A remedy to corruption

Here’s a proposal for campaign finance reform:

Pick a candidate for federal office. You are allowed to give that candidate a contribution of any amount to a maximum of, say, $500. Just a number.

When you file your tax return, claim a refundable tax credit of 80% of that amount, or $400.

It’s taxpayer-directed public financing. It would be quite easy to qualify candidates before they are tax-credit-worthy: To qualify for public financing, they have to raise a certain amount, say $50,000 from 5,000 donors. That way you could weed out the tiny splinters yet still allow small parties to compete. It would end the D-R-one-party-two-right-wing monopoly.

Of course, much more need be done than that, like somehow getting the advertising industry out of campaigns. Those 30 second ads are demeaning, insulting, and subversive.

One thing at a time.

By the way, I’m no great original thinker. This is how the Canadians do it. It ain’t just health care that they are good at.

Some Democrats who get it

The Denver Post today ran three letters regarding health care topics, each making points that Democrats need to hear.

It’s pretty clear that not only the Republicans abhor the idea of health care reform, but so do Democrats. The fact that Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut, is holding up the current health care bill and the Democrats do nothing to stop him indicates that he speaks for all of them. Lieberman is just doing his job, obstructing health care reform so that both parties in Congress do not have to lose their corporate benefactors.

Good Democrats should leave the Democratic Party and send a message that votes have to be earned. Democrats have been betrayed too many times in the last few months.

L. Highland, Morrison

It’s a painfully obvious point to make – and yet so many Democrats that I read don’t see it. That makes it even more painful.

A single senator has managed to kill both the expansion of Medicare and any possibility of a public option in the health care bill. So what is left? A mandate for almost everyone to purchase insurance and a federal subsidy to help those who cannot afford it.

In essence, what will be created by this bill is a very effective mechanism for transferring money from the federal treasury to the insurance industry. In other words, corporate America wins again.

I suppose that it is pure coincidence that Joe Lieberman represents Connecticut and Connecticut is the home of so many insurance companies.

Niel Powers, Colorado Springs

This writer does not see that he is being played by the “Bad Joe” tactic, but does see the larger goal of the Democrats’ efforts – to create a pipeline of subsidy to the health insurance industry.

I don’t know how the senators who voted down a proposal to allow Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs can justify their actions. The amendment by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan would have helped millions of Americans who are paying premium prices because our nation’s drug companies have a captive market. Where are the open competition and free enterprise that we like to hold up as American values? Do these values and the needs of our people simply get pushed aside when they come into conflict with the personal and financial interests of these senators?

When we see officials from other countries involved in these types of actions, we call it corruption. I don’t see the difference here.

Fred Buschhoff, Denver

There ya go. It really is that simple. We are corrupt, decadent, and on our way to collapse. And that’s not a bad thing. We need to collapse. We’re not worth keeping around the way we are.

Others abroad surely agree. Let’s take a poll, starting in Iraq …

A rose by any other name …

I was reading an interesting exchange this morning between Gilbert Achcar and Noam Chomsky – the subject was terrorism, or more precisely, defining terrorism. Both, in the end, agreed that the definition of the problem is made more difficult by the need for profound dishonesty, that is, in the end, terrorism must mean “something that is done to us”, and not “something we do to others.”

That is indeed a problem. The official definition is the “calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature.” We can all agree that 9/11 was an act of terror, but what about bombing Serbia or Gaza, invading Iraq, and now attacking Pakistan by means of Afghanistan … maybe these are not acts of terrorism in that the goals are probably financial. But I’m not sure. We could be imposing an ideology on them- did not the Nazis impose their ideology on Vichy France? Do we not now have Vichy Iraq? Will we not soon have Vichy Afghanistan?

I gotta say, I’m catching the distinct odor of terrorism here – things we are doing to others … wait! Not possible. My bad.

If the real definition of terrorism is only things done to us by others, then we have to craft a definition that exempts us.

Policy experts are hard at work on the problem. They’ll come up with something, and it will be reprinted in all the fine journals and discussed on all the intellectual forums.

We’ll soon have a working definition. I’ll keep you posted.

Expressing inexpressible thoughts

In 1993 the musician Prince, in a flash of brilliance, decided to change his name to an unpronounceable symbol:

It didn’t really catch on, and worse than that, meant that newspapers and industry publications couldn’t write about him much, as his name was a symbol.

This reminds me of the inadequacies of our language. English is a really good language for a lot of things, and so flexible, but often people have to grab things from other languages to express a fine point. So for instance, from the Germans we get words like schadenfreude, meaning the joy we take at the misfortune of others, or zeitgeist, or spirit of the times. From the French we get a whole array of expressions – je ne sais quoi – that certain indescribable something, agent provocateur, one who entices another person to commit an illegal act or who deliberately stirs up rebellion to allow police to put it down (see how many words it takes?); and coup de grâce, or mercy blow – the kill shot. From the Italians, we learn how to order coffee.

Each of these expressions is used because they convey just a little bit more meaning than the English definition. My wife’s je ne sais quoi – well, you’d have to know her. I cannot describe it well.

I was looking for a word last week after a debate with Big Swede and Craig Moore – one that describes the indestructible wall of certainty that surrounds their stupidité profonde. In addition, I was looking for a word that describes Black Flag’s unwavering certainty in his philosophy of free markets in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

The best I could do was “absurd,” “bizarre,” “silly” and “ridiculous.” They don’t really carry it.

Then I had an idea – I don’t know enough French or German to grab the right phase from their language, but I do have access to a whole array of symbols via Microsoft Word. One of them will do – it will be the symbol I use to describe the indescribable. I will inject it at that point in a conversation where information can no longer be exchanged, when the language has lost power, and all we have left are blank stares. Here it is:

¥

I invite others to use it on me as well – I cannot not grasp things that I cannot possibly grasp. And, I invite others to offer their own words or symbols – we might breach a wall, and open up new lines of communication.

Area man accused of being clever

The North Face is a company that is owned and managed by very, very clever people. Here’s their business model: Branding. They hire Chinese peasants to make average products of no special quality, and then apply a huge markup to them.

Because no self-respecting person would pay such outrageous prices for such mundane merchandise without some ulterior motive, North Face hired the advertising industry to do what Phil Knight did with Nike: use subversion, glamor-appeal and celebrities to invest the products with a silk-purse glow. They market their products to those who have more money than sense, and who are so image-conscious that they make foolish purchases.

These very, very clever people at North Face stole their whole business plan from Nike. Not a damned thing about it is original or clever.

Along comes a clever kid, Jimmy Winkelmann, who wants to go to college. Unlike North Face, Jimmy is clever and original (he should really think about college). Jimmy founded a company called “South Butt”, and began marketing products appealing to people who don’t really like exercise.

North Face is suing Jimmy. Jimmy don’t like being sued.

North Face says that Jimmy is stealing their clever ideas. Since no one at North Face is clever, they probably don’t get what Jimmy is doing. He’s trying to make a buck by being clever.

North Face is punishing Jimmy. Jimmy might have to quit now. North Face can force him out of business just by taking him to court to defend himself. They will legal-fee him to death.

Jimmy, being very clever, maybe ought to think about being a lawyer.

Go to South Butt today, buy something from Jimmy. Jimmy needs help.

Vince, oh sweet Vince, wherefore art thou?

The reason I put up these two images is not because I think Joe Lieberman is a bad guy, or that he is in any way scary. The point I want to make is that Health Care politics has a kinship with professional wrestling because it is scripted. Lieberman, like any of the “bad guys” in wrestling has a job to do – he has to move the story forward. To do so, he appears on stage at strategic intervals when the story is failing. He does eeeeeeevil things, now threatening to help filibuster the Medicare 55 option.

It’s scripted. He works very closely with the Democrats on all of this stuff, and appears when he should and says what he must. In the end, he will take the heat when the ‘desired’ legislation (which is doomed to fail anyway) goes down. Other Democrats feel less heat because of Lieberman.

So Joe is an actor on a stage, and I even like him, much as I like villains in any movie. (All time classic: Heath Ledger’s “The Joker.”)

Lieberman should paint his face.

But I much prefer professional wrestling, as the players aren’t so slimy. But please note: The mindless zombies who think wrestling is real cannot hold a candle to the party hacks who buy the “Bad-guy-Joe” narrative.

Is it just me?

Is it just me? The Internet seems to be really degrading itself now. A tour through various websites is a light show, with flash ads jumping at you from every direction, text superimposing itself over the text you want to read, and what were once known as “obnoxious pop-ups” reappearing in the form of obnoxious boxes that swell up in our faces if the cursor accidentally hits a trigger word.

And Google, the search engine that distinguished itself from the others by offering true results based on popularity instead of back-door payments, is almost entirely given over to advertising results. You have to scroll deep down a page to get true results these days.

The real business of web pages, the content, is now a left-hand affair, taking up about half the screen. The rest of the page is devoted to ads and links to ads. A visit to most web sites for any kind of video content will deliver what is known as a “pre-runroll”, and ad that you must try to ignore before you are allowed to view the content you are after.

All of this comes to mind because Steve and I were looking for Glenn Greenwald’s Radio show. Click on that link, and you will first be subjected to an annoying full-page ad, and you have to find the button to close it. The page below flashes and annoys, in customary fashion. But then another ad appears, this one imposing itself over the text you want to read. This ad will not close. You have to guess what is behind it.

It was only a matter of time before the Internet, a taxpayer invention, was taken over by that thing they call the “free market” – carnival barkers, whores in dark alleys, snake oil salesmen and, everywhere you look, Google. But I repeat myself.

Enjoy the page your are now reading, free of flashdancing and pop-ups. Most places you go for content, and get hit with shit. Here we are more up front.

Profiles in Courage

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has introduced an amendment to the senate “Health Care” bill (apparently the names “Healthy Forests” “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”, and “Clear Skies Initiative” were already taken). Dorgan’s bill would allow for the “reimportataion” of drugs from Canada.

Away from industry jargon, that word, “reimportation,” means that Americans would be allowed to buy drugs from a country where prices are regulated, and monopolies are not allowed to flourish. It means lower prices for Americans – a savings over ten years of $19 billion for us as “taxpayers”, and another $80 billion for us as “consumers.”

That’s considered poltical grandstanding, and is highly frowned upon in Washington. That $99 billion in savings would come from the pockets of “PhRMA,” the drug lobbying group also known on the streets of Newark as the “Drug Cartel.”

Said Sen Jay Rockefeller, D-AR, “Bad form, Byron – not done! Not done! Order! Return to order! Order in the senate!”

The White House, of course, opposes Dorgan’s amendment. President Obama supported drug reimportation as a candidate, but that was before he realized how really powerful these PhRMA dudes are (or, perhaps, was, just, well, you know, lying). He still supports reimportation in principle, but has alterted his stance a bit to suggest that even though it is a really good idea, it should never be implemented. That is considered, in DC parlance, a reasonable compromise.

Dorgan is making a mess of things, it appears. The White House and PhRMA had crafted a deal where PhRMA would offer up $80 billion in concessions over ten years, by first adding $80 billion to their pricing structure, which they can do as a cartel, and then giving it back. Maybe.

Dorgan is being unreasonable, and worse, he’s not backing down. Oh, he will eventually. They always do. Stuff goes on behind the scenes, and these guys always think better of behaving like this – there must be some sort of woodshed behind the capitol buidling where spankings are administered, and not the fun kind like Max Baucus does with his aides.

Dorgan has threatened to put a hold on all other amendments until his is voted on. He is really, really in for it.

There’s a rule in Washington known as the “order of feeding”, and Dorgan is violating it. It works like this: The carcass of the American public lies finally still after a long chase, eyes glazed, steam still rising from the nostrils. Wolves did the kill, but grizzlies eat first, filling their bellies until content, often resting on the carcass while processing carrion and making room for a later re-gorging. Then wolves feed, followed by coyotes and eagles, ravens last. Dorgan, an egotistical man who is not even thinking in terms of feeding rights, seems to believe that the beast should not even be killed, that there should not even be a feeding ritual. PhRMA begs to differ, and having higher standing in the senate than Dorgan, will prevail.

But in the meantine, it’s just embarrassing! Here’s what one senate aide said about the whole affair (this is true):

Of course, with Dorgan, it’s all about Dorgan.”

He will be chastised. Even as I write, PHrMa is looking for a suitable replacement for him in the coming elections. A mediocre man or woman of low character will soon have a high public profile in North Dakota, appearing in photos on newspaper front pages, having op-eds written by ghosts, and being sought out for wise commentary on the issues of the day by news stations. He/she will soon be thought of as senatorial timbre, and will draw quiet, behind-the-scenes attention from the real voting public in American politics, lobbyists, corporations, and wealthy families.

Dorgan is toast.

More Market Magic

Private for-profit health insurance is a significant factor in our high medical costs in this country. The reasons are many, but one is externalization of their internal contradiction. In order to enhance and preserve their profits, insurance companies have to go to great lengths to avoid people who are already sick, examine claims in detail to see if they can be legally avoided, and rescind coverage for some people who get sick after taking out a policy.

In addition, insurance companies impose costs on health providers by making them submit precise and detailed paperwork to assist them in the weeding-out, avoidance and rescission processes.

In total, the private insurance system imposes an overhead burden on the entire system of 31% of each premium dollar.

Often these discussions devolve into exchanges involving “evil” insurance companies. They are not evil. They are merely doing what the market demands of them.

Three insurance executives were held in a submissive posture before a House Subcommittee and asked about the policy of rescinding coverage for people who take out policies when healthy and then get sick. (Often these people have lied about preexisting conditions, but that too is a rational response to market forces.) In a powerful act of grandstanding, the executives were lectured on the cruelty of the rescission process, and they agreed that it was indeed distasteful. They were asked if they would stop doing it. They said no. They would not.

They can’t. They can’t stop doing anything they do. The market will not allow it.

Say, for example, Dennis Kucinich leaves office and becomes CEO of Unitedhealth (NYSX: UHS). He immediately announces that Unitedhealth will no longer reject coverage for people with preexisting conditions. There’s a flood of new business for Unitedhealth. Unfortunately, the business is comprised of sick people, and Unitedhealth ends up paying far more in claims than they receive in premiums. Profits are reduced, investors become unhappy and begin unloading the stock, and the market price plunges. Investors who had hedged or borrowed on Unitedhealth stock are at an extreme disadvantage. Margin calls go out.

Kucinich is assassinated fired.

Health insurance companies cannot leave the pack. They must behave as the worst actors behave. Otherwise, they are at a competitive disadvantage. Even supposed “not-for-profit” insurers, like some Blue Crosses and Kaiser Permanente, have to follow the practices of the worst actors. Otherwise they cease to exist.

There’s nothing wrong with the behavior of the people who run and work for the health insurance companies. They have to do what they do. Even if they got together and agreed to behave in more socially conscious way, there would always be one who went for the gold and undercut the others

People who work for large organizations are not free human beings. They are occupants of slots in a machine, and must behave as the machine dictates.

This is why I often say that private for-profit health insurance is incompatible with health care. Provision of care undermines profitability. The market cannot do a good job of providing health insurance. It can’t even though it is loaded with good people.

Every other industrialized country has figured this out. But, as always, the United States is exceptional.

Market Magic

This has nothing to do with anything that has transpired before. I am curious about one thing. It’s not because of what I am reading of what I have read before – there’s no great philosopher behind it. It’s just my own observations.

A workman who uses tools keeps his tools in good operating condition. If he lets them fall in disrepair, he impairs the cash flow he gets from them. But if he needs a snow plow to clear walks, he’s not going to go out and buy plow that attaches to the front of a pickup. He wants minimum investment and maximum utility.

In the antebellum South, the cheapest way to plant, grow and harvest cotton was human labor using crude tools. In true free-market fashion, an entrepreneur discovered that Negro slaves could be brought in, kept in involuntary servitude, and forced to do the work. It was a dynamic breakthrough, and anyone else who wanted to compete in the cotton market faced the dilemma of investing in labor at prices that free people might demand, or buying slaves. The South became a slave-driven economy, and slave ownership was so common as to be thought normal. Even the finest egalitarian minds of the age, such as Jefferson, owned slaves, whom he also boinked. The market gave him not much choice – if he invested in free labor, his cash reserves would soon be depleted, as the whole of the wealth of the South was based on slave labor.

But slave ownership was not without costs. In order to keep slaves in good working order, they had to be fed and housed. Replacement slaves had to be bred, so that aging ones could be replaced by newer machinery. There had to be a regular flow of machinery through the marketplace to keep it all functioning smoothly.

Laws enacted by the slave owners who controlled government enforced the rules of the slave system. If a slave escaped, local officials would assist in the hunt-down. If a slave had to be killed to teach a lesson, it was not considered a crime. Government was the servant of wealth.

Other maintenance matters were cultural – that is, understood to be necessary but not necessarily requiring cash investment. It was understood that slaves of one plantation should not be free to mingle with slaves of another, as secret alliances might form that might lead to escape plans or revolts. Slaves had to be kept illiterate, as education leads to desire for freedom. Religious indoctrination taught them to expect rewards in some other world. And even though on the surface it appears that a machine necessary for production of wealth was being abused, slaves had to be regularly beaten to demonstrate the futility of rebellion. It served a greater good.

The open market further required that family ties be broken – it was harsh, and there was no cultural or control reason to do so, but for sake of maximization of profits, families had to be broken up, children sold off if their labor was not needed, old men and women whose value had diminished sold at clearance prices too less wealthy or non-landed gentry who could use them for other purposes. (William Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame, had a slave, York, who accompanied him on the great expedition. York’s mingling with natives encountered on the trip taught him about how free men lived, and created an uppity attitude. Clark wrote of having to beat York on occasion, as his attitude was becoming insolent.)

All in all, it was an efficient marketplace, and as such, would not naturally dislodge itself. It took a great war to undo the system, and the aftermath of the war was devastation of the southern economy. Slavery became illegal in the United States, but investors, manufacturers and landowners adapted to the new economy, and soon followed the Industrial Revolution, where machines could to the work formerly done by slaves.

But market pressures would still exist to minimize the cost of labor, and due to the advance of machines, a surplus labor force was always available. So the same market forces that produced slavery still existed. On the surface it appeared as though free men and women were negotiating for fair wages in an open marketplace. The fact was that cheaper labor was always available, so that wages were eventually reduced to the point where they would provide enough for a worker to have food and crude housing – enough to make him serviceable to employers.

The Progressive Movement of the early twentieth century, which is no longer taught about in schools, fought long and bloody battles for the right of workers to form unions, a forty-hour work week, the end of child labor, and eventually, a minimum wage. Later battles would bring about unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and workplace safety laws. Still later laws would try to enforce standards to minimize environmental degradation, discrimination based on color or gender, access to buildings for handicapped people … the list goes on.

All of that, from outlawing of slavery to ramps leading into public libraries, was the work of evil government, which a certain commenter here repeatedly tells me does nothing but visit “violence” on people.

Markets are powerful engines for good, as they maximize efficiency for wealth creation and general good. Without them I would not be typing on this computer, which I depend on for my living as well. But markets have negative side effects, among them, slavery, pauper-wages, humans as chattel, and externalities such as environmental degradation. Markets do not provide remedies for these problems, as remedies do not generate immediate and visible profits.

Market pressures also demand that that investors would go elsewhere to avoid U.S. laws protecting workers, the old and disadvantaged, and the environment. So it is that most of our goods are made in other countries like China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, where democratic impulses do not exist, where the environment and workplace are not a huge concern, and where labor is cheap. Very cheap.

In those countries, workers subsist on lousy wages and live in hovels. It’s almost like being a slave, except that workers are free to go starve somewhere if they don’t want to submit to market pressures.

Slavery never left. It’s a natural byproduct of free markets. It still exists in its true form (prostitute slaves are common throughout the world), and in the form of sweatshops. In an article in Scientific American from 2002 (behind a subscription wall), Kevin Bales argued that there were as many as 18 million slaves among us, including in the United States. (Going on memory here.)

Markets work, but without governments, they don’t work as well as some would have us believe. In fact, they can really hurt us. Free markets gave us slavery. Government freed them.