#OccupyWallStreet: The precursors to the occupations?

I was just reading Christina Romer’s very well-done piece in Sunday’s New York Times, making the case that announcing nominal GDP targeting should be the Federal Reserve’s next policy move (I encourage you to read the article for the details).  Here’s the key section I’d like to highlight:

HOW would this help to heal the economy? Like the Volcker money target, it would be a powerful communication tool. By pledging to do whatever it takes to return nominal G.D.P. to its pre-crisis trajectory, the Fed could improve confidence and expectations of future growth.

Such expectations could increase spending and growth today: Consumers who are more certain that they’ll have a job next year would be less hesitant to spend, and companies that believe sales will be rising would be more likely to invest.

--

Though announcing the new framework would help, it probably wouldn’t be enough to close the nominal G.D.P. gap anytime soon. The Fed would need to take additional steps. These might include further quantitative easing, more forceful promises about short-term interest rates, and perhaps moves to lower the exchange rate. Such actions wouldn’t just affect expectations; they would also be directly helpful. For example, a weaker dollar would stimulate exports.

How many of you reading this article feel that our government is “willing to do whatever it takes” to get us out of this persistent unemployment crisis, with all of its attendant suffering and economic misery?  I’d bet not a one of you – I certainly don’t think our government is trying its best to fix things.  Of course, it depends on how one defines “government” I suppose, but if you initially think of our elected branches, since we voters have the most direct control over the executive and the legislative, then no, the “government” in that sense is definitely not working on our behalf! 

And really, how ridiculous is it that the government of the wealthiest country that has ever existed can’t even act in a coordinated manner to stem the suffering of a massive segment of its population?  Or perhaps even more sinister, it appears that the government won’t act to stem the suffering.  Our elected officials have abdicated virtually any and all responsibility until after November 2012 in order to best position themselves politically and rhetorically for the electoral battles to come.  Sure the President is still hammering away on his newfound populist message, his “jobs proposal,” and is taking actions on behalf of homeowners, student loan borrowers, and prescription drug patients, among others, but let’s be honest folks, his track record on the “following-through-on-populist-sentiments” score ain’t that great…(see option, public for an example).

So now we face the absurd reality that the Federal Reserve, the quasi-governmental entity that is perhaps the least-democratic, most-opaque, and most removed from the basic economic reality of most Americans is being pushed to solve our jobs crisis through pure monetary policy.  The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of preserving price stability as well as maintaining full employment, and the main critique of the Fed for many years has been that it has focused virtually exclusively on the former (in the form of interest rate targeting) while wholly neglecting the latter.  Despite the fact that it has been broadly apparent that allowing interest rates to rise somewhat would facilitate the creation of more jobs, the interest rate hawks within the Fed have consistently put a stop to any of those practices, warning of mythical “bond vigilantes” who will decide that US Treasuries are no longer worth investing in if the interest rate rises even a smidge, despite massive evidence to the contrary.  (The counterpoint, of course, is that investing in Treasuries represents the safest investment one can make in the troubled and volatile world markets, as while the state of the US debt and economy overall might cause debt holders concern if the rest of the world were in better shape, the relative position and strength of the US economy in the current world economy makes it a better investment vis a vis other sovereign bonds.)  But I digress.

Why are people occupying so many public spaces in so many cities across the United States and abroad?  I think it is precisely as a response to the massive systemic failure we’ve witnessed at all levels of our government to actually make a positive impact on the vast majority of Americans’ lives.  This is not to say that Americans en masse are waiting for government aid or action or anything like that, rather that the silliness we are witnessing playing out on Capitol Hill and in the White House, the constant tit-for-tat, is leading Americans to see their government as willfully sitting on its perfectly-capable hands, rather than deigning to lift a finger to tilt the scales of justice even minutely back on their side. 

A significant portion of these Occupiers likely played a large role in electing President Obama in 2008 – the sense of triumph in that election was not simply due to the historical nature of electing the first African-American president, but because Obama appeared to represent a turn of the page, or perhaps, a close of the book, from the utter depredation of the Bush Administration, hollowed out to a shell of itself in the end due to its sheer lack of competence.  Post-Katrina America had scars, deep scars affecting the national sense of whether the government was truly acting in our interests or not if it could bungle emergency management so completely. 

Obama represented a shift towards competence, towards smart folks who looked at the data to get things done and make decisions…and yet, after the health care debate, the pyrrhic victory of an apparent giveaway to the health insurance industry, combined with the Wall Street-friendly nature of the new Administration, and the declaration that many of the high-level prosecutions that many desired for actors both inside and outside of government were to be strictly off-limits by Obama and Attorney General Holder marked a certain continuity between the Bush and Obama Administrations: elites are coddled, bailed out, and constantly regaled, no matter their transgressions.  The little people, the 99%, have no place in this insular Washington-Wall Street-Pentagon calculus.

The election of Obama, in this narrative, represents not the shift, the hope, the change that people were hoping for, but the continuation of the perpetual insult to the nation’s sense of values and fairness – an insult that, prior to the rise of the Occupy movement was largely undefined and nameless for many Americans.  Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, the death of the public option, no Wall Street prosecutions, no torture prosecutions, warrantless wiretapping, unmanned drone strikes on countries and civilians we aren’t at war with, wars that are declared against enemies that are largely undefined…whose heads roll for any of these awful decisions? 

The failure of our institutions, and the growing widespread understanding of that fact, as I alluded to a few weeks ago, and more obliquely, in the title of my last blog post “Don’t think it’s not bipartisan, it is,” is profoundly bipartisan.  It had to be to manifest itself so clearly to so many at just this point in time.  Just as you would likely not have a Tea Party had John McCain won, the nature of the Occupy movement, if it were to exist in an alternate world under a McCain Administration, would be very different to what we see today.  It took the failure of Obama, the landslide-elected change agent to bring justice, to bring accountability to the corrupt elites of this country, for the Occupy movement to spring up.  In this case, perhaps the Change that is thus far unrealized will be the catalyst for the realization of the true Change, whatever that may be. 

The bipartisan failure is a wholesale indictment of the entire construct of democracy in this country, and has likely soured many in the Millenial generation on the act of voting itself.  Perhaps democracy, as it is now constructed, is not in fact the method for enacting the change we wish to see in the world?  Could it be that the leverage points upon which the entrenched interests and powers can bring their influence to bear on candidates and nominating parties in our democratic system are simply too numerous and too porous?  The vast constellation of special interests funding candidates these days ensures the ascendance of a certain type of candidate: one who must be conversant in the ways of money, though preferably not “of” money (they’re easier to control with the promise of high-paying post public service jobs, you see) and who have hewn lines that conform to the dominant economic and social memes of the day, thus ensuring the continued preservation of the entrenched classes.  Any “change” will thus be marginal, minimal, the scraps thrown to those too poor to afford their own public affairs divisions or hired-gun lobbyists to press their case in the halls of power. 

Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter whether Obama speaks the right words, or even whether he follows through on his newly populistic leanings with actual substantive legislative victories; the narrative is no longer his to drive, nor is it the GOP’s or the Tea Party’s.  They are reacting, all of them.  Consider:

Occupy Wall Street has already achieved a stunning victory – a victory that is easy to overlook, but impossible to overstate. In just one month, the protesters have shifted the national dialogue from a relentless focus on the deficit to a discussion of the real issues facing Main Street: the lack of jobs -- and especially jobs with decent benefits -- spiraling inequality, cash-strapped American families' debt-loads, and the pernicious influence of money in politics that led us to this point.

To borrow the loosely defined terms that define the Occupy movement, these ordinary citizens have shifted the conversation away from what the “1 percent” -- the corporate right and its dedicated media, network of think-tanks and PR shops -- want to talk about and, notably, paid good money to get us to talk about.

What were you reading about daily in the newspapers as recently as 6 weeks ago?  Austerity austerity austerity.  What did the Occupy movement bring to the table?  Non-manufactured talking points that actually speak to people.  Something you can bring home to your family and discuss at your kitchen table as a concept that everyone understands, intuitively.  Fair wages, decent jobs, non-criminal banks, supporting your neighbors and your community.  These are American values, no matter what the cable news pundits say who myopically search for the “demands” of the Occupy movement despite the hundreds and thousands of protest signs shouting demands right at them. 

People want a fair shake, for themselves, their children, their coworkers, their neighbors, their fellow churchgoers.  That’s pretty much all I’ve come up with, at the end of the day, and it’s pretty simple.  How we get to the fair shake for all is the more complicated problem.

The Continuing Scourge of Too Big To Fail

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I had the distinct pleasure of hearing Simon Johnson, an economist and professor of entrepreneurship at MIT's Sloan School of Business (and former Chief Economist for the International Monetary Fund) speak last night at a wonderful event produced by Zocalo Public Square, a local LA non-profit public affairs forum.  Johnson also is the author (with James Kwak) of the recently published 13 Bankers, about the financial crisis and how to stop another crisis from occurring again, and blogs at the Baseline Scenario, a blog I've been following for months and have linked to several times previously.

Johnson spoke quite emphatically about the need for fundamental financial reform, not as a partisan of any stripe (indeed, he claims to be a free-marketer more than anything else) but because the current financial system we have is not actually "capitalism" per se.  Why is that?  Well the phrase "too big to fail" (TBTF) signifies the problem at the center of our financial crisis, and within TBTF lies the potentiality for a future crisis even larger than the current one.  

First of all, what is "too big to fail"?  While we've certainly all heard the term bandied about since September 2008, I imagine there is some confusion out there.  The concept is that the financial institutions that were bailed out through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) instituted by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, and President Bush, among others, simply held too many assets in our economy, and were too interconnected, to be allowed to declare bankruptcy.  If the financial institutions (banks, such as Bank of America, and investment houses, such as Goldman Sachs) were allowed to fail, as Lehman Brothers was, then those failures would lead to an unprecedented breakdown of the global financial markets.  Furthermore, due to the interconnectedness of the various players in the markets, the thinking goes, the failure of one of the financial institutions could lead to the failure of others.  Why the institutions were all so interconnected is perhaps beyond the scope of what I'd like to say here today (in interests of length), but suffice it to say that AIG is one of the primary sources of the interconnectedness, and Goldman Sachs is another.

How did we get to this point where the banks were so big and interconnected that they could not fail without bringing down the global economy?  Well, I could try to explain, but I think I'll let Prof. Johnson explain, with the help of Steven Colbert:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Simon Johnson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

Prof. Johnson raises a few points that are worth elucidating in that segment; first of all, the idea that the TBTF banks have an incentive to act recklessly and to take foolish risks with their investors' money.  This concept is known in economics terms as "moral hazard," and is essentially the idea that if you have a guarantee that the risks you face have been either eliminated or severely reduced by another party, then you will be inclined to take larger risks than you would without that guarantee.  Take, for instance, driving a car without auto insurance versus driving with auto insurance; you're likely to drive far more slowly and carefully without insurance than you would with insurance, because with your insurer's guarantee that they'll pick up any financial losses you incur through poor driving, you are not "on the hook" for your mistakes in the same way you would be without insurance.

The implicit backing of the government that came with the TARP bailouts of the largest financial sector players creates a moral hazard scenario in just the same way.  If a TBTF investment firm received a government bailout, then the individual managers and employees at that firm will be liable to take risks that they would not otherwise, as whatever they do, the government will ensure that their poor decisions don't cause the firm to go bust.  So, far from reducing the incentives of financial firms to reduce their exposure to risky investments, the bailouts in fact increased the incentives of firms to take massive risks, and to leave taxpayers to foot the bill.

A second point to discuss that is a corollary to the first (and which Johnson spoke at length about last night) is that the TBTF firms, with their implicit government backing, are receiving preferential treatment in the financial markets that are creating advantages for the banks to become even larger.  Essentially, because the government will not allow the TBTF firms to fail, they receive reduced interest rates when borrowing from private lenders.  Because the lenders perceive the TBTF firms as "safer" investments than firms that don't have government backing, they are willing to reduce the interest rates they charge the TBTF firms compared to other firms.  Naturally, this situation distorts the market's functioning, and gives the TBTF firms an advantage over their competitors that allows them to gain even larger market shares.  Hence, the failure of capitalism due to government intervention in the marketplace.  Johnson estimated the interest rates of the TBTF firms were reduced by approximately .7-.9% compared to their non-TBTF competitors, which may not sound like much, but when applied to loans and trades of billions of dollars at a time, those fractions of percents add up to large sums of money.  

So what is Prof. Johnson's solution?  To break up the TBTF firms into smaller, more manageable (and less economically dangerous) firms.  Johnson and a number of other significant economists estimate that a $100 billion limit on total assets under a firm's control is an ideal target to aim for.  What does that figure mean?  Well the current combined holdings of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo are approximately $7.4 trillion, and there are 23 institutions in the US that have assets over $100 billion.  Therefore, there will have to be a lot of division of these large institutions into smaller ones (simple arithmetic reveals that the $7.4 trillion of the four megabanks noted above, if divided into $100 billion sub-banks, would create 74 new institutions) and it is in the process of "breaking up" the banks that a lot of complication will occur, as in any complex transaction.  Furthermore, these firms are all multi-national, meaning that the US acting alone will not achieve any significant regulatory reforms unless those reforms are accompanied by international agreements.  It will be difficult enough for Congress to pass any semblance of meaningful financial reform (as evidenced by the Republicans' continued obstinacy) without having to deal with cross-border issues as well.  

I think I'll stop there for now.  There is still lots more to discuss about the financial crisis, as my understanding of the causes and the (proposed) solutions has been growing and evolving rapidly in recent months, and I'm eager to share what I've gained with you, my readers.  Despite not being a "finance guy" in the least, I believe that the simple fact that our financial sector has become such an integral part of the world economy requires that I attempt to understand what happened and how to prevent a recession of similar scale from ever happening again.  Any understanding I gain I'll attempt to pass on, since it's such a complex topic, but worthy of understanding by many.

In this posting I've focused only on the TBTF firms and the threats they pose to the financial markets and the world economy.  In future postings, I'll look at the political implications of such concentrations of wealth and power, as well as how it is that the financial sector got to have such power and influence as it does today.  If you have any further questions or a need for clarifications (or if I've totally bungled some facts in this posting) please comment on this piece below, or email me at generationalnavelgazing -at- gmail dot com (trying to protect my account from spammers, you know).

Additional programming note: I plan on returning to the subject of the Tea Party movement soon in an additional posting following up on my post from two weeks ago, so stay tuned for that.

Why I Support The Health Insurance Reform Bill

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

The interminable march towards health care reform (HCR) is continuing in earnest today, with an end finally (FINALLY) in sight.  So what is actually happening right now?  And what's this "reconciliation" business all about?  There's no good way to sum up parliamentary procedures into a bite-size format, so bear with me, as this email will be long.  

Procedural Issues

In brief, the House of Representatives voted today on the HCR bill passed by the Senate in December.  The Senate bill, as you may have heard, includes some rather unsavory deals that were cut in order to win 60 votes and to pass the bill; deals such as the "Cornhusker Kickback" that was negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NB) that would provide indefinite federal funding to cover the expected increase in Nebraska's Medicaid costs due to expanding coverage to more people (Medicaid is paid for in part by federal funds and in part by state funds, so any increase in Medicaid costs will cost the states directly).  The Kickback and other deals that were made for specific Senators in specific states to win their votes are obviously not terribly popular with rank-and-file Democrats, and so by the House voting for the Senate bill as it is, they made those Senate deals into law.

However, over the last few weeks President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other key Democrats in both chambers of Congress have worked out a deal to pass a reconciliation bill that "fixes" all of the deals that were passed in the Senate bill and that will work to further reduce the deficit (the Congressional Budget Office, the main non-partisan arbiter of all things budgetary, has stated that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $140 billion over the first 10 years it is in place and by $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years it's in place, although those numbers are subject to a large amount of skepticism on both sides).  This reconciliation bill will be voted on tonight by the House once the Senate bill is passed by the House, and then that reconciliation bill is supposed to be passed by the Senate, hopefully later this week, although the timing is debatable.  Members of the House are afraid that the Senate will seek to alter the reconciliation bill, upsetting the delicate balance that has been struck between leadership and the members, although Senate leadership has worked to reassure nervous House Democrats that the Senate will pass the bill as-is.  Any changes that are made in the Senate will have to be voted upon again by the House before President Obama can sign the bill, delaying the legislation further, an outcome Democrats are working to avoid.  

So is the use of reconciliation by the Democratic majority "unconstitutional" or a "nuclear" procedure, as Republicans have sought to portray it?  Well, considering that the majority of the uses of reconciliation have come when Republicans were the majority in Congress (16 out of 22 reconciliation bills) it seems a bit rich for Republicans to call it an extraordinary procedure now.

Finally, abortion.  A lot of hay has been made in the last few weeks about whether there is any federal funding of abortion in this HCR bill, and the fact is, there never was any federal money for funding abortions.  There is a provision in the House called the Hyde Amendment, that bans spending federal money on abortions, and the HCR bills that have been debated have always upheld that provision.  It has now been reported that President Obama has issued an Executive Order banning the use of federal money on abortions, as an extra safeguard, so thankfully, this argument is now moot.

Why I Support The Bill

The primary reason that I am in favor of passing this bill, despite the fact that it does not include the most effective cost-saving measures of either a public option or single-payer system, is that the bill enshrines in US law the fundamental concept that health care is a right, not a privilege.  For too long in this country, we have consigned our fellow Americans to suffer from treatable, often preventable illnesses and conditions by claiming that people have the "choice" to buy health insurance if they want it.  Sadly, the reality has never been quite so simple.  Two of the more significant reforms in this bill are those ending the denial of health insurance for those people with pre-existing conditions, and making illegal the use of rescission (where the insurer cancels your health insurance just when you need it most due to a usually dubious claim of "fraud" on your insurance application).  These two revisions alone will help keep far fewer people from going bankrupt due to medical care (click for shocking statistics).  

Consider the fact that if you receive your health insurance through your employer, as the vast majority of Americans do, what will you do if you lose your job?  You will have COBRA coverage for a few months, but generally COBRA is quite expensive, and moreover, it's temporary.  How many of you who are lucky enough to have jobs still are unwilling to leave a job that is no longer satisfying because you are afraid of losing your health insurance?  Is that lack of mobility not an impediment to your freedom?  Does not the health insurance system we have now foreclose upon choices that we would otherwise have if we were assured of health insurance?  Far from reducing our freedom as many opponents of the bill have claimed, this bill will greatly enhance freedom and will enhance job mobility.

For small business owners and entrepreneurs who would like to start out on their own, but are not able to afford exorbitant health insurance costs, this bill provides subsidies for health insurance for their employees.  Whereas the current system has skewed the benefits towards existing companies, and especially towards companies with large employee bases that can be insured under group plans, this bill begins to level the playing field between newer and more-established businesses, and between larger and smaller businesses.  

As a young person, I will be paying for this bill for the rest of my days, and despite that (in fact, because of that) I still support it.  I have faith that the bill will be improved, refined, expanded, and remade in time.  Young people are the linchpins upon which reform depends.  The reason we have coverage mandates in the bill is so that younger, healthier people (who tend not to buy health insurance) will be forced to buy insurance.  Younger people tend to have better health than the not-as-young, and because of that, it is unlikely that a young person will spend as much on health care as they pay in annual premiums.  The idea is that the insurance companies will shift those excess premium dollars (after shaving off a nice profit) to pay for more expensive people's health care, who may have spent more on care than they paid in premiums.  So they need us, which is a reason why the HCR bill has a provision that allows dependent children to be covered under their parents' health insurance plan until they're age 26.  As long as somebody's paying the premiums for their insurance and not costing insurance that much money on care, the insurance companies are happy.

Finally, I support this bill because even if you have insurance and you're happy with it, you already are paying for the uninsured.  In fact, you're paying quite a lot for the uninsured, and it'll only get worse unless something is done.  When a person does not have health insurance and gets sick, they'll probably wait until they're really sick and then go to the emergency room for treatment.  As everyone is surely well aware, emergency room treatment is the most expensive kind, and when patients can't pay the hospitals back for the care they've received, the hospitals then charge insurers more for patients with insurance, which leads to higher premiums for insurance, which more people can't pay, and so they become uninsured...the cycle goes on.  This bill is an attempt to stop that cycle.

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but this bill is far, far better than the status quo.  For more information, see the two links below, both by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation's Health News:

The Immediate Effects of The Health Reform Bill

A Consumers' Guide to Health Reform

The Bipartisanship Myth

I have noted before that Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks is one of my favorite bloggers out there.  But tonight, reading his latest posting on the Huffington Post, he hit the nail on the head when discussing the Democrats' love for "bipartisanship" in all things, but especially in the health care and financial reform debates:

And the Democrats are perfectly happy to [compromise] because they take the same, if not more, amount of money from those same corporate lobbyists [as the Republicans]. Except they have the meddlesome problem of pretending to be for the people. Republicans are not burdened with this; everyone expects them to help the rich and the powerful. But the Democrats need cover, and they have the perfect excuse in the mantle of bipartisanship. What could they do, the Republicans made them do it! And aren't they so reasonable for compromising?

I highly recommend reading the entire article, as it neatly lays out just how it is the Democrats have managed to accomplish very little of substance despite having the largest margins in decades in the Senate and the House, not to mention the Presidency.  There is a perpetual balancing act among American politicians of between being a good member of one's political party and engaging in electoral self-preservation (often at the expense of one's party).  At the same time, the campaign finance system that is currently in place makes it highly profitable for politicians to kowtow to corporate interests for their own personal gains (in the form of campaign contributions and favorable "issue ads" being run in their districts).  Similarly, the national committees of the two parties also have incentives to keep their corporate sponsors happy, as the corporations will then provide more donations to the parties who will then cultivate and fund the campaigns of more mini-corporatist candidates in elections around the country.  So in this context, the corporate line is the party line is the individual legislator's line - the corporation wins every time, since the corporation's interests are everywhere reflected in our political system.

This truth of government by corporation is nowhere more evident than in the recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  One does not have to look far to find strong reactions to the 5-4 majority ruling and opinion in that case, but the overwhelming consensus is that the Supreme Court has effectively granted US citizenship to corporations, with every faculty intact but the right to cast a vote for a political candidate.  I am rather tired tonight, and not in the best position to discuss the implications of this case fully, but let me say this: corporations exist for no other reason than to make a profit.  That is their sole motivation.  While corporate interests have been donating to politicians (and hence altering their political calculations) for years, Citizens United gives those interests expanded rights to pursue their ends through political channels, rather than through competition in the open marketplace.  This ruling creates incentives for corporations to find the politicians who will do their bidding most effectively, rather than spend more money on R&D to improve their product or service.  The ruling also creates incentives for politicians to be the most effective advocates for their corporate sponsors that they can be, regardless of the effects on the public at large.  The money is, in effect, divorcing us from our elected representatives.  This is nothing particularly new, mind you.  But these activities have never in our country's history been given such explicit sanction by our highest court, and the effects have the potential to be disastrous.

Elections have consequences, and those consequences are often most apparent in the makeup of the Supreme Court, where justices have lifetime appointments.  We need a lot more Sonia Sotomayors to make up for this ruling.

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.

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.

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...

Kids, time to support your forebears

The original concept of this blog was to discuss the major political and social issues that face my generation, the generation which has been defined by researchers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais as the "Millenials," born between 1982 and 2003 (I don't quite fit in that category, being an '81 baby, but I'm definitely not a Gen-Xer!) While previous postings may have strayed from that theme somewhat, today is a different type of day.

Following yesterday's posting regarding health care reform, a timely article by Jim Angle at Fox News (no, not kidding) caught my eye. Probably the most underreported aspect of health care reform is that for a reform effort to be successful, it must rely in large part on the participation of the roughly 18 million young, healthy, uninsured people to buy into the health insurance market. As Angle reports

the health care reform bills in Congress require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibit them from charging sick people any more than others. That would force up insurance rates unless healthy young people buy insurance and in effect dilute the impact of older, less healthy people.

By having millions of previously uninsured, healthy, younger people start paying premiums while not using as much care as those who are sick or older, the insurance companies (and a public option, if it comes to fruition) would be able to mitigate the additional costs they will incur through expanding coverage.

For many years, health insurers have used certain methods to hold their costs down that were used at the expense of their customers, including denying coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions" ranging from mental illness and chronic conditions to the insurers denying coverage due to some rather more creative "conditions". Another tool of the insurance companies is called "rescission," a truly nefarious tactic of dropping a paying customer from their insurance plan when they need major or long-term treatment (think cancer, lupus, etc.) by claiming that the customer lied on their application form by not listing certain pre-existing conditions. What could those pre-existing conditions be? Some common ones are not listing occasional back pain or previous acne treatments in one's application for health insurance, although one would assume there would be some actual fraud caught once in a while...or is it? This from the Washington Post article above:

In the past 18 months, California's five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, according to company documents released in court. (emphasis added)

Rooting out pervasive fraud amongst the insurance customer base became such good business that a bonus structure was built on top of it for the most "effective" employees.

Now that the insurers will no longer be able to drop peoples' insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions and rescission will be largely curtailed under any sort of health care reform plan, the companies will need to find a new cost-saving mechanism, and it is the 18 million uninsured healthy young people they are targeting. It is the insurers who pushed hard for the universal mandate that every American must buy health insurance or be penalized; that provision ensures that the customer base will be swelled by the millions, and it also ensures that the low-cost segment of the population (younger folks) would be part of the system as well.

So why is it that young people are the ones being manipulated in this proposed new system? Naturally, it is the same as with any other political question; most younger people aren't paying attention, and furthermore, they aren't regular voters. When you have retirees threatening elected officials to "keep your government hands off my Medicare” those electeds sit up and take notice, since older folks vote in large numbers. On the other hand, federal legislators can then pull stunts like this with impunity:

"In most states, there actually isn't a limit on how much older people can be charged vs. younger people," said Anne Kim, director of Third Way Economics. "So in some states, older individuals pay six or seven times in premiums what younger people do."

But the Senate would take that down to 3-1. The House would make it 2-1.

That means older people will pay less but young people will pay more.

"If you limit the amount premiums can vary based on a person's age, that can result in premiums increasing by 50 or 60 percent for workers under the age of 30," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans.

In fact, a study by the Urban Institute found that going to a 2-1 age rating would push up premium costs for the youngest adults by almost $1,100 to just under $3,000 dollars a year.

I have been without insurance a number of times in my life. I've see the premiums I could be paying under COBRA when I've left jobs that provided me with health care, and they were far beyond what I would consider affordable. It seems quite doubtful that many Americans in their 20s will be able to afford an extra $3,000 a year, but the politicians are betting that we aren't paying attention. And they are betting correctly.

Why isn't there an outcry from the younger generations that will have to pay taxes and/or premiums to support whatever reforms come out of Congress, successful or not, for the rest of their lives? Perhaps the intricacies of House/Senate committee deliberations aren't the most riveting dramas for young people to follow compared with the dramas unfolding on their Facebook pages, but this time it's personal. Perhaps there needs to be a youth lobbying organization, akin to the AARP for seniors; we have youth-oriented organizing groups like Rock the Vote, and Campus Progress (a group I must admit I'm not familiar with, but funded by the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group) but seriously, we need LOBBYISTS! Until some serious campaign finance reform gets passed that creates public funding of elections, young people need to get into the Beltway and into the offices of members of Congress the same way the big players do, with issue advocacy and influence-peddling, combined with grassroots organizing. Lobbying is a four-letter word to me, but I see no other way to get our issues addressed fairly in a health care reform plan. The older generations and the insurance companies need us to keep health care affordable. Congress and the President need us to continue to vote for them. So why don't we use that leverage to get the changes we want and need in the reform bill? More to come on this later.