This bill hands over complete control of the health care system to corporations and provides taxpayer subsidies to those corporations with the ostensible goal of providing people with insurance, which it must be repeated, is not the same thing as medical care. It bans exclusions of pre-existing conditions but doesn’t regulate how profits will be sustained on those more-expensive patients. It spreads the insurance net to more people but doesn’t put enough controls on how those plans function. It makes it illegal not to buy insurance and creates new taxes on some middle-class people to pay for this insurance company giveaway. The idea that we will pass this now and “fix it later” is so absurd on it’s face it’s amazing how many people buy it. It’s true that Social Security and Medicare were altered after passage, but in those instances they created a new government programs that once accepted were then strengthened. This bill does exactly the opposite by strengthening private corporations and giving them 100% market share, institutionalizing their monopolies, and handing them taxpayer money to pay their lobbyists, CEOs and shareholders. What exactly do we think we’re going to “fix” later?

The reason we get such bad bills like this one is because there is enormous pressure being exerted on members of Congress from lobbyists and the media, almost all funded by industries standing to profit from the outcome. As a counterweight to that, there is a small but growing band of progressive bloggers, what’s left of organized labor, and public opinion. Guess who wins? One of the most puzzling features of this tug-of-war is that somehow they’ve convinced most of the Democratic base that they too are in Congress, and that they must be pragmatic and compromise their values. So at all steps of the legislative process, increasing as we near the finish line, Democrats throw up their hands and think, “well this is the best we can do and I think I can learn to like it!” And off to the right the country goes.

In no successful political movement do people accept compromise so willingly and even enthusiastically. Politicians compromise; people have ideals. If you aren’t opposed to this health care bill, with no pressure on you and no reason to compromise, WHAT KIND OF PROGRESSIVE ARE YOU? You and I are private citizens. Who is pressuring us to sell out our ideals? Why can’t we oppose this bill and be angry? If people who care about achieving universal health care can’t even hold the line against the insurance industry in their own personal opinions, how can we possibly expect our representatives to stand firm for progressive ideas? I am calling my Representatives and telling them how I feel. They need to hear from me and be reminded of my values so they can weigh that against the other pressures they’re under. After all, they’re the ones that have to govern, not us.

Listen guys, I hate Joe Lieberman as much as the next guy but if you’re upset about him, you’re a dupe, and you’re being manipulated by characters in a holiday pageant. He’s not the problem; he’s the designated villain. His seat is perfectly safe, he can’t be recalled, and you’ll all forget about this in three years when he’s up for re-election. It’s much more fun to be angry at him than the real villains, because the truth is really depressing. President Obama and the Democratic leadership are handing billions of dollars to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and have scripted a drama to carefully shape public opinion to believe that this was the best they could do.

The Senate does not need 60 votes to pass health care legislation. The Republicans wielded power like a bludgeon when they controlled the Senate and weren’t concerned with what anyone thought of it. The Democrats could pass a single-payer national health plan if they wanted to and they could do it in the Senate with 50 votes plus the Vice-President if they really wanted, either by using a budget reconciliation process or by changing the rules. Medicare passed in 1965 with only 55 votes; if the Senate had observed this fictional 60-vote threshold we wouldn’t have that program today. The idea that somehow Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, or any one of these Senators is so important to this process is simply political theater. The bill that we are going to be left with is exactly the bill that the insurance industry wants, the bill that was agreed to in secret meetings at the White House earlier this year. And being upset at and blaming Joe Lieberman is a vital component to the manipulation of public opinion. If public opinion were to suddenly shift, and Democrats directed their anger at Obama… well that is the only thing that might stop the giveaway to the insurance industry. Rahm Emmanuel reads polls; it’s the only thing besides emails from lobbyists he reads in their entirety.

I do not support this health care bill. Call your Senators and tell them you oppose it too. It is a bad bill, and the Democrats want this so badly they are likely to try again with a slightly better version. There is nothing left in this bill but a mandate to force people to buy insurance and a law banning the exclusion of pre-existing conditions. Given the choice between sending a message that the liberal base of the Democratic party will not be taken for granted and abused and giving up on one lousy tiny piece of insurance reform (this is not a once-in-a-generation chance) it should not be difficult for anyone who cares about this issue to oppose the President.

One hundred prominent economists from the country’s leading universities have signed a letter to Congress saying that this bailout is unnecessary. Many members of both parties who still hold core beliefs and are not high-dollar recipients of Banking Industry political contributions oppose this bailout. The American public opposes this bailout by decisive margins in every poll conducted.

What’s the rush? The economy is not actually collapsing. None of the doomsday scenarios being proffered are very specific. Our government always reserves the right to close the markets and force a national bank holiday if things were to suddenly go south. Meanwhile, how about holding hearings, building support, and working transparently? That is the way representative government is supposed to work.

The most disturbing aspect of this “bailout” bill is how much power it vests in the Treasury Secretary. In fact, the most historically significant thing about this (Democratic-led) Congress is how much of its own Constitutionally-mandated power it has permanently ceded to the Executive Branch. Just like the Democratic-markup of the Bush surveillance law that passed this summer, this bill pays lip service to oversight and makes cosmetic suggestions that the Democrats can use in form-letters and talking points that address issues important to their constituents, but which are only in this bill as options to be used entirely at the discretion of the Treasury Secretary. That is not governing, that is cynical posturing, and it could spell the downfall of the party.

This bailout is a deeply shameful bill that will alter the fate of our country forever by assuming ballooning debt that will keep us in hock to our creditors like a third world country unable to govern itself. It does not “socialize” private businesses, as many on the right complain; it essentially privatizes our government and turns it over to banks and private corporations.

Government intervention in our economy is not the issue: that is often a good and necessary thing. This particular intervention, however, is being done in such a hurry and so in secret, controlled by the very people who got us into the mess, with the cooperation of the very people who have betrayed every principle of our democracy. We must do everything in our power to stop this bailout if that is still possible, and we must do everything in our power to defeat our Members of Congress who vote for it, no matter how much we may “like” them.

email this to a friend

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Listen to Rep. Kaptur speak clearly on the “bailout:”

Kaptur has never been too friendly with the corporate wing of the party and has failed to play party politics well enough to capture any influential committee chairs.  In 1996 her strong stance against NAFTA invited a bid from Ross Perot to be his running mate, which she rejected.

A religious Catholic, Kaptur holds more moderate-to-conservative views on abortion and stem-cell research, and has broken with the rest of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on a couple of votes on those issues.  She does not, however, oppose Roe V. Wade, and believes in the right to privacy and keeping government regulations out of personal decisions.

She voted against the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force and frequently speaks out against the war.

Kaptur is a holdout from the old, pre-Clinton Democratic Party, elected from what used to be a reliably populist-Democratic state, who served with Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, in then always-blue Ohio.

[Full disclosure: I worked on Rep. Kaptur's campaign staff in 1990.]

email this to a friend

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Dear Friend,

The U.S. government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of a few. The Wall Street bailout, the Iraq War, military spending, tax cuts to the rich, and a for-profit health care system are all about the acceleration of wealth upwards. And now, the American people are about to pay the price of the collapse of the $513 trillion Ponzi scheme of derivatives. Yes, that’s half a quadrillion dollars. Our first trillion dollar compression bandage will hardly stem the hemorrhaging of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on debt “de-leverages.”

Does anyone seriously think that our public and private debts of some $45 trillion will be paid? That the administration’s growth of the federal debt from $5.6 trillion to $9.8 trillion while borrowing another trillion dollars from Social Security has nothing to do with this? Does anyone not see that when we spend nearly $16,000 for every family of four in our society for the military each year that we are heading over the cliff?

This is a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Just as FDR had to save capitalism after Wall Street excesses, we have to re-invigorate our economy with real – not imaginary – growth. It does not address the never-ending war on the middle class.

The same corporate interests that profited from the closing of U.S. factories, the movement of millions of jobs out of America, the off-shoring of profits, the out-sourcing of workers, the crushing of pension funds, the knocking down of wages, the cancellation of health care benefits, the sub-prime lending are now rushing to Washington to get money to protect themselves.

The double standard is stunning: their profits are their profits, but their losses are our losses.

This bailout will not bring real jobs back to America. It will not bring back jobs that make things. It does not rebuild our schools, streets, neighborhoods, parks or bridges. The major product of this financial economy is now debt. Industrial capitalism has been destroyed.
In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American.
I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in whatever Congress passes:

Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation
Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries
Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down:
a) resignations of management
b) givebacks of executive compensation packages
c) limitations on executive compensation
d) admission by CEO’s of what went wrong and how, prior to any government bailout
Demands for transparencey
a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down
b) with respect to Treasury’s dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout
An equity position for the taxpayers
a) some form of ownership of assets
Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying.
A sunset clause on the legislation
Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust.
A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts
A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts
And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure.

These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me tomorrow.

Dennis J Kucinich
www.Kucinich.us
216-252-9000 877-933-6647