NASCAR Patches for Congressmen

I heard one new idea in last night's State of the Union. In response to the Supreme Court deciding that multi-national corporations should have all the rights of individual breathing citizens -- allowing them to spend whatever they want to influence elections (as reported here) -- Obama suggested that all contacts between lobbyists and public servants be publicly documented. This includes the identity of the client corporations and amounts of money and time involved. The applause were uneven. This morning a new FaceBook group appeared: 'Our Corporate Congress': Make NASCAR-type patches mandatory Congress-wear. I'm not much of a joiner, but I like this idea. Allow the Congressman from Exxon to proudly wear the oil patch right next to his Monsanto and Pfizer badges. Let the senator who filibusters public transit bills proudly show his AAA patch and Ford logo.

Continue ReadingNASCAR Patches for Congressmen

Congress Approves $500 Billion For Monument To Human Folly

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.

Continue ReadingCongress Approves $500 Billion For Monument To Human Folly

My recurring nightmare

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.

Continue ReadingMy recurring nightmare

What KIND of health care?

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.

Continue ReadingWhat KIND of health care?

Elizabeth Warren faces fierce resistance to regulation of non-bank lenders

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.

Continue ReadingElizabeth Warren faces fierce resistance to regulation of non-bank lenders