Another reason to pass the healthcare bill...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Image via Wikipedia

Is so that the Republicans in the Senate won't block funding for the troops anymore???  Yes, this is truly crazy, but the GOP attempted last Thursday to delay the healthcare bill through filibustering the defense appropriations bill; by holding up the defense bill, that could throw off the carefully crafted schedule Harry Reid put together to pass healthcare before the Christmas recess.  The Senate's parliamentary maneuvers and roadblocks have been on full display during the healthcare debate of late, however, Congressional historians agree that filibustering one non-controversial bill to block a controversial one is rather unprecedented.  Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, proving once again that principles can always take a backseat to political expediency.

UPDATE: Let's pass healthcare reform

Image via Wikipedia

UPDATE BELOW: I had started a post earlier bemoaning the state of the healthcare reform bill, but over the last few hours I've been reading many persuasive arguments for both killing the Senate bill as it now stands (quick recap: no public option of any sort, mandates for 30 million currently uninsured people to buy coverage, premiums capped at 8% of income...more here courtesy of Sen. Paul Kirk, Ted Kennedy's replacement and former Chief of Staff) and for voting in favor of it.  I'm torn, and here are the two most persuasive arguments pro and con:

In favor of the bill (with great graphics): Igor Volsky.

Against the bill (with a strong and principled argument): Cenk Uygur.

Cenk argues that the public option was the focal point of so much progressive advocacy because it fundamentally alters the rules of the health insurance game, in the sense that health insurers only make a profit through taking your premium payments and finding ways to pay out less in benefits than you pay to them in premiums.  The incentive for insurers, therefore, is to deny care when possible, which is morally repugnant on its face.  The public option would provide an oppositional counterweight to the reigning insurance industry model in the form of health insurance that is not concerned with profit so much as providing the most effective care the most efficient way possible.

It's heartbreaking to have to give up the public option at this point, however the fact is, there will be time to tinker with the bill, and key Democrats are now saying that the public option will be "revisited" legislatively as early as 2010.  After looking at Volsky's graphics and reading about how much money average families and individuals are projected to save on their health insurance, I have to support the bill.  The subsidies to help people pay for the insurance they will now be required to purchase are generous as they currently stand, and if our ultimate goal is to insure more people, then despite the compromises involved, this bill needs to pass.

UPDATE: Here is the most complete and understandable breakdown of how heath care reform will affect the premiums various families of four will pay as of 2016 (once the program if fully phased-in).  Be sure to zoom in on the table embedded in the text - it's quite impressive.  My hope is being restored, little by little...

Money in Washington, or, How the Democrats Became Beholden to Business Interests

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Moyers, who recently announced he will be retiring from weekly television to our collective detriment, shows that his style of intrepid journalism still makes for must-see-TV with his Friday episode of Bill Moyers Journal. Moyers interviews The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner and Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on the Obama Administration's various capitulations to the wills of monied interests from health care to financial reform. If you would like a succinct and informative look at how things have gone so wrong so quickly in Obama's still-young Administration, I highly recommend you take half an hour and watch the program. Hat tip to CitizenofEarth on DailyKos for drawing my (and others') attention to this episode.
In the Moyers discussion, Taibbi makes the argument that the Democrats, and especially Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, have made a business decision to win the fundraising battle with Republicans by appeasing business interests:

And I think, you know, a lot of what the Democrats are doing, they don't make sense if you look at it from an objective point of view, but if you look at it as a business strategy- if you look at the Democratic Party as a business, and their job is basically to raise campaign funds and to stay in power, what they do makes a lot of sense. They have a consistent strategy which involves negotiating a fine line between sentiment on the left and the interests of the industries that they're out there to protect. And they've always, kind of, taken that fork in the road and gone right down the middle of the line. And they're doing that with this health care bill and that's- it's consistent.

In a sense, a connection can be seen between the health insurance industry's business model and the "business model" of modern politics: the only way to make profits is to deny the people who use your services the services that they have rightfully paid for, with that payment being, in this case, insurance premiums, votes, or public opinion. For instance, the insurance industry can use rescission and other nefarious tactics to deny health care to people when they need it most, and politicians (in this case, Obama and his minions) can use soaring rhetoric and populist talk to sell voters an idea of the politician they will get, and then when the rubber meets the road, they will aggresively capitulate to the monied interests who invested so heavily in their campaign over the will of the voters who voted them into office in the first place. The Democrats can only reap the "profits" of continued campaign financing from Big Business if they deny the will of the voters, since the reforms that voters overwhelmingly support will result in reduced profit margins for Big Business. The calculation it comes down to, as Robert Kuttner accurately places it in the Moyers interview, is that campaign donations from business will outweigh the wills of individual voters who will be turned off by a politician's being beholden to monied interests:

Look, there are two ways, if you're the President of the United States sizing up a situation like this that you can try and create reform. One is to say, well, the interest groups are so powerful that the only thing I can do is I can work with them and move the ball a few yards, get some incremental reform, hope it turns into something better. The other way you can do it is to try to rally the people against the special interests and play on the fact that the insurance industry, the drug industry, are not going to win any popularity contests with the American people. And you, as the president, be the champion of the people against the special interests. That's the course that Obama's chosen not to pursue.

It appears that Obama and his team have misread the situation in this country; they do not understand the deep-seated anger towards the companies and the individual CEOs and executives that have brought us to this point of a failing financial system that has brought the world to its knees, combined with a domestic health care system that is responsible for 22,000 deaths per year due to a lack of insurance and many thousands driven into bankruptcy due to catastrophic medical expenses. American voters can see that the decks are stacked against the little guys/gals, but sadly our political class still believes we can be deceived by positive talk and rhetorical spinup . I hope that Obama wakes up to the fact that he is widely being seen as allied with business interests against American interests, or else his presidency will become a failed one when that is the last thing that this country needs.

Time to make banking boring again

Yes! Vindication is nigh! Well, that's what Simon Johnson at the Baseline Scenario thinks, anyways. Johnson is convinced that Paul Volcker will be victorious in his quest to re-regulate the banking industry, and dare I say it, make banking boring again through reinstituting the Glass-Steagall reforms. What a concept, right? It's funny to me that when I read classic fiction, the bankers are portrayed as the staid, conservative types, who are well-off, but never considered the captains of industry as they are today (well, except perhaps in The Great Gatsby). And what is humorous to me is that that classic image of the banker is very much divorced from the one we have witnessed over the past decade, when banking became one of the most, if not the most, freewheeling industries in terms of risks taken and sums of money made.

The topic of banking and financial reform has become quite compelling to me of late (as is clear from the substance of my recent posts) as I believe that the problems we are witnessing strike at the heart of the American approaches towards money and morality. "More is always better" is the stereotypical American ethos, and yet there should be consequences for wrong actions (witness America's continuing fascination with the death penalty as a form of crime control, despite widespread statistical studies that show the death penalty does not deter crime). However, the financial titans pursued wealth with a single-minded focus, playing with other peoples' money, and when the house of imaginary wealth they built came crashing down, they suffered few, if any, consequences. There is a basic unfairness to this matter, and a sense that the outrages will not stop, given the current weaknesses in the financial reform plans the House passed last week and that are now before the Senate (and sure to be watered down there even further). Johnson notes the fairness issue in the context of Volcker's proposed reform measures:

This strategy is partly about timing – and in this regard Volcker has chosen his moment well. The economy is starting to recover, but this process is clearly going to take a while and unemployment will stay high for the foreseeable future. At the same time, our biggest banks are making good money – mostly from trading, not much from lending to small business – and they are lining up to pay very big bonuses.

Not only is this contrast – high unemployment vs. bankers’ bonuses – annoying and unfair, it is also not good economics. Bankers are, in effect, being rewarded for taking the risks that created the global crisis and led to massive job losses. And they are being implicitly encouraged to do the same thing again.

And there's the rub; bankers are being incentivized, to use the economics term, to take massive short-term risks again if we keep the basic banking structure the way it has been since the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The bonuses will not stop, and the government will continue to be expected to backup the banks when they fail, because they've done it once, and the banks now have an incentive to ensure that in the future they will once again be "too-big-to-fail" so that the government will be forced to backstop their losses when the next recession hits. The core business of banking, saving and lending money, is being short-changed in what ought to be our country's economic recovery in favor of the massive profits (and risks) of the financial innovations of the past decade. Until Obama and his Administation get a grip on the need for fundamental reform and a return to the basics, the Wall Steeters will continue to put all of our nation's money in harm's way.

Obama, Health Care Reform, and Corporate Chicanery: Capitulating the Battle and Losing the War

Image via Wikipedia

So health care reform is virtually over, the chance for progressives to win out and to really cut costs and inject competition into the health insurance market has passed, and the corporations won out again. As noted below, I was despairing earlier today, but after reading Bob Cesca's latest piece at Huffington Post, I feel slightly better. His main point is that, despite being truly, utterly pissed off about how things have transpired in the health care debate, there is too much still at stake to actually "kill the bill." To wit:

Yet I can't help but to believe that killing reform will only heap an even larger failure on top of losing the public option, the Medicare buy-in and so forth. Only this time, it won't be a failure limited to an ideological or political routing. The failure of health care reform will invariably mean at least another decade (if not two decades) of a desperate health care system in crisis. Another decade or two of medical bankruptcies and deaths due to a lack of insurance -- exponential premium hikes and rescissions. You know the list.

If I stop being pissed off long enough to take a good look at what remains in both the Senate and House bills, there aren't necessarily fool-proof solutions to these problems, but there are regulations, subsidies and reforms that will ameliorate a significant chunk of the present crisis. For example, the Senate bill will reduce the cost of insurance for a family of four earning $54,000 from around $19,000 per year to around $9,000 per year.

[snip]

Do progressives really want to tell working-and-middle class families of that they're not allowed to get a $10,000 annual break on their insurance payments? If you're okay with that, I admire and respect your integrity, but I just can't be a part of it. Objective reality dictates that there's no other path at this point but to support the bill and to subsequently endeavor to fix it.

So incremental reforms it is, but at least 30+ million additional Americans will have insurance coverage, despite having to pony up the cash to buy that insurance themselves. Let's hope those subsidies come through, and that they're generous...

But the larger issue here is a sense that our President is selling us out. He could have drawn a line in the sand and fought harder for the public option, rather than pay lip service to it to appease the liberal base. He could have fought for pharmaceutical reimportation from Canada to help save the US taxpayer over $100 billion over the next 10 years, as he had when he was a Senator, however he brought his considerable political weight down on the side of killing that reform effort in order to preserve his backroom deal with the pharmaceutical companies to preserve their profits as long as they did not work to destroy reform. Beyond health care reform, the sense that Barack Obama is not living up to be the President we voted for is also apparent in the "financial reform" efforts I wrote about earlier today, and Cenk Uygur writes passionately about that sense, laying out a concise summary of all that is disappointing about our President thus far. In brief:

But I don't put the civil liberties and the wars in the same equation as the other issues I mentioned. Why? Because it's one thing if I disagree with your policies and principles, if they are genuinely held. Ok, that's a sad day for me but doesn't necessarily indicate that you're wrong or unprincipled (no matter how much I might disagree with you). What I mind is the give-aways to corporate lobbyists that have nothing to do with your principles and have everything to do with politics and money. What I mind is when you sell out the American people to protect corporate America. I hate it when the Republicans do it and pretend to be for the little guy. And I hate it when this administration does it and pretends to be for change.

There was always going to be buyer's remorse when a huge portion of the voting public places their hopes and dreams in one man who must work within the system that is presented to him, however I don't think anyone expected the remorse to be quite this sharp, on so many issues of such great importance to our country. I hold out hope for a change from Obama, but hope is fading fast these days.

UPDATED: Remember the Titans (of Industry are Not Friends of Yours)

Image via Wikipedia

Allow me, if you will, to paint a layman's picture of the economic crisis and unbridled greed through the use of some headlines that have caught my eye in the last few days.

Headline 1: With Wall Street Shorting the Dollar, It is Time for Congress to Pursue Fundamental Change by David Paul, President of the Fiscal Strategies Group. This article provides some insight into how it is that Wall Street is managing to have one of its best years ever, despite the fact that the rest of the economy is in the grip of a major recession brought on largely by Wall Street's criminally risky behavior. Outrageously, after having been bailed out by US taxpayers, the banks are making their billions right now by shorting the US dollar and thereby effectively weakening the US' international position further than it would be otherwise. I won't excerpt from this article, as the entire piece is well worth a read, and has sadly been overlooked by the continuing popular outrage against the billion-dollar bonuses the banks intend to pay out this month, but suffice it to say that the banks are committing financial treason, if not outright treason, in pursuit of their profits at all costs.

UPDATE: Turns out that the Federal Reserve will allow the bet-against-the-dollar party to continue through the rest of the year by keeping the interest rate between 0% and 0.25%.  Sounds swell.

Headline 2: Obama Blasts Banks for Opposing Financial Reform: Here Obama comes out with some populist lines trying to get ahead of public sentiment against the excesses of the banks, and those banks ignore him, since he officially has no leverage over the banks' practices now that virtually all of them have paid back their TARP funds to the government. The banks are now free to continue to reduce business lending and to actively oppose any sort of reform that puts a damper on their radical activities. The lack of lending is slowing the economic recovery as businesses aren't able to hire workers as easily, and the banks know that they have the power to hamper any sort of recovery through cutting down on lending, effectively vetoing the President's initiatives from the private sector.

Headline 3: Bailout Banks Keep Tax Breaks As They Repay Loans: Yes, Citigroup and others are going to cash in on massive tax breaks, even as they repay the TARP funds that put caps on compensation practices early, to better engage in the type of compensation practices that preceded the economic collapse. The IRS appears, for all intents and purposes, to be in collusion with the banks on first glance, however by allowing for these tax breaks, the Treasury Department is actually increasing the value of the banks' shares, so that taxpayers get a better return on their TARP investments. Still, it's just an extremely sketchy way of going about increasing a company's worth, when the underlying fundamentals are still so weak. It is never a good thing for a company to rely on tax breaks to increase its value, rather than on sound business practices (say I who support tax breaks alternative-energy companies...)

All that being said, there appears to be hope on the horizon in terms of financial reform. Yes, the House passed a reform bill last week, but that effort was weakened by bank-friendly Democrats, and as noted in the above link, the Senate will now be the main battleground over financial reform going forward, with bank lobbyists gearing up for a major fight. But the Senators may have some tricks up their sleeves, and a voice from the past may play a larger role in the reform movement still to come.

Hopeful Headline 1: McCain and Cantwell Want a New Glass-Steagall Law by Michael Hirsh for Newsweek. Glass-Steagall is a post-Depression-era law that worked to separate the investment arms of banks from the commercial lending sides (what we know as the regular bank you set up checking and savings accounts with, and that provide loans for cars to homes). The idea behind Glass-Steagall is that the investment sides of banks can take the risks, but the lending sides should be more well-regulated, and they will be provided for by the newly-created Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) with the government as "lender of last resort" should a bank fail. With the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the banks were allowed to merge their lending and investment arms, and some, such as Sens. McCain and Cantwell, believe that the risky bets the banks took with depositors' money, such as derivatives, laid the groundwork for the mess we're in today. While I'm no economist (I've only taken one micro class thus far) and I'm certainly not a financial market expert, it would appear to me that if the banks could get back to their core business of banking that would be a welcome return for many. Which leads me to my next point...

Hopeful Headline 2: Paul Volcker: Think More Boldly and interview with the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray. Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman under Presidents Carter and Reagan, argues that the "financial innovations" Wall Street has foisted upon the world in the wake of Glass-Steagall's repeal add nothing in the way of actual productivity or economic growth in the economy as a whole. The titans of Wall Street created fake profits, and the financial innovations of credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations simply "move around the rents in the financial system" meaning the complex transactions that played out between banks and insurers (such as AIG) to spread the debts out amongst many different players. Volcker goes on:

How do I respond to a congressman who asks if the financial sector in the United States is so important that it generates 40% of all the profits in the country, 40%, after all of the bonuses and pay? Is it really a true reflection of the financial sector that it rose from 2½% of value added according to GNP numbers to 6½% in the last decade all of a sudden? Is that a reflection of all your financial innovation, or is it just a reflection of how much you pay? What about the effect of incentives on all our best young talent, particularly of a numerical kind, in the United States?

In Britain, I was just talking to a high-tech company about the immense attraction to go into finance when both Britain and the United States are suffering from a basic inability to produce things competitively, to keep up with the new economy. Is this a result of financial innovation that we should be really worried about?

These thoughts intrigued me; how much have the outsize profits to be had in finance over the last decade shaped the job market in the US? How many of our "best and brightest" have gone on to huge-paying Wall Street jobs that would have otherwise gone into less, ahem, financially-motivated work? Look at these graphs of US job growth over the past decade; what does it say about our country when the investment sector grows from 2.5% of GDP to 6.5% over 10 years, but job growth drops to near-zero percent over that same period of time? Is there a link, a correlation, a causation? My limited economic knowledge at this point in my education leads me to admit that I cannot find an explanation for those two inverse movements of financial-sector activities and job growth, but I would be greatly interested if someone could explain them to me.

Let me take a moment to plug a wonderful website I've just recently come across, The Baseline Scenario, which, I must acknowledge, led me to the Volcker interview in the first place.  Some very esteemed financial market watchers and economists evaluate the current economic situation and provide some solutions, in very detailed form. I'll do some more investigating into the jobs/financial sector expansion connection and report back when I can. The main idea I've come away with is that the American people are being misled and misrepresented by our public officials and big businesspeople all at the same time, on many levels. It pains me that Obama has not been more of a force for true reform, especially when the plundering of our nation's economy and public coffers has been so widespread and rampant by the titans of industry. There's still time yet to make some fundamental changes, and Volcker seems quite confident that his views will prevail, so let's hope the situation changes soon.

UPDATE II: Health Care Reform to be Killed?

Updates below...

Today is a tough day across for liberals.  Whether that is a positive development in you opinion or not, health care reform is something that, if done right, could help so many people in so many ways that any setback in the reform movement should be cause for concern among many. The health care bill in the Senate has been diluted by special interests (read: moneyed interests) and their lackeys in Congress to the point where it appears to be more beneficial to the American people to simply start over with a fresh bill. Howard Dean, one of the foremost experts on health care in American politics today, argues to kill the bill too:

"This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate," Dean said. "Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

Ah yes, the specter of reconciliation rears its controversial head again. The main bone of contention amongst liberals is that the cost-saving measures (the public option, for instance) have been either weakened to the point of irrelevancy or stripped out entirely, so that enforcing a universal mandate for Americans to purchase insurance without adequately affordable options beyond private insurance will anger many citizens (and voters). A development on that level could be disastrous for the country's health care system and,in an electoral sense, for the Democrats more generally. The Obama Administration is interested in getting a bill passed, no matter what the cost, to ensure an electoral "win" for the President on his signature domestic initiative, health care reform, but the repercussions of a bad bill getting passed could reverberate for many years. As I had written earlier, if the reform bill falls too heavily on young people's pocketbooks, then you can be sure that their allegiance to Obama's policies will be quite fleeting, and in fact could result in a backlash. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail, and the rush to pass something doesn't overwhelm the desire to enact a more-perfect bill.

UPDATE: Timothy Noah of Slate has a key writeup of what health care reform's failure could mean for the American public, and it's not pretty, as contrary to what many have come to believe (myself included) the reform bill would have effects beyond the uninsured:

A reasonable summary would be: health reform would make life easier for just about every person who needs to buy his or her own health insurance. It would also reassure those of us in the lucky 59 percent who didn't have this problem but could easily imagine acquiring it, especially amid the current economic turmoil. That's just about everybody. Health reform lends, says Hacker, the "security of knowing there's somewhere to get insurance outside of employment." Should it fail to pass, you would not have that security.

As I've mentioned before, it's difficult to put a price on the security that comes with knowing that even if you were to lose your job you would be able to have health insurance at a relatively affordable price (that's what the subsidies are for).  This bill may not be everything liberals want, but this is still farther than the American people have ever come before, and the effect passing it would have would be humongous.  We can tweak it later, once 31 million fewer people are uninsured.

UPDATE II: Okay, now I'm depressed.  Glenn Greenwald of Salon argues that Obama is simply using the intransigence of the Senate, and especially Sen. Joe Lieberman, as a foil to enact the handout to the health insurance industry he always intended.  The argument is that the Democrats will reap the benefits of the healthcare industry's deep pockets for campaign donations down the road if they help out the industry now by not reforming too much.  Sad, sad, sad.  Industry is poised to win again against the needs and desires of average Americans.  Are we entering a new Gilded Age, or have we already been in one for the last decade or more?  More on that theme presently...

Where the jobs at?

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is up for confirmation to a second 4-year term right now, giving Congress the chance to ask some tough questions of him and to assess his job performance over the past 3 years. While one might imagine that a reputed "expert on the Great Depression" would be eager to spur job creation in the United States to help out the little guys, how disappointed would you be to find out you're dead wrong in that assumption? Not only is Bernanke not interested in using the substantial monetary might of the Fed to stimulate job creation, but his concern over the US' long-run deficit is such that he now is signaling to Congress that the members ought to consider cutting Social Security and Medicare. Let's think about this for a minute. The elderly who may have been fortunate enough to have 401ks have presumably had those savings wiped out in this financial crisis, and now Bernanke wants to cut those entitlements they've earned through years of hard work during their lives? For those who never had investments on the stock market, and are solely reliant upon Social Security and Medicare, reducing their benefits would have devastating effects. This is fair how?

Bernanke worked to assure the committee he had nothing against old people. "I'm not in any way advocating unfair treatment of the elderly, who have worked all their lives and certainly deserve our support and help, but if there are ways to restructure or strengthen these programs that reduce costs, I think that's extraordinarily important for us to try to achieve," he said.

So for those of us who have been working and contributing to Social Security for our own future someday, we're just supposed to sit back and take another cutback, all in the name of long-term fiscal "responsibility?" If there's ever an appropriate time for kicking the can down the road on an issue, now is that time when it comes to Social Security, as it is the backstop for a lot of people who are suffering these days. Social Security and Medicare are two of what economists call "automatic stabilizers" that "dampen fluctuations in real GDP without any explicit policy action by the government." What all that means is that the stabilizers kick in during recessions to help people (i.e. welfare or unemployment benefits) and taper off during better times (more people are employed, so fewer people receive unemployment). These stabilizers help to keep recessions from getting too bad because they funnel money to people who need it and thereby increase spending (keeping GDP, and hence, the economy as a whole up more than it would be without them). So yeah, let's just cut, cut, cut away!

Thankfully, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is on the case:

Sanders said he sees it for what it is. "That's the solution? To cut back on the middle class and the elderly? That only adds fuel to the fire," he said. "Look, let's be clear. The middle class in America today is collapsing. Within the confines of the Beltway, we don't talk about that too much. But that is the reality. It's not just unemployment or underemployment. People are working longer hours for lower wages. People are unable to send their kids to college. People are losing their homes. People's jobs are going to China. That is the reality."

Hmm, there seems to be a common theme of the middle class being under assault these days. What kind of future can we Millenials expect to have if the social safety net on which our society has relied for the past 60 years is being cut out from under us, string by string?

America's Endangered Middle Class

I just wanted to share this very powerful piece by Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel that is overseeing the banking bailouts (TARP). In it, she argues (with graphs, no less, a rarity in the blogosphere) that the middle class is, and has been, getting an extremely unfair deal in American society. Meanwhile, the bankers whom we bailed out from having to face the consequences of their own greed, are earning record profits this year and are on track to hand out massive bonuses, all in the name of "employee retention." To protest against this condition, this blatant unfairness at the intersection of American finance and government policy, is to be labeled a populist. Screw that, I'd rather be a populist standing up for the values of fair play that this country was founded upon than a Wall Street sycophant masquerading in elected office any day.

Thank you, Elizabeth Warren, for daring to speak truth to the powers-that-be in the Washington-Wall Street nexus.