-year career on Capitol Hill. Now, as the Speaker's right-hand man on one of the top issues before Congress, lobbyists say Primus has hit his career stride.

"Throughout his career, this is the job where Iíve seen him be the most impressive," said a longtime health care lobbyist.

Primus began his legislative career on the House Ways and Means Committee, working on issues from income security and welfare reform to Medicare.

He began working for Pelosi four years ago, and today he oversees the complex task of moving legislation from the committee table to the president's desk.

"My role is to advise the Speaker on health care reform and manage legislation at the staff level," Primus said. "Itís making sure that all the bases are touched, from policy development and cost estimates to the press and various stakeholders."

Primus will no doubt play a leading role in crafting legislation aimed at achieving the ambitious overhaul of the current health care system both the Speaker and the president have called for.

"It is a tremendous challenge and opportunity all wrapped into one," he said. "This, how we get health care costs under control, should be a bipartisan issue."

Read more!

A Scary Corporate Coup is Underway--We've Got to Stop It

The Rip Off Must Be Stopped! Big bankers ruined our economy and now they are gaming the political system so they can profit even more off the crisis they caused. On April 11th, 2009, the public will come out in cities across the country to express their frustration and disapproval with how our elected officials have handled the economic crisis. No one has been left unscathed; this protest is yours.. for more information see www.anewwayforward.org.

by William Greider, posted on Alternet on March 31.

A reassuring new story line is emanating from our leaders. I heard Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Banking Committee, explain it. Then I read the same line in a Washington Post news story. That tells me people in high places are selling it.

Dynamic capitalism, they explain, invents ways to create greater wealth, but sometimes it goes a little too far. Then government has to step in to correct things. This need typically occurs every generation or so, all in a day's work.

The Obama administration is proposing "sweeping" new regulatory laws so capitalism can continue its good works.

The story makes disturbing current events sound practically normal. But what are the storytellers leaving out?

They aren't saying that this financial catastrophe was not merely an inevitable development of history but a manmade disaster. Greedheads on Wall Street did their part, but so did Washington. The reason we need new rules is that a generation of Democrats and Republicans systematically repealed or gutted the old ones -- the regulatory controls enacted 80 years ago to remedy the last breakdown of capitalism (better known as the Great Depression).

The White House executed a nifty two-step this week to re-educate the public and deflect anger. On Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner relaunched the massive bailout of banking and finance. Knowing how unpopular this is with the people at large, Geithner followed on Thursday with his "sweeping" plans to re-regulate the bankers and financiers.

Whenever official plans are called "sweeping," it indicates that they really, really mean it this time.

Most Americans are not financial experts. It's very difficult, nearly impossible, for normal mortals to sort through the dense policy talk and conflicting opinions to figure out if the rhetoric of reform is real.

Confusion is widespread in the land. Most Americans want to believe this president is leading us out of the swamp, but how can they know? I say, trust your gut feelings. They are as reliable as the learned experts.’

Many Americans want to believe because they think that returning to "normal" means their decimated 401(k) retirement accounts might somehow recover the 30-40 percent that disappeared during the past year. If it takes monster bank bailouts to restore stock-market prices, let's have bailouts.

Good luck with that.

The Dow has regained 21 percent in two weeks of rallies, but I remind friends that steep, short bursts in the stock market do not foretell the future of the economy. Banks may be relieved of their losses without changing the general economic outlook. After the crash of 1929, there were occasional stock rallies, followed by fierce bears. It took 25 years (until 1954) for the Dow to regain its old peak.

Another way to assess the Obama plan for reform is ask: Who likes it? The verdict was swift and sure after Geithner's twin announcements. Wall Street likes it.

The blueprint for regulatory reforms was applauded by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; the American Insurance Association; and the Private Equity Council, the trade group for the major private funds that will get public money and backup insurance to buy the banking system's rotten assets.

This could be born-again patriotism. Or it could be the animal appetites of financiers smelling gorgeous opportunity for returns.

This may be one of those moments where people can find some guidance from their moral convictions. They do not need to know all the details to ask simple questions.

Does the outline of what's happening to rescue major financial institutions seem morally wrong? Or is it justified by the larger necessities of the national predicament? Is the government insufficiently tough in demanding reciprocal commitments from the beneficiaries? Should Washington pursue larger structural changes in the banking system?

Trying to imagine alternatives to the bankers-first bailouts is a good place to start. What follows are suggestions I produced at the request of young people organizing demonstrations around the country for April 11. They call themselves A New Way Forward. I hope they light lots of bonfires.

This rough outline leaves out lots of particular regulatory issues, but the core goal of reform is to create a banking and financial system that serves the society and the economy, not the other way around.

Everything being done to rescue and restore the old order gets in the way of creating something truly new and valuable for the future. Those of us throwing logs in the path of the bailouts are dismissed as naysayers or worse, but the financial titans are trying to foreclose just solutions by stampeding Congress and the president to adopt ill-considered ideas.

If Wall Street gets its way, the "reforms" may further consolidate power and ratify a corporate state -- a grotesque hybrid that combines the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism.

The reform ideas announced by Geithner would plant the seeds by creating a "systemic risk" regulator, presumably the Federal Reserve, to oversee the largest, most politically adept banks and financial firms that qualify as "too big to fail." Capitalism, with its inherent tendency toward monopoly, would have the means to monopolize democracy (see my recent Washington Post article.)

My new book, Come Home, America, asks people to enunciate their versions of "patriotic realism."

That is the essence of an alternative vision: de-concentrate power, liberate people and smaller enterprises, workers and middle managers and investors, to help shape the country's future from many different perspectives. This is how democracy was supposed to work. It can again.

Some points I recommend people consider:

1. Euthanasia for insolvent banks. Transferring their losses to the public will not restore the trillions in capital the bankers helped destroy. It would merely relieve the banks, their creditors and shareholders of the pain.

Government must take control of the system to supervise a just unwinding of the mess -- whether we call it nationalization or something else. Handing out money and leaving bankers in control of how it's spent is nutty and morally wrong. People everywhere understand this. Only Washington seems oblivious to the irrationality of what it is attempting.

2. The Federal Reserve must be democratized and effectively stripped of its peculiar, anti-democratic status as an unaccountable island of power within the government. A new federal agency -- accountable to Congress and the president -- can be refashioned from the working parts of the Fed. Call it a central bank or something else, but its governing power must not rest with heavyweight bankers on the board of directors at the 12 regional banks. (To understand why, consider that the New York Federal Reserve Bank was headed until recently by Geithner.)

3. The reformed Fed would be stripped of its regulatory functions and confined to conducting monetary policy. A different section of the Treasury or a new free-standing regulatory agency can assume responsibility for regulation and be armed with strong antitrust laws and other rules to ensure that "too big to fail" institutions are redefined as "too big to save."

4. The federal law against usury can be restored to halt predatory lending. Persistent violators would not be fined with trivial penalties, as they are now, but stripped of their government protections and subsidies -- that is, doomed.

5. A new banking system -- smaller and more diverse and responsible to the public interest -- can fill the hole left by the demise of major banks like Citigroup. Vast public resources should be devoted to creating this system, not to saving the mastodons. Public banks (like the North Dakota State Bank) and nonprofit savings-and-lending cooperatives can also serve as an important cross-check on private commercial banking -- a competitive model that offers credit on nonusurious terms and keeps the big boys honest.

6. Once the Federal Reserve is domesticated in a democratic fashion, then it can be reformed to assume broad supervision of the nonbank financial firms in the "shadow banking system" -- hedge funds, private equity firms, pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies. (For more on this, see my recent Nation article, "Fixing the Fed.")

7. Our first political challenge is to disturb business as usual in Washington and prevent Congress from taking hasty action to adopt Wall Street's "reform" agenda. Congress is rattled by the exploding popular anger and listening nervously. The people need to speak louder -- loud enough for the president to hear.

William Greider is the author of, most recently, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster).

Read more!

$5 billion in political contributions bought Wall Street freedom from regulation and restraint

Steps to financial cataclysm paved with industry dollars, according to Essential Information and Consumer Education Foundation
 
March 4 - The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report issued today by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation.

The report, "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," shows that, from 1998-2008, Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates made $1.725 billion in political contributions and spent another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, a financial juggernaut aimed at undercutting federal regulation. Nearly 3,000 officially registered federal lobbyists worked for the industry in 2007 alone. The report documents a dozen distinct deregulatory moves that, together, led to the financial meltdown. These include prohibitions on regulating financial derivatives; the repeal of regulatory barriers between commercial banks and investment banks; a voluntary regulation scheme for big investment banks; and federal refusal to act to stop predatory subprime lending.

"The report details, step-by-step, how Washington systematically sold out to Wall Street," says Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Consumer Education Foundation, a California-based non-profit organization. "Depression-era programs that would have prevented the financial meltdown that began last year were dismantled, and the warnings of those who foresaw disaster were drowned in an ocean of political money. Americans were betrayed, and we are paying a high price -- trillions of dollars -- for that betrayal."

"Congress and the Executive Branch," says Robert Weissman of Essential Information and the lead author of the report, "responded to the legal bribes from the financial sector, rolling back common-sense standards, barring honest regulators from issuing rules to address emerging problems and trashing enforcement efforts. The progressive erosion of regulatory restraining walls led to a flood of bad loans, and a tsunami of bad bets based on those bad loans. Now, there is wreckage across the financial landscape."
 
12 Key Policy Decisions Led to Cataclysm
Financial deregulation led directly to the current economic meltdown. For the last three decades, government regulators, Congress and the executive branch, on a bipartisan basis, steadily eroded the regulatory system that restrained the financial sector from acting on its own worst tendencies. "Sold Out" details a dozen key steps to financial meltdown, revealing how industry pressure led to these deregulatory moves and their consequences:
1. 1. In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prohibited the merger of commercial banking and investment banking.
2. Regulatory rules permitted off-balance sheet accounting -- tricks that enabled banks to hide their liabilities.
3. The Clinton administration blocked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating financial derivatives -- which became the basis for massive speculation.
4. Congress in 2000 prohibited regulation of financial derivatives when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
5. The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 adopted a voluntary regulation scheme for investment banks that enabled them to incur much higher levels of debt.
6. Rules adopted by global regulators at the behest of the financial industry would enable commercial banks to determine their own capital reserve requirements, based on their internal "risk-assessment models."
7. Federal regulators refused to block widespread predatory lending practices earlier in this decade, failing to either issue appropriate regulations or even enforce existing ones.
8. Federal bank regulators claimed the power to supersede state consumer protection laws that could have diminished predatory lending and other abusive practices.
9. Federal rules prevent victims of abusive loans from suing firms that bought their loans from the banks that issued the original loan.
10. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded beyond their traditional scope of business and entered the subprime market, ultimately costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
11. The abandonment of antitrust and related regulatory principles enabled the creation of too-big-to-fail megabanks, which engaged in much riskier practices than smaller banks.
12. Beset by conflicts of interest, private credit rating companies incorrectly assessed the quality of mortgage-backed securities; a 2006 law handcuffed the SEC from properly regulating the firms.
 
Financial Sector Political Money and 3000 Lobbyists Dictated Washington Policy
During the period 1998-2008:
• Commercial banks spent more than $154 million on campaign contributions, while investing $363 million in officially registered lobbying:
• Accounting firms spent $68 million on campaign contributions and $115 million on lobbying;
• Insurance companies donated more than $218 million and spent more than $1.1 billion on lobbying;
• Securities firms invested more than $504 million in campaign contributions, and an additional $576 million in lobbying. Included in this total: private equity firms contributed $56 million to federal candidates and spent $33 million on lobbying; and hedge funds spent $32 million on campaign contributions (about half in the 2008 election cycle).
The betrayal was bipartisan: about 55 percent of the political donations went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats, primarily reflecting the balance of power over the decade. Democrats took just more than half of the financial sector's 2008 election cycle contributions.
The financial sector buttressed its political strength by placing Wall Street expatriates in top regulatory positions, including the post of Treasury Secretary held by two former Goldman Sachs chairs, Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson.

Financial firms employed a legion of lobbyists, maintaining nearly 3,000 separate lobbyists in 2007 alone. These companies drew heavily from government in choosing their lobbyists. Surveying 20 leading financial firms, "Sold Out" finds 142 of the lobbyists they employed from 1998-2008 were previously high-ranking officials or employees in the Executive Branch or Congress.

Read more!