The deal was made months ago

Miles Mogulescu reports at Huffington Post today that Obama made a deal months ago with the health insurance cartel that there would be no public option in the health care bill.

Actually, it’s something that Mogulescu reported last August and that ran once in the New York Times and nowhere else. Ed Schultz picked it up on his TV show, which really ought to stifle these complaints around that Schultz is “managed opposition.” There is enough of that around, but Schultz is not part of it.

Just two thoughts: One, this exposes the lie that there has been any kind of “process” to the packaging and selling of this bill. It’s been theatrics from the start, all done for our benefit. That’s why Joe Lieberman is and will continue to be head of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. He was merely an actor playing his part.

Secondly, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet made great show of collecting signatures on a letter demanding a public option in the bill. It was a Kabuki dance. Bennet has a primary opponent and is running scared. Bennet is not red and black, and is no friend of Jack. (Red touch yellow kill a fellow – I know a poisonous snake when I see one.)

Bennet, a recipient of Wall Street and health insurance money and a Rahm Emanuel appointee, knows what is up.

h/t: Lb

Power … raw naked power

It’s an incredible show of corporate power over our elected representatives. Shock and awe, defeat so thorough that all we can do cry for a while, and then start over. The worst provisions of this bill do not kick in until 2014.

A year ago 77 members of the House of Representatives pledged that they would not support a health care reform bill that did not contain a public option. (I said 87 somewhere else on this blog – numbers ain’t my strong point.)

Nancy Pelosi laughed out loud when she heard this, and now we know why. Since that time, 75 caved. Two were left standing: Eric Massa, and Dennis Kucinich.

Make of that what you will.

Perfecto!

From Brad Blog writer Earnest A. Canning:

Today, as I mulled over the legislative obscenity that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and a former vice president of WellPoint spent months preparing — an insurance carrier wish-list that contains no public option, no means for controlling costs or abuse; a measure that does not merely protect but expands the already obscene wealth of the few by mandating that every citizen purchase insurance, with massive subsidies flowing into carrier coffers —

The amazing thing about this process has not been the cynicism of Baucus and the Democrats and the health insurance companies, but rather the willing gullibility of Democrats. The words above were written when Baucus introduced the bill. After a year of wrangling, what we have is exactly what was proposed in the first place!

There’s been no process. There’s been herding. It would be nice if a Democrat or two would rebel, but all we get are talking points so dripping with stupidity that a Tea Bagger would cringe to read them.

This is perfect – I mean perfect. Not good – don’t settle for good. The health insurance companies got everything they wanted. Perfection.

Fredo, you broke my heart …

It is discouraging – after writing yesterday about how Dennis Kucinich was the lone wolf, one of the few who could stand up to power, he folded. He’s on board the Obama train now. Prepare now for some cowboy foreplay-“Brace yerself honey.” They are ramming this bill through.

This is a huge victory for Obama and the DLC Dems – they are rubbing our faces in it, teabagging us, letting us know that there is no place for progressives in their party. They will take a huge drubbing at the polls this fall because millions of us just won’t have the energy to vote for people so unprincipled. I suspect that matters less to them than the mere fact that they defeat any nascent progressive movement in this land.

This gives lie to the Democratic fall-back that the votes just aren’t there for true health care reform. The votes are there, and the means to get those votes has always been there. However, Obama and the Democratic Party leadership have never wanted reform. The bill they are passing, a corporate-written bill ushered through in a scripted process, has always been what they were after. And they are persuasive and powerful. No doubt Kucinich was reminded that he can be challenged in the primaries, that big money will go after him, that he would receive no support from the party. Maybe he’s been wiretapped, maybe he’s got a skeleton. There were probably some positive enticements too. Obama can be persuasive. Yet never once – never once! – has he used those powers in favor of true reform.

It’s disgraceful, discouraging. Kucinich was a man of honor in defeat. Now he’s just another mealy-mouthed Democrat. So his defeat at the polls, as with all the others, would be of no consequence.

As they say, a man who places faith in politicians is doomed to disappointment. Damned if I didn’t have faith in him.

The good news is this: Obama appointee and Wall Street/health insurance-funded Senator Michael Bennet was defeated in the caucuses last night here in Colorado by Andrew Romanoff, who appears to be somewhat progressive. In an obnoxious and heavy-handed move last month, Obama elected to interfere in a local primary in support of Bennet. The results last night are a slap to Obama, and a message to Bennet that if he wants to win, he had better hide his funding sources.

All in all, not a good day. Power wins a big one, loses a small one. No doubt Bennet’s people right now are crafting ads about how he’s a man of the people, and Kucinich is putting together a press conference to somehow salvage his manhood.
————————–
PS: I suggest that anyone who calls or emails Kucinich to complain include the words “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.

Riding the Power Train

Some time ago, maybe a year ago, a group 80+ of House “progressives” took a stand on behalf of the American public regarding health care. They said that they would not support any bill that did not contain a public option. Nancy Pelosi laughed out loud at the time – she (supposedly a progressive herself) knew that it was an expression of weakness, that they would be destroyed. The power they were up against was simply too much for them.

The Health Care “Reform” debate has been an impressive demonstration of power. Every one of those progressives caved but one: Dennis Kucinich still stands tall, but alone. Here is something really, really interesting – Marcus Molitas of Daily Kos says that Kucinich – Kucinich!!! is one who is now in need of a primary opponent.*

It is a good time again to examine, if only with a surface glance or two, the nature of power. The fact that 86 “progressives” folded their tents is not just a victory for the insurance companies and the White House – it is a not even just a staggering victory. It is shock and awe.

So let’s examine it further. How does one man get another man to become his servant?

In employment, it’s the paycheck. But the power goes deeper than that – the employee might be burdened by mortgages, kids, student loans and the inability to get health insurance somewhere else. Further, few employees are of such caliber that there is any meaningful competition for their services, so that a mere job-jump is not an option. Even if the employee gets so fed up that he makes that jump, he will face a period of unemployment, and with that will come inability to pay bills, loss of credit standing, debt, loss of social standing. (And, his résumé will be tainted if he is perceived as rebellious.)

So for most people, the power of the boss over the employee is complete and total.

Transfer this relationship to that of the office holder and the (generic) “lobbyist.” The lobbyist needs leverage. Where does he find it?

Money is part of it, and is a two-edged sword. Money given to an office holder is useful – he can use it to buy TV ads and get reelected. TV is the only pathway to the voter, who is generally not paying attention. But it is more than that, as the office holder must assume that any money he does not take will go to an opponent. So the power of money is magnified by the ability of the lobbyist to leverage it by offering it to an opponent too.

If it were only money, we would not be in such trouble, because the “lobbyist” has a weakness. He is up against other lobbyists, and while there is seldom significant differences on large objectives – wars, subsidies, tax breaks and the like, there can be competing objectives, so that the office holder can at times leverage one lobbyist against another.

So the lobbyist needs more than just money, though money is powerful and mostly legal. There are other legal ways of making the office holder behave.

One is the fact that most of our “mainstream” media is in fact owned and controlled by the elite moneyed sectors who hire the lobbyists. Office holders need access to this media to be considered credible. Bad actors like Kucinich or Bernie Sanders will never appear on a Sunday talk show. It is well-understood among office holders that a stint on Democracy Now!, the only true news show around, will not cement voter approval – and might even stigmatize them.

So lobbyists have further control over office holders by controlling, in a general sense (there is no one lever to pull, no one lever-puller), access to favorable media. Further, negative press is a weapon – if an office holder stumbles over his words and accidentally says something that is true, or gets a DUI, becomes confrontational or gets out of line, negative editorials will appear in his home district, footage might leak to YouTube – it is somewhat disheveled and disorganized, but office holders have to be careful never to say anything in affront to lobbyists for fear of bad PR.

But even that is not enough. There are yet other legal ways of controlling the office holder. There is so much money floating around this country and in DC that an office holder of low scruples can avail himself of it in many ways. He can accept lucrative employment after leaving office, as, for instance, former South Dakota senate minority leader Tom Daschle becoming a health insurance lobbyist. (Chris Dodd will be interesting to watch – even after announcing his resignation, he is still working on behalf of Wall Street lobbyists. Does lucrative employment await?)

There are also employment opportunities for family members, as with Joe’s son, Beau Biden, working for MNBA back in Delaware, and Evan Bayh’s wife drawing lucrative salaries from health insurance companies … if we had investigative journalists, it would be interesting to do some research on employment of family members in Washington.

In fact, most loyal office holders, even the lowly Conrad Burns, can turn to a career in lobbying after leaving office, and rewards will be there for the rest of their useful lives.

All of that is, unfortunately, legal. But there is yet more. During the Bush years we learned of the prevalence of the wire tap – certainly not new (nor has it been discontinued under Obama). Most members of the media had their phones tapped by NSA or other agencies. The same is most likely true of most members of Congress. If such a weapon were available, and we know it is, how could it not be used?

No matter what it is, whether tryst with a secretary or a drunken party in the Bahamas, somebody in DC knows about it, and such information will be presented to the office holder at some critical juncture.

If only it stopped there. But there is also “sheepdipping”, aka “ABSCAMming”, where an office holder can be made to look guilty or lured into a compromising situation. This happened to Gary Hart, and many years before, Wilbur Mills. John Edwards might be a victim, though he certainly merits no sympathy. Most recently, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and before him, New York Governor Elliot Spitzer were “exposed.” The question that is not asked is “How many are culpable, but not exposed?”

These men were being watched – people were looking for dirt, and they found it. And even if the dirt does not turn up naturally, it can be planted. Any potential hire for an office holder can present a threat – she could be the next Donna Rice, Monica, or Linda Tripp.

So the control over our elected officials appears almost complete and total. A man has to be pure and innocent to be immune from such pressures. He has to forgo corporate money and lead a squeaky-clean life. Such a man is Bernie Sanders ….. but wait!

Sanders, Vermont’s socialist senator, seems a rogue, a man able to walk about freely and speak his mind. He’s not hobbled by the Democratic Party, and doesn’t take corporate money, so the regular levers don’t work on him. Yet, when the Senate Health “Reform” bill, written by the health insurance lobbyists, needed 60 votes to get out of the senate, he provided the 60th vote.

We had been treated to spectacles before where certain senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson used their “60th vote” status to leverage massive changes in the bill, preventing a public option, for instance. Senator Sanders, the 60th vote for that bill, had incredible power to command changes favorable to ordinary citizens.

And he did not do so. He did not use his power, meaning he did not have power.

What’s up with that, Bernie? Skeletons in your closet?
—————–
*This is not hard to understand, on further reflection. Molitas made that statement while be interviewed on a cable news show. He would not have access to such forums if he held unworthy views. He has succumbed, and is probably a passenger on the ego train. He’s apparently been compromised in some fashion.

Word games

The legendary Civil War-era reporter Simpson B. Ashley played poker with plantation owners late one night, when they were a bit liquored up and guards were down. They were being pilloried and demonized in the Northern press, and needed to fix up their image. According to Ashley, they had hired a writer, Mary Chesnut, to re-define slavery in such a way that it did not seem like such a bad thing in the mind of the public.

Slavery had been well-defined by that time – it was simply “forced labour”, using the British spelling. Chesnut spent many sleepless nights trying to get around such a blunt-force concept so easily understood and used to damn her clients. At last she had it. She presented it to the plantation owners at a meeting in July, 1858, in Richmond. Slavery, she said, should henceforth be defined as “unlawful forced labour.

It was a Eureka! moment, though that expression had not yet some into use. What the plantation owners were doing was in fact not slavery, because it was legal.
——————-

Simpson B. Ashley is a real person, but he’s too young to read this. I just made all of that up. Yesterday I listened to a radio broadcast where the participants were experienced angst and frustration in trying to come up with a definition of “terrorism.” “Why is it so hard?”, mused David Sirota, the host.

It’s not hard at all, just as slavery is not hard to define. Here’s the definition:

The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

That is not at all hard to understand, and from that definition it is easy to see that the biggest purveyor of terrorism on this planet is the United States Government, followed closely by that of Israel. But such a definition yields what one might call the “slave owner’s dilemma”: A straightforward and honest definition makes us look like terrorists. Hence the angst, the intellectual quandary faced by Sirota and callers yesterday.

He need not have struggled so. The Pentagon long ago solved this quandary. Here is the “official” definition of terrorism:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

We’re officially off the hook. When we do it, it’s lawful.

A mind game

I was having a debate with my mother many years ago about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This was during the time of the sanctions, when thousands of kids over there were dying each month at the hands of the Clinton Administration. During the course of that debate I tried to get across the point that even though Hussein was not a desirable person, that we did not offer the Iraqis a viable alternative, and had in fact had deliberately put Saddam back in power after the 1991 U.S. attack on that country. As an aside, I mentioned a story, possibly apocryphal, about Saddam in a staff meeting one day. He got upset with one of the staff members and asked him to step outside the room. He shot and killed him, and then returned to the meeting.

Some time later my mother and I returned to the conversation, and she repeated the story about the shooting. I thought that was interesting as in all of the debate that we endured, that was the only thing that registered with her. Everything else bounced off the surface.

Mom was a smart person and has long since gone under to Alzheimer’s. I mean no disrespect here. It’s the psychological phenomenon that makes me curious. In my years of debating on the Internet, I notice that there are certain “facts” which do not penetrate consciousness. They don’t compute, and hence the mind merely sets them aside. Osama bin Laden is dead, has been for years. The U.S. keeps him “alive” because he’s useful in scaring the American people. It is as if a speaker is speaking and no words leave the mouth.

Anyway, I just embedded three thoughts in the above paragraphs that will not compute with most people. I am wondering, without going back and re-reading, can you tell me what they were? What did those words say that did not penetrate? I’ll bet you remember the story about Saddam shooting the guy. It’s not one of the three.

Stepping out of the parade …

I am deep in the heart of taxes these days. While working, I often have podcasts or radio shows on in the background, but seldom really hear what is going on. However, yesterday Chris Hedges managed to catch my attention.

The subject was whether or not progressives ought to leave the Democratic Party. Hedges says yes, that in fact we should have left in 1994 when Bill Clinton passed NAFTA. The radio hosts were a bit perplexed, as leaving the party seems to cut off the only means by which we can affect positive change – elective office.

As usual, Hedges offered deeper insight. Lefties, he said, cannot hold the reins of power. It is not our role. If we go that route, we simply become the office holders and are bound to carry forth the corporate agenda. That is, after all, the price of attaining office. Those who do buck that system are quickly jettisoned or marginalized.

Those who seek power are not, by definition, progressives. That is not our nature. Our role in this system is to buck this system from the outside. We seek to stop power in its tracks. And in fact a brief glance at our history shows this to be the normal course of events. The movements that ended slavery and child labor, formed unions and started the nascent movement to preserve our habitat – yada yada – none of this came about because we had people in elected office to get things going.

Leaving the Democratic Party is no more foolish or counterproductive that stepping out of a parade. We cannot stop it by being in it. We need to be somewhere else, doing other things, while that pointless march goes forward. Being a Democrat is not a useful activity. We are the parade stoppers – not the marchers.

Exclusion from the briar patch

My thanks to Raj Patel for adding some clarity to all of this madness about us about “free markets.” The idea is like a virus, or maybe a parasite, as markets may yet destroy their host … our habitat.

Patel introduced me to the concept of “exclusion,” probably well-known to anyone in Econ 101. But as he describes it, exclusion is the nature of the marketplace itself – without it, we have only commons.

Say, for example, a town exists around a well, and all of the townspeople depend on it for water. Suppose that the local merchant ropes off the area, sets up guards, gets a court order behind him, and prevents people from using the well without paying him. The well has become his “property”, and the towns people, now excluded, are “free” to engage in commerce to get water.

Before they lost access to the well, they were freer than after it was excluded from the commons. But in the Orwellian parlance of our time, that is actually supposed to be a net gain in personal freedom.

In health, insurance companies have roped off medical care to limit access, excluding the poor and already sick and charging everyone else. As a result, we are now subject to huge fees for common services, and insurers make money off of us by the simple means of placement, like the merchant and the well. They “own” what was formerly our commons, access to health care.

Again, the free marketers call this freedom. They stand logic on its head. Exclusion is at the heart of servitude. Governments, which do not exclude people from services, but rather collect taxes and disperse them without discrimination, offer more freedom than markets. But the notion that governments enslave us while markets free us, the curse of our times, is dominant.
————————-

I was listening to Dr. Marcia Angell interviewed by Bill Moyers this morning. Moyers, who is soon to retire, did another excellent show on health care. Angell wondered out loud whether Anthem Blue Cross, which is raising its rates by as much as 39% in California, is gaming us.

She calls it the “briar patch” game, as in “please don’t throw us in there.” In the scenario, Anthem, oblivious to public hatred and criticism, is rubbing our face in rate increases as a way of angering us to the point where we turn to the government to pass the health care “reform” bill.

That would be a good deal for Anthem, as the bill that is on the table, the one that Obama is (finally) fighting for, will bring Anthem millions of new clients, billions in subsidies, and with no public option, no threat of competition. All wiithout cost controls.

Who knows. We are practically owned at this point by the public relations industry – the whole health care “reform” process has been a game. This might be the ninth inning. Key Democrats are being forced out of Congress, others are surely feel the heat. Dennis Kucinich, a holdout, will surely have to endure corporate attacks in his district in the wake of Citizens United.

But it’s hard to know. Anthem is raking it in in our current system, so can’t be hurt either way.