As reported by The Onion, “Congress Approves $500 Billion For Monument To Human Folly.”
In recognition of mankind’s inherent propensity for tragically foolish decisions, Congress allocated nearly $500 billion Monday for the construction of a new national monument honoring human folly.
What I am posting here is a gnawing, recurring and growing concern that sometimes seems like a nightmare to me. It embarrasses me that this thought keeps recurring because it makes me look like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists.
What brought this “nightmare” to a head was watching Bill Moyers’ interview with U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Here’s an excerpt:
MARCY KAPTUR: Let me give you a reality from ground zero in Toledo, Ohio. Our foreclosures have gone up 94 percent. A few months ago, I met with our realtors. And I said, ‘What should I know?’ They said, ‘Well, first of all, you should know the worst companies that are doing this to us.’ I said, ‘Well, give me the top one.’ They said, ‘J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I went back to Washington that night. And one of my colleagues said, ‘You want to come to dinner?’ I said, ‘Well, what is it?’ He said, ‘Well, it’s a meeting with Jamie Dimon, the head of J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I said, ‘Wow, yes. I really do.’ So, I go to this meeting in a fancy hotel, fancy dinner, and everyone is complimenting him. I mean, it was just like a love fest.
They finally got to me, and my point to ask a question. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want to speak out of turn here, Mr. Dimon.’ I said, ‘But your company is the largest forecloser in my district. And our Realtors just said to me this morning that your people don’t return phone calls.’ I said, ‘We can’t do work outs.’ And he looked at me, he said, ‘Do you know that I talk to your Governor all the time?’ He said, ‘Our company employs 10,000 people in Ohio.’ And I’m thinking, ‘What is that? A threat?’ And he said, ‘I speak to the Mayor of Columbus.’
As I watched this, I was thinking how amazing it was that a bank president would dare to treat a U.S. representative as though she meant nothing to him, even though she is a sitting member of Congress and a member of the political party that controls both Houses and the Presidency. How is it that all the big financial players such as Chase, AIG, Goldman Sachs, always get exactly what they want out of Congress? How can Congress allow these entities to continue to grow (since the meltdown), even though it is clear that the reason Congress felt that they needed to be propped up with tax money is that they were considered “too big to fail?” Name even one other industry that can snap its fingers and watch meaningful Congressional regulation completely dissolve. Name another industry that can demand hundreds of billions of no-questions-asked tax dollars from Congress. Consider the vast power and potential abuses of the Federal Reserve, which works arrogantly and opaquely. Consider Matt Tabbi’s recent articles regarding these financial giants and Congressional Corruption (and see here). We’re not even finished paying off the damage from the S&L scandal from the 80’s, and now, in the past year, we’ve taken on a new debt that dwarfs that S&L debt. And consider that when someone like federal Judge Rakoff has the integrity to stand up to speak truth to power, he seems to be a lone voice calling from a distant hilltop, not part of any sort of chorus. Consider, too, the monumental struggle faced by Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel , who is facing immense opposition in Congress to establishing a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to make sure that consumers stop getting ripped off by banks through the use of unintelligible contract language (how can this possibly be controversial?).
Pardon my French, but what-the-fuck?
Using Occam’s Razor (the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the best), how does one explain that huge numbers of our representatives have completely tanked on The People.
The raging health care debate “debate” is almost entirely devoid of facts, an issue on which I’ve previously posted. Instead of discussing fact, then, we tend hurl vague accusations, like calling the reformers “communists” (and you’ve GOT to see this).
I “blame” Obama for this lack of specificity, but I realize that the vicious opposition mounted by huge self-interested insurance companies and health care providers might require that he not play all of his cards at this point.
But isn’t it odd that our politicians aren’t at least clarifying the term “health care coverage” when they refer to national health care coverage? Defining this term would make a huge difference to the public reaction to any national plan. Here are two possibilities (though there are others):
A) The national plan will offer gold-plated coverage much like the expensive United Health Care coverage I buy for my family through my employer. For the record, the pre-tax cost of this coverage is about $20,000 per year for my family. Is the Obama proposal to provide every citizen with this kind of coverage? If so, I can see why there is massive resentment to the proposal. Many working people can barely afford health insurance coverage at all, and the coverage many people do purchase is not nearly as comprehensive as the expensive coverage I purchase. Of course people who can can only afford to buy their own rudimentary policies will resent that the government might buy gold-plated policies for everyone else, including many highly irresponsible people.
B) The national plan will offer a rudimentary coverage only. It will cover x-rays and casts for broken arms, but not heart transplants and expensive drugs that only marginally increase one’s chances of surviving an illness. It wouldn’t keep people suffering from terminal illness on life support when there is no reasonable chance that they would ever leave the hospital. It would cover only a small subset of the treatments covered by gold-plated policies. It might be akin to the Oregon Plan.
I believe that there would be massive resistance to the national coverage described in A) but far less resistance to the coverage described in B).
At least Oregon’s legislators had the cajunas to specifically state what was covered under their plan and what was not (Oregon’s prioritized list is available for all to see). Oregon had the fiscal responsibility to make certain that they could afford the level of health care to which they were committing. Oregon dealt head-on with the accusation that they were “rationing” health care; absolutely they were, just like private plans ration health care only to those who pay those high premiums. Both responsible and irresponsible health care plans “ration” health care. Therefore, it is not a criticism of any health care plan that it “rations” health care. Here are the guiding principles to the Oregon Plan:
In 1987, the Oregon Legislature realized that it had no method for allocating resources for health care that was both effective and accountable. Over the next two years, policy objectives were developed to guide the drafting of legislation to address this problem. These policy objectives included:
• Acknowledgment that the goal is health rather than health services or health insurance
• Commitment to a public process with structured public input
• Commitment to meet budget constraints by reducing benefits rather than cutting people
from coverage or reducing payments to levels below the cost of care
• Commitment to use available resources to fund clinically effective treatments of
conditions important to Oregonians
• Development of explicit health service priorities to guide resource allocation decisions.
Our national conversation regarding health care is so dysfunction on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll make only one more point in this post, however. Opponents of current proposals often make accusations that there will be “death panels,” indicating that some sick people will be allowed to die. As a nation, we need to grow up and deal with the fact that this happens every day in every hospital in the country: we shouldn’t be allocating huge amounts of money to maintain pulses in people who have become living corpses. There are some families who “can’t let go” no matter what (e.g., Terry Schiavo), and our national plan needs to have specific guidelines for these situations. In fact, every private insurance plan should have guidelines for determining when further treatment is likely to be futile and a provision for ending coverage at that point. The alternative is to make policies so horrifically expensive that many people can’t afford policies that cover tratments likely to make an immediate positive impact on their lives.
Only when we put these issues clearly on the table can we begin to have a real conversation.
Elizabeth Warren is one of my heroes. Barack Obama appointed her to be Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created, which was established to oversee the banking bailouts. For many years, Warren has fought tough battles on behalf of consumers. [See the related posts to this post; and here's a video of Warren being interviewed by Jon Stewart that will give you an idea of what she is about (and especially consider Part II)].
Warren is now facing an incredibly tough uphill battle. Her main weapon is common sense. She wants to regulate banks and non-bank lenders, to stop them from defrauding consumers with their fine print, their outlandish fees and their arithmetical hocus-pocus. In a fair fight, her position should easily win the day. But it’s not a fair fight, because the financial services industry owns much of Congress. Therefore, Warren has spent much time advocating for the need for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Here’s what Warren has to say about the need to regulate non-bank lenders:
There is more that we can do to deal with non-bank lenders, but only if Congress creates a strong CFPA. If we stick with the status quo — which treats loans differently depending on who issues them and places consumer protection in agencies that consider it an afterthought - we know what will happen because we have seen it happen before. Lenders will continue their tricks and traps business model, the mega-banks will exploit regulatory loopholes, and the non-banks will continue to sell deceptive products. In that world, small banks will need to choose between lowering standards or losing market share, and they will still get too much attention from regulators while the non-banks and big banks get too little. Dangerous loans will destabilize both families and the economy, and we’ll all remain at risk for the next trillion-dollar bailout.
Regulating the non-banks hasn’t been tried in any serious way. The CFPA offers a real chance to level the playing field, to add balance to the system, and to change the consumer lending landscape forever.
The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves. –Eric Hoffer
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. –Mohandas Gandhi
Greetings all! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Brynn, and I’ll be joining the fantastic stable of authors at Dangerous Intersection. I’m flattered that Erich asked me to be a part of what is being built here. Lots of very talented people are contributing their thoughts to the ongoing discussion generated on various topics, and I’m honored to be a part of that.
I’ve been a regular reader of DI for about a year, and I’ve been impressed with the quality posts as well as the engaging discussion that often occurs in the comments following the post. One thing that is never shied away from is disagreement. Nor should disagreement be avoided. There is no party line here, there is no heresy. What is abundant is the type of quality discussion and debate that is the hallmark of a vigorous, open community.
Too often in contemporary American society, honest debate is stifled. Politicians have learned to speak in sound bites. Media commentators have learned to present insipid and truncated stories to a largely passive and apathetic audience. The constraints of time or column inches prevent a lengthy examination of any given issue. Talking points are adopted by the major parties’ respective constituencies as though they were absolute truth. The vehemence with which one holds an opinion has become a substitute for thoughtful reflection on the reasons why one holds an opinion.
This must change. The staggering array of challenges that face us demand a well-informed and engaged citizenry . . .
Early this week, Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eshoo introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. It’s common sense and it’s fair, but just watch as the telecoms now do everything they can to destroy it. Why do we need this Act? Here are a few recent examples:
The issue of unrestricted Internet access has gained new traction on Capitol Hill in the wake of reports that Apple and AT&T are each blocking or preventing users from accessing services for the mega-popular iPhone, which is exclusive to AT&T at the moment. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski recently sent letters to Apple, AT&T, and Google asking why Google Voice, the company’s popular free calling service, was rejected for use on the iPhone.
Representatives Markey and Eshoo made this statement about the need for this net neutrality bill:
The Internet is a success today because it was open to everyone with an idea,” said Rep. Markey. “That openness and freedom has been at risk since the Supreme Court decision in Brand X. This bill will protect consumers and content providers because it will restore the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate. The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the economy precisely because it started as an open technology,” Rep. Eshoo said. “This bill will ensure that the non-discriminatory framework that allows the Internet to thrive and competition on the Web to flourish is preserved at a time when our economy needs it the most.”
H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, is designed to assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content providers. The bill states that it is the policy of the United States to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet while preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks, enabling consumers to connect to such networks their choice of lawful devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network. The legislation also directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate several rules relating to enforcement and implementation of the legislation, including rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service fulfill the duties and disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider’s Internet access service in clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner.
To do your part, click on this tool to determine the phone number of your representative, then call to ask for his or her position on this bill. You are then given a further option to report the result to Free Press/Save the Internet. I made the call and spoke directly with a legislative assistant. She didn’t know the answer (re Representative Russ Carnahan), but promised to find out and report back to me. The entire process only took a couple minutes.
You can also sign a Petition that will be delivered to Congress by visiting Save the Internet. Again, it only takes a minute. Your grass roots investment of a few minutes can counteract tens of millions of dollars the telecoms will spend on lobbyists, misleading media campaigns and wads of cash that the are putting into the palms of your elected representatives. Be empowered!
Caroline Baum, a columnist for Bloomberg News, had this to say in an August 12 column about health care reform:
Take the issue of a public option. How can the private insurance industry survive with a not-for-profit government plan charging a pittance?
Ms. Baum has overlooked some basic facts that would undermine this claim. Namely, in America, there are public universities competing with private universities, public hospitals competing with private hospitals, public libraries competing with private bookstores, and a public post office competing with private package delivery companies. To cite an even more obvious example, there are already public, not-for-profit government plans like Medicare competing with private insurers. Even in Europe, where most countries already offer universal public health coverage, private insurers still operate.
In none of these instances has the public alternative put private competitors out of business. Why on earth would this suddenly change if the U.S. Congress created a public health insurance option?
New York Representative Anthony Weiner is my new hero. It’s clearly time for a single payor system and it appears that progressives are finally getting the courage to speak up for it. There is no rationality in a system that syphons health care dollars off as profits to big insurance corporations. Kudos to Rachel Maddow for prominently featuring this issue.
When a product kills 450,000 Americans every year, don’t you think it deserves a high level of scrutiny and regulation? I mean, aren’t you a bit surprised that it’s even illegal, given that marijuana, which kills nobody (except due to insanely reactionary law enforcement), is completely outlawed?
Consider that the bodies of the people killed by tobacco every year would stretch more than 500 miles, if laid end to end. Every one of those dead people were using tobacco products exactly as anticipated by the manufacturers. Those dead bodies could stretch from New York City to Charlotte, North Carolina (or pick your own 500 mile radius). Can you imagine the tobacco executives walking along one of those 500 mile lines of dead bodies, justifying the carnage? Walking, whistling and thinking, “Just look at all of those people who were dumb enough to buy that highly addictive product that I promoted and sold . . .”
And now consider the morals of some of our politicians. Step forward, Senators who oppose the new law that subjects tobacco to FDA
regulation. Thanks to McClatchy Newspapers, we know that many of you are tobacco whores:
Among the 17 senators who voted against allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which has donated millions of dollars to lawmakers in the past several campaign cycles.
If you want more details who which tobacco whore has received how much money, visit OpenSecrets.org.
Consider, too, that the corruption that exists with regard to tobacco, also exists with regard to any major industry. For instance, consider health care, defense contracting, farming (including wasteful corn ethanol subsidies), and last but not least, the financial “services” industries. Serving themselves to our tax-dollars.
Now I’m not for outlawing tobacco. But I am for unleashing a torrent of high-profile prime-time advertising that would show the death and destruction caused by tobacco up close and in nauseating detail. And I am for allowing the FDA to join in the war against smoking. Why? Consider this comment from Dick Durbin from a report by MSNBC:
“This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. “Every day that we don’t act, 3,500 American kids — children — will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses.”
The banks “own the place.” What place? Congress. Who would say such a shocking thing? Someone relatively trustworthy: Dick Durbin. Consider this from Huffpo:
Only 45 Senate Democrats voted Thursday to oppose the banking industry and pass legislation aimed at stemming foreclosures. The bill would have allowed bankruptcy judges to allow homeowners who met strict conditions to renegotiate mortgages — a process known as cramdown. It would have only applied to mortgages entered into before 2009.
Earlier in the week, the measure’s lead proponent, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks “frankly own the place.”
Illinois Representative John Shimkus knows all he needs to know about climate change. It’s all in the infallible Bible. Here he is demolishing all of that silly science with a few phrases out of Genesis. Based on his expressions, he’s a hero in his own eyes. He’s got that look that he knows he will go to heaven. Don’t worry. There’s only going to be one worldwide flood and we’ve already had it. Case closed. Proceedings from the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:
If you want to learn a lot more about the nonsense Shimkus spouts, visit Progress Illinois.
You hear many conservatives yelping about “flag desecration,” as though the torture of hundreds of prisoners conducted by the U.S. is not flag desecration.
Here is a post pointing out further hypocrisy, expecially the cherry-picking done by conservatives. The sections of U.S. Code cited by this article suggest that even those many candidates who decided to [...]
One of the “trial balloons” of the incoming Obama administration is a proposed consolidation of NASA with US military programs for space. The ostensible reason is “national security,” but insecurity about our military’s capabilities to keep up with Chinese efforts to explore and exploit space are at the core of an effort to strip away [...]
