February 23, 2010
Health Care Reform: Public Option, Reconciliation, DOA?
Last night, Sen. Jay Rockefeller announced he would not likely support a Public Option reform through the Reconciliation process (a process by which different legislation passed by the House and Senate, can be reconciled and bypass a Senate filibuster with 51 votes.) That announcement, for all intents and purposes, spells the death knell for the reconciliation push to pass health care reform with a Public Option. Sen. Rockefeller has been a strong supporter of the Public Option. He expressed his reservations, leaving a bit of room to change his mind, but, it is hard to imagine what would, given his arguments against it.
Sen. Rockefeller is pinning his hopes on a bi-partisan approach, still, which would include a similar measure in the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill. Rockefeller stated:
I don't think you [pursue] something like the public option, which cannot pass, will not pass. And if we get the Senate bill--both through the medical loss ratio and the national plans, which have in that, every one of them has to have one not-for-profit plan, which is sort of like a public option.
It appears then, that Sen. Rockefeller is not opposed to the Reconciliation process, which Republicans used 3 times during the Bush administration to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. He appears only to be opposed to pushing the Public Option through the Reconciliation process.
Which means, that the Senate's version of Health Care reform is still on the table to be passed through Reconciliation, and would likely receive Sen. Rockefeller's support. There are some 20 Senate Democrats who have signed on to urge their leadership to push the reform through the Reconciliation process, but, with the Public Option from the House version added.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats are going to be able to muster the votes necessary to use the Reconciliation process. Many are waiting for the results of Pres. Obama's health care summit meeting, which Republicans were invited to participate in, later this week. There are enough conservative Democrats in the House to derail the Public Option being added to the Senate version of the bill using Reconciliation. This may be influencing Sen. Rockefeller's calculus on the issue.
It remains to be seen if Republicans will remain seated at the 'summit' meeting' in lieu of storming out in protest to Democrats unwillingness to scrap everything and start over, again. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News day before yesterday, Sen. McConnell had this to say:
We know where the American people are on the bills the House and Senate passed, the 2,700-page bill that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, raises taxes by a half a trillion dollars.
The NPR poll just a week or so ago indicated the American people were against that 58 to 38. They really want to us to shelve this bill and start over, and I hope that's what the president does when he puts this new proposal on the Internet later today or tomorrow.
This was masterful political theater by Sen. McConnell. He refers to this NPR Poll. The numbers were 55% opposed, and 39% in favor. McConnell either lied about the result in his argument's favor, or, has no business quoting poll numbers he can't remember, as if he does. But, look at the polling question:
As you may have heard, President Obama has proposed a plan to change the health care system that recently passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate. From what you have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama's health care proposal?
The question is confusing and without specifics. First, President Obama has presented no health care plan, only four objectives to be met by any health care plan the Congress passes. Second, the Senate bill is radically different than the House bill. These polled persons are being asked for a yes or no support answer to two different health care plans, neither of which is the President's crafting. It is like asking a person, "Do you prefer Blue or Orange? And they respond, Yes, or No.
Those responding to this question likely thought they understood the question, but, the question is both false in its reference to 'Obama's health care reform bill', and bogus in its structural reference to two different proposals, leading the respondents, most of whom likely know very little about which bill contains what, to answer in support or not support of legislation they don't know about.
Senator McConnell's reference to this polling result completely circumvents the straightforward question in other polls about the Public Option contained in the House version of the Bill. When the question is clear and informational, instead of confusing and falsely stated, the result is very different. In a Newsweek sponsored poll [PDF] of Feb. 19, here is the question and result:
Do you favor or oppose: Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans.In this same poll, respondents were given specifics on the health care reform bills, and asked for their overall assessment of Obama's reform plan, (committing the same mistake as the NPR poll), favor, not favor, or don't know.
Favor: 50% Oppose: 42% Don't Know: 8%.
Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama’s health care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s plan – do you favor it or oppose it?
Favor: 48% Oppose: 43% DK: 9%
This is what happens when politicians cherry pick their data to make their arguments. The reality is, the more the public knows about what is in these bills, more favor them than disfavor them. Republicans know this, which is why they have been on a confusion and misinformation campaign with the public since this health care debate began.
Which raises the question, why are Democrats like Sen. Rockefeller still holding out hope for a bi-partisan passage of health care reform? Even the one lonely House Republican who voted for the House version, has now said he will not vote for Reconciliation to pass the health care reform. How could it possibly be clearer that the GOP has no intention of allowing Democrats to give the majority of Americans what they want on health care reform, regardless of what shape it takes?
The President's bi-partisan health care summit is going to be pure political theater. Televised, this meeting will give Democrats the opportunity to contrast their plan with the Republicans. The Republicans will no doubt use the meeting to portray themselves as cooperative and conciliatory, and Democrats as unwilling to compromise, or, alternatively, find an appropriate point at which to rise up together and walk out in indignation. Both sides will be using this summit to their advantage. And that's precisely how and why the American people continue to be left out of the priorities of our current day politicians and their political Parties.
I am not betting that health care reform will get done this year. Both Parties now have too much to gain politically as the election approaches, by demonizing the opposing Party for depriving their majority of the American people what they demand and expect for their tax dollars. And in the meantime, the Medicare/Medicaid deficits for the States and the U.S. government will grow, as will the millions more Americans having to live in America without health care insurance, using expensive Emergency Rooms for illnesses which should never have progressed as far as they did. This inaction by our Congress continues to grow an unsustainable debt upon the earnings of our children, when they enter the work force, and potentially bankrupts the U.S. government.
A bankrupt U.S. government is the surest way of finding out whether the American people really want small and limited federal government. Haiti has small and limited government. Somalia has small and limited government. Afghanistan has small and limited government. Is it really necessary to test common sense in this most extreme way? Small and limited government creates inordinate hardships on its people. Government needs to be whatever size the nation's people and her future require of it to continue as an effective government. Our government is no longer effective. Size is not the reason.
Sen. Mitch McConnell highlights the politics at play when he said in the above mentioned interview: "But the American people who are already quite angry about the effort to jam this down their throats are going to be even angrier."
Only 13% of Americans place health care reform as their top priority, though this was the second highest priority in the poll to Jobs and the Economy. If the majority of the American people believed health care reform was being jammed "down their throats", one would think it would be a vastly higher priority, especially to the majority who are still working in their jobs. These drastic and dramatic kinds of statements are designed to evoke a negative response in the American people. And that negative response is showing up as an approval rating of Congress well below 30%.
My family has very good health care insurance through the wife's employer. But, the premiums have been increasing dramatically year after year. And it no longer provides long term catastrophic coverage. Our deductible has risen from $500 per person, per year, to $1500 per year, in little over a decade. And the costs for medical procedures which we, and our insurance company pay, has skyrocketed over that same period. The system is broken and unsustainable as it is. Reform is absolutely necessary. The political parties stand between the American people and the reform they now, or will soon, desperately need.
Posted by David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 02:24 AMDavid, Great piece.
The Democratic fears about reconciliation mystify me, frankly.
While a public option, is the only option that actually will begin to really address costs, getting something through is better than nothing. Issues like not rejecting pre existing conditions and healthcare markets across state lines are a step in the right direction.
While anything that passes will be demonized by the right, I suspect the “new” powers sought to limit premiums may be a necessary adjunct to a limited bill passing and controlling costs.
Exposing what is going on in healthcare and explaining, as you have done so well on several posts, the tie in to long term debt reduction should be Obama’s new campaign meme this year.
Posted by: gergle at February 23, 2010 05:48 AMWe Want A Strong Government-Run Public Option NOW!!
A LINE IN THE SAND - From jacksmith - WorkingClass
Call your representatives and demand an answer. Do you or don’t you support a public option. Do you or don’t support democratic MAJORITY RULE! We DEMAND! to know.
YOU! are dying and suffering needlessly every day http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/27055
Why we need Government-run universal healthcare ASSURANCE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A
My Fellow Americans and People Of The World
A strong Government-run MEDICARE like Public Option is STILL! CRITICAL!
We have had a long hard struggle to find out what would be the BEST! that this congress and the Whitehouse could do to fix our highly dangerous, poor quality, most costly, and MOST! disgraceful healthcare delivery system in the world. It is clear that congress can do much more for the American people than what is proposed so far.
It is clear that congress can pass a strong GOVERNMENT-run public option CHOICE. Available to everyone on day one. Expand Medicare and not levy any new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. LET THIS BE YOUR LINE IN THE SAND!
Lastly, there can be NO! INDIVIDUAL MANDATES without a strong Government-run MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. Or the American people WILL! and SHOULD! revolt with an all out CIVIL WAR against congress and this Government.
House and Senate progressives and the tri-caucuses should aggressively push for the inclusion of a strong Public Option, Medicare expansion, and no new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. If the obstructionist kill meaningful healthcare reform, then you should kill this bill. Because it will be far worse than the healthcare disaster we have now. It’s failure will be on the obstructionist heads. And they will be punished and replaced.
WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE, THIS BILL WILL KILL FAR MORE AMERICANS THAN IT WILL SAVE.
What is proposed in the Senate bill is the worst case scenario for health-care reform. It would shift trillions of taxpayer, public and private dollars into the hands of the private insurance industry (The single most costly, deadly and dangerous product sold in America). And it would compel by law millions of Americans to financially support this oxymoronic criminal enterprise. You cant have a individual MANDATE WITHOUT A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE!
You will have NO! realistic way of controlling cost and quality. Cost will continue soaring through the roof bleeding the American people dry, and KILLing our economy. And our quality of healthcare will continue to decline below our current ranking of “WORST! quality of healthcare delivery in the developed World”.
From the very start, the American people have been crystal clear about what they wanted. They wanted a humane single payer system like the rest of the developed world has (HR676). Or at least a humane strong GOVERNMENT-run public option CHOICE!! This is what the American people gave the democrats control of the house, control of the senate, and control of the Whitehouse to do.
Those of you that can, should prepare now to remove every member of congress that fails to support YOUR healthcare reform with a strong Public Option, Medicare expansion, and no new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. Run against them in teams if you have to. But take them out. And replace them with a strong single payer or PRO PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE candidate.
Now! is the time to bring maximum pressure on your members of congress. Contact your representatives and spread the word.
The Public Option http://tinyurl.com/yfftf76
H1N1 IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
I have to tell you now that the H1N1 virus is a man-made WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION! and TERROR! It is a WEAPONIZED version of a flu virus. It has swept the planet infecting millions. And causing a global pandemic that has killed tens of thousands, and injured millions.
The H1N1 virus is the product of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! It was released in the U.S. in Texas in early January of last year, but not recognized until around April 2009 in California. The reason I know this is because when it came to America, it came to see me FIRST! How sweet…
This was around the time the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! assaulted the Whitehouse with all their devils deals to cripple and weaken YOUR! healthcare reform. Especially your right to have a single payer system like HR676 (Medicare For All) which most of you wanted.
They don’t even want you to have your HUGE!!! compromise position of a strong government-run MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. To compete with their DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, MURDEROUS, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PRODUCT (The single most costly, deadly and dangerous product sold in America).
They also wanted to take away your rights to have your government meet it’s responsibility to use it’s full power to regulate, negotiate, and control drug cost, healthcare cost and quality. Something every other civilized country in the developed World has done for it’s people. Their Greed! moral degeneracy and lack of patriotism knows no bounds.
Many of you will remember that before we knew about H1N1. I posted a open message to the President and Congress warning them to be vigilant about their health, and cautious about any medical advice they received. As I said then “they will not hesitate to try and hurt you”.
The U.S. and the World have been under a BIOLOGICAL TERROR ATTACK! for over a year now. It is CRITICAL that We The People Of The United States take away control of our healthcare system from the GREED DRIVEN MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
For our own National security, and the security of the world.
A Strong, government-run, MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. Available to everyone on day one, with the full unfettered power of the federal government to regulate, negotiate, and control cost and quality. Would be the most workable way to deal with this global crisis at this time. Including patent suspensions as needed for national security or the greater good.
As an American I invite the peoples of the World to help us fix our healthcare crisis. And bring pressure on our government to meet it’s responsibility to protect global security by controlling, and removing the corrupting influence of GREED and the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT motivations from healthcare in the U.S. and around the World.
I call on the governments of the World and the global intelligence community to track down these MASS MURDERERS, and bring them to justice. CONNECT THE DOTS! And be vigilant that they don’t slip in another viral strain on you under the cloak of H1N1 sequestration.
Further, the proposed patent protection on biologic’s must be stripped from the US bill. And greatly shorten/restricted, or abolished completely. This is a grave danger to humanity and global security.
We must be strong and insist that healthcare reform be done right for the American people. Or everyone loose’s.
This is all I can say in a message post. I’ll try to find a way to tell you more later.
God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings
jacksmith - Working Class
p.s. The so-called nominal H1N1 virus is designed in such a way as to make it more lethal to children and young adults. The medical community must be more vigilant of secondary bacterial infections in the young caused by H1N1. And remember, a viral infection is also a transfer of genetic code to you. Think about it, and be vigilant. :-(
Posted by: jacksmith at February 23, 2010 07:40 AMPolls, Polls, Polls. We have to do everything by polls of a largely uninformed public. This is supposed to be a reperesentative democracy. This is why government is broken.
Posted by: Schwamp at February 23, 2010 09:58 AMDR
Bravo.
I wonder if the short lived plan to allow those 50(?) and over to buy into medicare might float?
ALL
For those that agree that we must do something,now is good time to let your reps know it.
From the White House, Pres. Obama finally releases HIS reform bill, which attempts to bridge the House and Senate bills.
Yesterday, the White House released President Obama’s health insurance reform proposal. It bridges the gap between the House and Senate bills, includes ideas from both parties to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse, and puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.
And House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say in response:
“The President has crippled the credibility of this week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 11:12 AM
Schwamp, but both sides are representing their constituents. WHO Should they be representing, - Venusians and Martians instead? Democrats have the majority of the public on their side with the Public Option which only the House would propose. And Republicans have the majority of the public on their side that this Congress is broken, and up to no good for the American people.
All this Republic is getting us nowhere. A simple majority would at least move us forward in some direction, and any direction is better than doing nothing and bankruping the nation and millions of Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 11:16 AMDr
Damn. I guess they won’t take a hint. The Rep leaders in DC are terrified that if they do the right thing here they will no longer have much to sell to their corporate clients,but oh my God,people have figured them out!Dosen’t matter. Either get on board and have some input or get out of the way.
I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.
When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning.
E.Debs
Posted by: bills at February 23, 2010 12:04 PMFrom modifications to the Social Security act that made it unsustainable to the institution of an utterly unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid monstrosity Democrats have, when they posessed a majority in Congress placed a future burden exceeding 100 TRILLION dollars of unfunded mandates. Absolutely they should behave in a manner true to form and add additional tens of trillions to that any way they can, even if it is by reconciliation. It’s only unfulfillable promises, the sort of fantasies they’ve fed us all along.
The trouble is, unlike those who voted for future follies in the past, the Democrats who vote for these unfulfillable promises won’t be dead when we realize what they’ve done.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 23, 2010 12:18 PMOne more thought, isn’t there ample evidence that politicians are in fact not making up their own mind but are directed by the party bosses for campaign re-election purposes? How else could all Republicans believe so strongly in using the filibuster?
Why isn’t this considered extortion, bribery, blackmail, racketeering, collusion, vote-buying - all that good stuff. I don’t understand that.
Posted by: Schwamp at February 23, 2010 12:25 PMLee said: “From modifications to the Social Security act that made it unsustainable to the institution of an utterly unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid monstrosity Democrats have, when they posessed a majority in Congress placed a future burden exceeding 100 TRILLION dollars of unfunded mandates.”
What partisan blinders. And Republicans DID NOT expand this Program by a trillion dollars with the Rx drug plan? Yes, they most certainly did. Now, either, their rationale was the same as Democrats, to help the American people, OR, they intended to bankrupt the system so they could get rid of it.
Which was it, Lee? If the former, then there is no difference between the Parties once they have power. If the latter, then the GOP is the enemy of what the people want, and the people DO WANT a health care safety net, as opposed to being denied health care when they need it, regardless of ability to pay.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 01:04 PMSchwamp asked: “Why isn’t this considered extortion, bribery, blackmail, racketeering, collusion, vote-buying - all that good stuff.”
Because the founders in their wisdom (lacking today in Congress) codified the bartering and debate process into law. It is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 01:07 PMBills,
Beautiful passage, who is e.debs? I did a google search, but no luck.
Posted by: gergle at February 23, 2010 01:09 PMDavid,
And Republicans DID NOT expand this Program by a trillion dollars with the Rx drug plan?Yes, David, they did! Why do I need to explain to people that the Republican Party power brokers run a power-centralizing party just such as the Democratic Party is? Both parties play the same game. The base of the Republican Party must recognize this fact so they can weed out these power centralizers in the primary process. Then we won’t need to elect Democrats to show the party how mad we are or to get power centralizers out of office. Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 23, 2010 02:08 PM
Eugene Debbs was the founder of the American Railway Union. He was a Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1912. In 1917-18 The government passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts which effectively outlawed criticism of government leaders and war policies.
Using these acts, Wilson went after many Socialists and union leaders. Debs was convicted of encouraging draft resistance. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
In 1920, while in prison, Debs received nearly one million votes for president.
He was later pardoned by Harding.
Posted by: jlw at February 23, 2010 03:34 PM
It is true that both parties are playing the power-centralizing game.
The third and apparently more powerful political party is also the major power-centralizing factor.
I think there is little room to deny that the third political party is capital and the corporations.
Posted by: jlw at February 23, 2010 04:06 PMLee said: “Yes, David, they did!”
Yes, I know. It was a sarcastic comment, as evidenced by my very next sentence. Here they are, side by side, as originally stated.
And Republicans DID NOT expand this Program by a trillion dollars with the Rx drug plan? Yes, they most certainly did.
Sorry if the soliloquy was too subtle.
I agree with you, both parties do play the same game. But, then, democracy as practice in the House and Senate is designed toward centralization through negotiation and discovery of common ground upon which to build consensus.
Getting power centralizers out of Congress with take a Constitutional Amendment of major proportions. The founders did not contemplate political parties, and therefore installed no checks and balances on their power.
The alternative is the people centralize their power through anti-incumbent voting blocks based on disappointment with government results. That is after all, the door that was opened with universal suffrage and direct elections by the people of the Senate, and the electoral college which mimics the popular vote, in most elections.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2010 04:08 PMI remain fair thee well amazed that somee folks want to continue voting themselves _______ funds from the federal larder. We know Europeans are paying about half of what we pay for HC. But, who knows how much of that is subsidized. One must assume that 31M, including the illegal population, will be included, but unable to pay for their coverage. Even though Obama has said ‘no new taxes’ he will be forced, as Bush One was, to raise taxes. O’Riley ticked off several new non-income tax taxes today: Area clean-up after a car crash, tanning saloons, unhealthy food tax, out of state sales taxes among them. And, they will fee you to death as well. No tort reform or interstate competition in the new bill. The freebie that was to go to just Nebraska in buying Sen. Hollis’s vote will now be given to all states. Many benefits don’t kick in for ten years leaving you paying for something you aren’t getting. There is a big union carve out in their relative to high end plans. Real cost is estimated at $2T re the $750B being touted by congress.
Stack that up against a $12-$15T federal budget with cost eating up 90% of GDP, a jobless recovery and wages headed toward $5/hr - it can’t fly, unless you have full-blown Socialism.
Otherwise - -
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 23, 2010 10:23 PMHow can the government bring 10-40M illegals into the country, in violation of government laws, and make more laws that the voters have to support them? No debate, no vote, just do it, or they will send yer arse to the pokey.
And, a jobs bill? Stimulus II maybe. They managed to give away $787B in Stimi I so $15B is a flash in the pan. But jobs? Find ONE person in this country who thinks there can be job creation in a jobless recovery, where competitive labor rates are like ten cents an hour, well, maybe twelve cents. Agree, the Stimi’s and full-blown Socialism will succeed for a while. You can’t fly very high and you want fly long.
Otherwise, - - -
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 23, 2010 10:39 PMRoy said: “Even though Obama has said ‘no new taxes’ he will be forced, as Bush One was, to raise taxes.”
Roy, Obama never promised ‘no new taxes’ in any such general way as Bush I did. Obama said he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans who are struggling through this Great Recession, and that promise was kept. I know, I just filed my taxes and was glad to pay them.
Once the economy is back on its feet, he has ALSO said raising taxes and cutting spending are the only means to ending the deficits and addressing the long term debt.
Bush I was an ideologue, forced by reality to backtrack on his ideology. Obama is no ideologue, and has committed to pragmatic solutions for the nation’s and people’s needs. When this economy is back on its feet, Obama will raise taxes, and he knew that from the beginning, and made no promises to anyone that he would have to renege upon.
Roy said: “No tort reform or interstate competition in the new bill.”
Everyone wants to make the HC reform bill into something else, an abortion ban bill, (Stupak), tort reform bill, (Republicans), and most favored Pork Spending Bill (Ben Nelson). The more idjuts try to make HC reform into something else, the more harm they do the people and the nation in delaying the absolutely necessary.
The HC reform is how one addresses that long term Medicare debt. That is the whole point of a HC reform bill, to rescue those without HC today and the economy in the future from the spiraling Medicare costs.
Roy said: “The freebie that was to go to just Nebraska in buying Sen. Hollis’s vote will now be given to all states.”
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about here. I know of Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote being sold for exemption for Nebraska in the previous Senate Bill, but that his history, and will never be. You may want to check your sources on this one.
Roy said: “Many benefits don’t kick in for ten years leaving you paying for something you aren’t getting.”
Do you believe we can halt deficits and lower debt and insure people do not suffer in America without health care, without spending a cent? That is pure Republican sophistry. Where are you getting this garbage from?
Incrementally delaying the benefits is a practical way of deferring costs until the jobs picture has improved for most Americans, estimated to take 4 years. Delaying the benefits also helps to gain support for the legislation.
Only those who oppose America doing anything about Health Care reform, which WILL bankrupt the nation, or prefer to just let fellow Americans suffer without insurance and health care, which would create social upheaval and add large future costs as a consequence, would be critical of the practical measures being taken to reform the situation.
Don’t let ideologues stand in the way of progress in solving our nation’s challenges. Perfection can never be achieved in legislation. But, regression and progression can. Your comments sound like they are lifted from some ideologue bent on going backwards as a solution. I see so many today like Limbaugh whose comments harken to the good old days before Civil Rights legislation, or Stupak longing for the days before Roe V. Wade when women died from back alley and abandoned house abortions.
Let’s make some progress here. The Civil War is over. Individual citizen’s liberty is worth making progress on. And spending the money to BOTH relieve American suffering and drive down the long term costs of health care that threaten our very economic existence, are all progress. Let’s make some progress for a change, and stop fighting for the impossible in turning back the hands of time. We don’t have Time Machine. Let’s return to reality, shall we.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2010 05:21 AMRoy, what is your source for illegals gaining government sponsored health care in the Senate’s reform bill? I couldn’t find it.
Roy said: “And, a jobs bill? Stimulus II maybe.”
Why NOT? Stimulus I worked very well.
Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success. NY Times, this month.
Latest CBO estimate on effects of the Stimulus I bill. [PDF}
And, Macroeconomic Advisers, a prominent private-sector forecasting firm said last Friday about the progress of Stimulus Legislation: “the definitive answer: it works”.
I have to ask if you are still relying ideological entertainers for your economic data and information? You don’t go to a plumber for heart surgery, do you? I have provided you with independent economists assessments. They are far more accurate and reliable than entertainers and ideologues.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2010 05:34 AMRoy said: “Find ONE person in this country who thinks there can be job creation in a jobless recovery”
Here I am. “Jobless recovery” is a patently false idiom of ideologues. More than 130 million Americans have jobs in this recovery. It is, a priori, false to use the words, “jobless recovery”.
In addition, through March of 2009, we were losing more than 3/4 of a million jobs PER MONTH. Their are NO net job losses occurring today. As a matter of simple arithmetic, you can’t go from losing .75 million jobs per month to losing no jobs, without creating jobs, because people are leaving the work force every month for retirement, and yet, there are no job losses, meaning some people looking for work are finding jobs.
There are thousands of Texans who have found jobs or continued working their jobs on the 2 billion dollars of new road construction and safety improvements underway. Some of them I have talked to personally at the entrance to my home, where they are widening the highway. One heavy equipment operator, who informed me that this was a Stimulus Bill project, was a veteran who served his time in Iraq, and got the job on my highway out front. Another lady equipment operator said she probably wouldn’t have a job if this construction project had not been started.
These are the facts and reality. It will take an estimated 4 years, minumum, to restore all the jobs that have been lost in this Great Recession. THIS GOVERNMENT, this post Republican, post Bush government, is to be credited for doing everything it legally can to help Americans back to work.
I don’t like the Democratic Party and I rail against their corruption of their Party and our politics. But, reality is reality, and the Democrats have single handedly rescued and ended this Great Recession (economy is growing again), with the Stimulus bill which Republicans voted against.
A part of being a responsible independent voter is being objective about reality and the facts. To remain a consumer of either Democratic or Republican propaganda distorting facts and reality, is to be an Independent in Name Only (IINO).
There, I have coined a new acronym, like we need another. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2010 05:52 AMLee
100 trillion $. Where did you get that number? Reliable source please. BTW the CBO figures the HC proposal will cut medicare cost over ten years by billions and start getting drug cost under control.
During the last push to give the SS fund away to Wall street gouls,the number of 11 trillion dollars was cooked up. Seems that number comes up based on liabilities from then to infinity. Pretty silly accounting. With that method we only have to come up with one dollar a year for the first 11 trillion years. Even with that flim flam, they still had to asssume a life span of 150 years while keeping the retirement age at 65. `85 years of retirement? Pretty good deal.
Posted by: bills at February 24, 2010 06:58 AMjlw,gergle
Debs was the victum of the Supreme Courts well known phrase regarding,”yelling fire in a crowed theater” decision. Of course one might percieve a duty to warn people when the theater IS on fire. The supremes ,under the vaunted Holms also explainned the decision to imprison Debs and not many others opposed to WW1 as necessary because people listened to him. What that means is that you have freedom of speech so long as no one pays attention.
Historical speculation is specious but many historians believe that the US should never have gotten in to WW1. If we had not the war probably would have lasted longer but at some point the European powers would have stalmated and been force into an armistace. Germany would have been spared the restitution that wreaked havoc with the victors economies and impoverished Germany,giving rise to the National Socialist and Hitler. We might have avoided WW2.
Some of Deb’s speeches when he rails against the two party system remind me of our own,beloved DR and yes, David,that is a complement.
Roy
Tort reform does not work to reduce health care cost in the 9 states that limited jury awards in malpractice suits. Its a red herring. The HC bill does establish purchase exchanges that should eliminate the near state monopolies. The subsideis will not go to people here without docuements. The union carve out is temporary,giving time for current contracts to expire and that tax provision may well be replaced during reconcilliation with the House version.Some of the provisions do take time for implementation. The House bill moves quicker and some of that schedule may also occur. Its not always a bad thing to allow complex systems time to change. Many provisions/benefits start on day one. For example you will no longer be turned down or cancelled because you get sick.May I suggest you stop getting biased input regarding the HC bill. Unbiased sources are available.
Please, understand where I’m coming from. I don’t believe any thing the government says or puts into law. Big picture example: Regan amnesty and promise to control borders, NAU and ‘oh,no we didn’t do that’. Smaller example: Obama said he was barely aware of ACORN and then Beck or O’Riley ran their video showing otherwise, Sen. Dodd lied re financial regulation, etc. Phil Gramm and the Comodoties Modernization Act helping to set up the current crash. Few, if any legislatures acted to close the loophole. What is not said or done matters as much, and sometimes more, than what does get said or done. A failed government by any measure.
Nebraska was exempt from paying their part of Medicaid expansion in the original Senate bill. In this current bill?? all states will get the exemption to square things up. In my post I referred to a Sen. Hollis rather than Sen. Nelson. What you say “never will be and is history” has been multiplied by 50 times. An excerpt from a website: “Both bills attempt to address state concerns by having the federal government pay for a large share of the expansion costs.
Under the House bill, the federal government would pay all of the benefit costs for the expansion in the first two fiscal years (FY 2013 and FY 2014) and then 91 percent of the benefit costs in subsequent years. The Senate bill would pay for all of the benefit costs for the expansion in the first three calendar years (2014 through 2016) and then between 81 percent and 95 percent (depending on each state’s match rate) in subsequent years.
However, even with the enhanced federal match rates, states would still face significant additional Medicaid costs.”
This thread has been pulled for some reason: “Reid Exempts States from Medicare Expansion to Advance Healthcare
David, the ink won’t be dry on the signing before incrementalism sets in.
Re tort reform. It’s a matter of who you trust. Do you believe the CBO? I don’t. Excerpt from a website, Oct 09: “As Congress wrangles over the skyrocketing cost of health care reform, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that reforming the medical malpractice insurance system, a.k.a. “med-mal reform” or tort reform, could save $54 billion over 10 years.”
David said: “Do you believe we can halt deficits and lower debt and insure people do not suffer in America without health care, without spending a cent? That is pure Republican sophistry. Where are you getting this garbage from? “ Again, who’s figures do you trust? I don’t believe any of them. The word on the street is the cost will be somewhere in the range of $800B to $2.5T.
Women don’t need to die from back alley abortions. They can have their child and let someone adopt it. Look at the frenzy to adopt children from Haiti.
In summation; why not a system where people have jobs and can pay for their own healthcare. If we don’t have such a system why not advocate for reform so that we can recreate such a system. We don’t need to go Socialist because the rest of the world thinks it’s a good idea. Get the government out of our lives and put people back to work, whatever that takes. People eeking out an existence living off social programs are not going to be a happy bunch. And, they will vote themselves increasingly larger funds from the public treasury. Only leads to anarchy as history has proved over and over. I’ll look that up to if necessary.
Otherwise - - -
Interesting debate on cspan at the moment. The Dems want to repeal antitrust exemption for insurance companies put in place in 1945. The Reps are opposing it and offering amendments to water it down. A Dem from NY rose and called the Reps a ‘wholly owned subsidary of the insurance companies’. His words wee struck and he rose and said the same thing again. Vote is going on now to pass/fail the bill. Only insurance and baseball are exempt from antitrust, which hasn’t been used since the early 80’s to invoke competition. IMO, exempt or not, the insurance co’s have nothing to worry about. They have, several times over, bought and paid for a free run.
Otherwise - - -
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2010 03:25 PM
No one will ever convince me that government mandated, government(taxpayer) subsidized for profit health insurance is a step in the right direction.
I would have thought by now that Democrats and Independents who supported the Democratic Party had learned that they can’t be trusted.
If this corpocracy healthcare bill is something that the Party can work with and improve on in the future, then this provision in the Democrats jobs bill is as well:
“Exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes on new hires who were unemployed.”
Posted by: jlw at February 24, 2010 04:07 PMRoy, what can I say. You cite anonymous web sites with quotes from anonymous persons. I cite an INDEPENDENT organization with no partisan lean, the CBO, which is made up of mathematicians and economists.
Yes, politicians lie and stretch the truth. Yes, this Great Recession has left 23 States in violation of their own Constitutions regarding zero deficits, which is why the bills, under the equal protection of the law doctrine, are given federal assistance on the Medicare expansion. Makes perfect sense to me.
The American people want health care reform, and it has to be paid for, not written off as additional deficit and debt as Republicans choose to do. Spreading the cost that would bankrupt states and their citizens, is a tried and true method of tackling issues too big for individuals and states.
I choose to not lose sight of the forest for the trees. These health care reform measures WILL decrease health care costs to the government while saving Americans from horrible suffering and poverty. They are not perfect. No legislation is. They do make progress on human suffering and the long term deficit/debt threat by Medicare unfunded mandates.
I don’t trust politicians. But, I do trust logic and independently verified data and information which make sound policy progress.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2010 04:08 PMDavid, I put the Constitution at the forefront of any government policy. I believe we should all ask “how does this policy square with the Constitution”? I refuse to be separated from the Republic and turned into another banana republic or a Grecian socialist enclave. Yet, that is where we are headed, at flank speed.
Beck dropped some more info on Van Jones, ex-Commie Czar. When Beck surfaced him he was fired from his admin job. Recently made a speech at Columbia University (same Univ. that hosted the Iranian dude). Jones received the NAACP image award. Now appointed to Princeton Woodrow Wilson school of Intl Affairs. Associated with the hard left, Center for American Progress (funded by George Soros -Socialist). Jones’s Green Movement is a ploy to destroy capitalism. The Obama movement is using every crisis they can create to jame radical policies through the congress. Also, using people like Van Jones to ‘incrementally’ transform the US into a socialist government.
Beck gave me a revelation this evening. For 30 years I’ve pondered the government policy of globalization. Was it just the corpocracy at work? Following Europe down the socialist path? Why no debate, no discussion. Got my answer this evening. Beck held up a book, a 1000 pager I would never consider reading, called Tragedy & Hope from the 1960’s. Beck noted that the book called for moving away from mutually assured destruction policy to a policy of preventing nuculear war through economic means. Tie all the economies together so that one country would not, could not have a bitch with another country. If one country fails, all the other countries fail at the same time. Keeps everybody on a level playing field at all times. That’s my answer. I had suspected such a reason but had no proof. I heard Bush or one of his cronies say something like ‘people would come to realize that Bush’s trade policies (all the Afta’s) were the right policies for America.
Starts to become very clear. Diversify every country, every corporation, one big melting pot, same rules, world-wide socialism. Since 1980 our government has rushed head long to Socialism, completely willing to trash the Constituion, the Republic, our sovereignty. A conspiracy of the worst kind, IMO. Who knew? Am I the only dim light in the crowd? Did you read the book? Hear the debate? See anything on cspan? I can now understand why the government is a failed government. Why we are sitting in debt up to our eyeballs and worrying what might happen with Greece (in the streets again today). Explains the jobless recovery, the effort to bust up the middle class and the exorbitant spending to try for a soft landing.
How should the people respond to such an egregious assault on the nation, the Constitution? Beck has a lot of followers so will see how they respond over the next few days. I’m pretty nigh livid but I suspect I will be the only one felling so.
Otherwise, we have the Corpo-Socialist government we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2010 06:47 PMDavid,
You said, “Their are NO net job losses occurring today. As a matter of simple arithmetic, you can’t go from losing .75 million jobs per month to losing no jobs, without creating jobs, because people are leaving the work force every month for retirement, and yet, there are no job losses, meaning some people looking for work are finding jobs. “
Just as a point of order, I think what you describe above is actually possible. My understanding of the way that job losses are calculated is based off of involuntary terminations (lay-offs) as they manifest themselves in unemployment claims. However, retirement is a voluntary termination and as such would not count as a job loss even if it were not filled once the person leaves.
Additionally, all economies create some jobs. Even those where we are losing 750K job/ month. Last April my brother started a new company and hired two people. Three new jobs. These obviously did not balance off the thousands more that were lost that month, so there was a net negative loss of jobs.
Following the logic to its conclusion no net job loss is logically equivilant to no net job gain. That is that it is essence a jobless recovery since the number of jobs lost equals the number of jobs gained.
Posted by: Rob at February 24, 2010 07:50 PMAgree Rob, a jobless recovery. The government knew this going in. There new jobs bill creates not jobs. Just pisses away more taxpayer/borrowed money, supposedly giving it to small business operations. Unfortunately, they have no way of creating jobs, which the government well knows, as they have no market for anything they would produce. Now, when the people come around to the governments socialist way of thinking and begin to take $4-5/hr jobs then we might get a bump in jobs, IMO.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 24, 2010 08:30 PMRob said: “Following the logic to its conclusion no net job loss is logically equivilant to no net job gain. “
Quite correct. But, the trend line in reducing job losses parallels the horribly steep progressive decline in the 12 months preceding Obama’s taking office and the two months after. No matter how you slice it, that is enormous recovery on the jobs front, even though, currently, the unemployment numbers are holding virtually constant, hence, ending the net job losses on a monthly basis.
This great recession job aftermath is going to be unlike any other, because forces are at work in the labor market place that have been building strength for a long time, but, have reached proportions not seen before, after a recession. Automation replacement of jobs as productivity increases, corporate export of jobs, and the consequent loss of small business manufacturing and assembly jobs replaced by lower wage/benefit service jobs, permanent part-time, and contract labor jobs.
These activities have reached a zenith and will continue to dampen the job creation market and real wages for years to come. Bernanke estimates 4 years to employ all the same numbers as lost jobs. My guess is Bernanke is being somewhat optimistic.
The history of job creation in America was centered on building up and expanding out America. It turned this podunk collection of colonies into the largest economy on Earth.
It is entirely logical and rational that investing in America’s infrastructural advancement and development kills two birds with the same tax dollar. It employs Americans and develops innovation, but, also sets the commerce stage for lower cost and faster paced economic activity down the road.
The trick going forward is going to be taxing those who will profit most from such tax dollar investments in lowering the cost of doing business, so that these investments by tax payers, (deficits) can be recovered as the infrastructure investments begin to pay benefits.
This is why, in my view, it is imperative that a divorce between politicians and the corporate - business world be decreed as soon as possible. Our government has to accommodate business where business activity and prosperity lift the American people up and make the future stronger. But, to make those objective assessments, and avoid business shrinking the middle class numbers and consumption capacity, government has to be free of corporate and business legalized blackmail and bribery influences and control over elections and reelections.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2010 02:55 AMRoy, sorry to say this, but, your comment is devoid of any evidence, data, or reality. It would be helpful of you researched such issues yourself instead of borrowing ideological political talking points.
Small businesses are growing again in terms of customer demand. The reason they aren’t hiring more is because they are still finding it difficult or impossible to acquire credit to expand their operations - i.e. hire more labor and replace aging equipment. Some of the big banks are making small business loans, but, very few. Small businesses traditionally rely upon the smaller regional commercial banks, who did not receive TARP fund bailouts, and have some toxic assets on their balance sheets causing them to constrain small business lending in order to maintain their balance sheets in credit worthy shape for themselves.
The Jobs Bill addresses this issue. It should be more, but, big measures get halted in the Senate. Smaller measures pass. This jobs bill IS NOT pissing away more tax payer dollars. It will have a modest impact on job growth. No doubt, followed by another such jobs package in a year or so, as warranted and justified by the positive feedback data on this jobs bill.
I know it is vastly easier to just complain with well worn critiques from times past. But, it is a poor substitute for actually keeping abreast of real world data and information and measures and making an objective assessment instead of a prejudged one which ignores real world data and information, which is constantly being updated.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2010 03:06 AMRoy,
I saw Congressman Weiner’s tirade on C-Span too. Funny thing, he said what a lot of congressional members would like to say, but don’t have the cajones to say.
I think the HC Summit won’t accomplish much unless Obama and the congressional leaders on both sides agree to start fresh. After all, 80% of the current bill is agreeable to both sides.
Allow the Reps to have Tort reform, portability across state lines and a few other nuggets, and the Dems can capture the much-needed victory of Health Care before the November Mid-Terms. The Progressives won’t be happy (they never are), but the overall positive effect of such a coup would have a dramatic effect on the psyche of most Americans.
After all, a Pyrrhic Victory is demoralizing.
Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at February 25, 2010 04:20 AMKL
I hope you are right,but I doubt it, especially after all the lies and distortions the Reps have been feeding to people.Are they going to do a Gilda Radnor,”Oh..never mind.” They may get some sort of tort limitation. Nine states have limited jury awards and HC cost have not slowed down. Doesn’t work, but Reps just love weakenning consumer protection.IMO,if a doctor cuts off someones breast by mistake it should cost them.
“Start fresh”. If as you claim,they already agree on 80% why on earth should they start fresh. Sorry,thats just a ploy to delay reform until after the mid-terms so they can kill the whole thing or so they think. BHO is not that stupid.
Posted by: bills at February 25, 2010 05:39 AMDavid,
I’m confussed! If the Healthcare Institutions and Industries are allowed to raise their premiums year after year than does not that mean the other Institutions and Industries of the Market lose more and more of their shate of the Market year after year?
And why I realize there are serveral factors that allow for the Ebb and Flow of the answer to vhange. In a time of National Emergemcy and Secruity, where is the Voice of other Private Commerce and Industrial Interests joining President Obama and the Democratic lead Congress to put an end to such Childish Acts?
For example, Ca. is facing a 39% increase in healthcare premiums from WellPoint, yet if the Energy or Telephone were to both also request a 39% increase for their goods and services how can the Governer and Citizens handle almost a 120% increase in their monthly bills without the rest of the Economy shinking futher into a recession. Care to tell me who wins with that political ignorance governing?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 25, 2010 06:42 AMHenry S.
Exactly. That is another big reason to reform HC. A solid recovery depends on riegning in cost. You have probably heard that we pay a higher per capita amount for health care than any other G7 country and still do not get coverage for all.
David, observational/empirical data processed through my sensors over the last 30 years trends to this analysis: Starting in the 80’s, with no debate or discussion, countries of the world set about the process of implementing a globalzied world. A world of equal players, intertwined economies, diversity of peoples, same rules for world commerce. Those destined to take the big hit were developed countries. Thirty years of decline in the US culminating in the Great Recession. At this point I’m way unsure globalization is going to work well for this country.
From my perspective I’m not to interested in short term trends, small banks lending or not, etc. I’m more interested in how we should react to a failed government and getting some reforms in place before real anarchy sets in. I don’t believe we have 20 years to think about it. We have 2 to 4 years at best to do something, in an organized way, to stopgap the eventual destruction of the Republic as we knew it.
David, I get nothing from the current government as to what is on the other side of this recession. I have no idea how we can expect to employ scientist, engineers, geologists and other professional folks such as lawyers and marketing agents. How can major US industries produce competitive products in this country?
What is your prognosis for our future viewed in the light of a globalized world? Do you think ‘slick willie’ will have a change of mind before this is over?
Roy, one either believes in the free exchange of goods and services as the most efficient system, in general, for distribution of goods and services where demand exists, or one does not.
Globalization was inevitable as a result of extremely poor previously colonialized nation’s coming into their own as producers and distributors, as well as consumers. India, China, Brazil, and Russia were poor largely subsistence economies less than a century ago. They are all growing producer, distributor, and consumer economies today. America exported capitalist free enterprise philosophy. It was inevitably that we would have to compete with those nations as they brought their population’s out of the agrarian past and into the 20th century of specialization of labor and production efficiencies, to compete with the U.S.
It does no good to lament the historical reality. Obama is pointing the way forward with a partnership between government, labor, education, and business to innovate for this enormous and fast growing middle class in the rest of the world. Their consumers demand for the latest and best, can, and will create good paying jobs in America. But, we have to choose to follow that lead, if we are to move down the road.
We have to STOP this myopic short-sighted focus on next quarter’s and year end profitability and look to our position and well being years down the road, as well. This is precisely what Brazil, India, and China have been doing, and that is where we are losing competitive advantage.
There is no better example of where American corporate control of government is heading than Toyota in the news today. Greed overruled quality, which made their product a liability for consumers. Now, Toyota is paying dearly, far more than they acquired in extra profitability by ignoring quality, when all is said and done.
Following the BRIC model, with government setting the long term requirements for national competitive niches for their nation and people, and either forcing or inviting businesses to cooperate with those longer term objectives, IS WORKING for them. We must come up with our own way of inducing or forcing the participants in our economy to make these longer term objectives their own as well.
It is no easy thing, in a Democracy severely divided. America has to work out this political warfare between the Republocrats, before we can begin to compete with the BRIC nations for the future slices of the global economic pie, and insure our broad, educated middle class survives and thrives in that global market place.
Economics is not for slow learners nor the uneducated. Economics requires expertise in culture, sociology, math, history, philosophy, and finance and business all at the same time and in the same persons making the economic decisions for our nation’s future.
Currently, on the fiscal side, we have the expertise but it has not the power to lead the nation, yet, toward a better future. On the monetary side, we have better expertise, but a real lack of confidence in their expertise as a result of past failures and too close ties with the fiscal managers. In other words, America has a confidence crisis on its hands, and your comments highlight to perfection that crisis in confidence.
As hard as it is for Americans to grasp, the people of BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India, and China who are participants in their economies TRUST their governments leadership and direction. And hence, they are gaining rapidly in their economic control of the future of the international marketplace.
Australia and the U.S. have something in common. Their founding is built on a lack of trust of authority. America and Australia are struggling to compete for the future. Australia was founded by criminals. The U.S. was founded by rebels and revolutionaries. The future demands these populations trust in their leadership and direction. However, our adversarial political systems does not insure competent leadership, and therefore, does not create a basis for the trust that is needed to compete for our future share of the international marketplace of a global middle class of consumers and producers.
Obama understands some of what I am speaking to hear. Regretfully, a majority of the people he has to convince to come along with him on building that future, do not understand these things. America is paying a very dear price for its lack of investments in top quality education for all these last 45 to 50 years.
There can be no faith and trust without understanding. And there can be no understanding of complex realities without top notch education. Without that understanding and education, there can be no unity in purpose and direction for the nation to assure successful outcomes for our efforts.
Change is a very scary thing when trust in the leaders bringing about that change is lacking. America is in the midst of a crisis in confidence.
The harm done the American people’s confidence and trust as a result of 9/11, the revelations surrounding the invasion of Iraq, the shredding of the Constitution in favor of greed, torture, and violations of privacy and the Bill of Rights, and then the Great Recession brought on by unchecked free enterprise capitalist greed and their bedfellows in government, is impossible to overstate.
There is a path through this historical bog and mire we have created for ourselves. I can see it. Others can see it. But, a vast many others cannot, yet. Obama is on the right track, keeping faith with his bi-partisan pledge even as I type in meeting with Republicans and Democrats on health care. Obama is on the right track regarding building the infrastructure to lower costs and greater productivity and innovation in our future. Obama is on the right track in calling for major education reform and investment. Obama is on the right track in his attempts to craft solutions that are bearable to those in the present while expanding opportunities for those in the future to come after us.
The only question is whether the American people have the courage to follow that right track, and hold their representatives accountable for staying on that track, on election day. If human and Earth history teaches us anything at all, it is that if we do not correctly adjust and adapt to the changing threats of today, our fate will not lie in our hands, but others.
America has a wealth of talent, knowledge and wisdom in potential leaders. What America lacks is the confidence to elect those leaders and then follow their prescriptions over a sustained period of time. The American people let themselves down by electing Pres. G.W. Bush. They have an opportunity to amend that mistake by working to understand and keep up with lead of Pres. Obama.
Half of the American people are, the other half are not. Divided we are conquered. In another comment thread, Ted quoted Frank Herbert, “Divide and conquer. Sub-divide and rule more effectively. Fracture and rule absolutely.” In the U.S., the government and the people should be as one.
The first order of business, as you rightly point out, is to put a halt to corporations exercise of Frank Herbert’s warning within the halls of our government, and amongst our people. Overturning the Sup. Ct.s ruling granting carte blanche control of our elections is absolutely essential to preventing a complete corporate takeover of government, and hence, the American people.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2010 01:58 PMDavid,
You said, “Rob said: “Following the logic to its conclusion no net job loss is logically equivilant to no net job gain. “
Quite correct. But, the trend line in reducing job losses parallels the horribly steep progressive decline in the 12 months preceding Obama’s taking office and the two months after.”
I don’t disagree, but I just wanted to make sure that we don’t lose the trees for the forest. While gains have been made in eroding future job losses, that is not the equivilant of saying that net job creation has been made.
While Obama can look at it is an acheivement that under his leadership that the job losses abated. He can’t claim yet that his administration has increased the total number of jobs.
Posted by: Rob at February 25, 2010 05:31 PMRob, accurate and correctly stated. We agree entirely. It is so easy to fall into language that we think we understand, but, which in reality misrepresents reality.
‘Cutting taxes raises government revenues’ is one of my all time favorite examples. It is a mantra demonstrated as false time and again by the numbers. Yet, the mantra continues as if those reciting it understand what they are saying. Which they demonstrably, don’t.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2010 06:11 PMDavid, appreciate your response. I was expecting more specifics relative to the future of the Republic in light of globalization. I’ll tit for tat and then try to present some speculative ideas relative to our future.
I see today’s free trade market as a failure. Driven by monopolies, void of competition, tied to greed and the bottom line as opposed to communities and national sovereignty. If we are to proceed with globalization I advocate for fair trade, a somewhat balanced trade arrangement between nations. For instance, the US could invoke a VAT trade tax same as 143 other countries which would go a long way towards balancing our trade figures. Anti-trust any corporation with over $50B in assets to stimulate competition and create jobs. I’d like to purchase drugs, health insurance, car insurance, communications servicesm etcl from the global marketplace. I want farm subsidies and any subsidies abolished. As it is, and will be for the next coupla hundred years, the taxpayer is getting ripped by free trade.
You say globalization was inevitable. I say not. We could have adopted a policy of semi-protectionism, allowing our country to flourish while giving more than adequate support to bring the developing world along. We and developing countries could establish agreements whereby they purchase some of our stuff and we build them turn key systems such as agri-business, mining, semiconductor, etc. Do you believe that all the high end, high tech stuff should be cornered by a few countries with the cheapest labor? Do you think Portugal would always want to grow grapes and make sandals, never having any high tech ventures or complete industrial systems of their own? Stuck with assembling FM radios from parts made in China, etc.
You say that BRIC is on the move and that we should take a long range approach to competing. Tell me how David. That’s what I would like to hear. You mentioned education. I would say education has been made unaffordable by the Corpocracy-Socialist group while enabling foreign students to serve their one-world utopian agenda. I would say US learning institutions are first in the world. Why else would 50% of graduate classes be filled by foreign students who, upon graduating want to take US jobs rather than returning home to compete in the globalized economy. Indeed, each is given a 2 year visa to stay and work in the US.
This is a huge statement David: “It does no good to lament the historical reality. Obama is pointing the way forward with a partnership between government, labor, education, and business to innovate for this enormous and fast growing middle class in the rest of the world. Their consumers demand for the latest and best, can, and will create good paying jobs in America. But, we have to choose to follow that lead, if we are to move down the road.”
Maybe gimme a hyper link in there.?
You Wrote: “We must come up with our own way of inducing or forcing the participants in our economy to make these longer term objectives their own as well.”
I was thinking along the lines of the Constitution and free market capitalism. But, I’ll go along with some arm twisting (GM) if you can assure me things will get better. I think you would agree that the taxpayer paid for GM to relocate to China, for GM to go thru bankruptcy and for GM to build several new plants in the BRIC.
You say : “It is no easy thing, in a Democracy severely divided. America has to work out this political warfare between the Republocrats, before we can begin to compete with the BRIC nations for the future slices of the global economic pie, and insure our broad, educated middle class survives and thrives in that global market place. “
I am torn between the problem being political warfare and the uneducated masses. Seems this political system and previous education system made us the greatest nation on earth up until 1980.
You wrote : “As hard as it is for Americans to grasp, the people of BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India, and China who are participants in their economies TRUST their governments leadership and direction. And hence, they are gaining rapidly in their economic control of the future of the international marketplace.”
I cannot believe that the Ru’s and Ch’s folks have trust and confidence in their governments leadership and direction. 80M commie’s are in charge in China and some mafia businessperson gets knocked off every day or so in Russia.
You wrote : “America is paying a very dear price for its lack of investments in top quality education for all these last 45 to 50 years.”
I agree education is highly important. But, I also understand that the education system always produces more degreed skills than are needed for any professional segment. Many grads can’t find work in their chosen field. Also, understand that not all Americans will meet the calling for higher education. There will always be folks will technical and general skills that need a job. You mentioned unity of purpose and a top notch education to handle complex realities. Millions from every country have come here and self assimilated. Some don’t speak the language and most are here for the buck. Few are interested in George Washington or complex realities, IMO.
Your wrote: “Change is a very scary thing when trust in the leaders bringing about that change is lacking. America is in the midst of a crisis in confidence.”
That I can agree with. And, rightly so. With no debate, no public discussion, we were put on a path to globalization, Constitution bashing, bringing us total catastrophy. They talk of plans to save us but none forthcoming other than whizzing away borrowed money.
You wrote: “The American people let themselves down by electing Pres. G.W. Bush. Half of the American people are, the other half are not.
If one looks at G. Bush as carrying out globalization and free trade one would have to give him an A+. He, Paulson, Goldman Sacs and China were highly incestuous throughout his reign. Selling off sovereign security infrastructure, leasing Interstate highways to foreign entities, bring in immigrants and pressing for more =afta’s. He is a hard act to follow for Obama.
The SC ruling in itself is a great plus for the globalization crowd. Now foreign government officials and foreign corporate heads can have a say legally in US politics. Goes to the very heart of the globalized utopia thing, one world government etc.
Briefly, my take on our future is this: The Corpocratic-Socialist government has not been able to keep to their schedule in bringing about free market globalization. They were successful in sucking the wealth from the middle class, bringing about the recession and weaving China into the economical fabric of the US. The big problem is the US worker has proved to be more resilient than planned. By now workers should be taking $4-5/hr jobs by the thousands but, that hasn’t happened. Question is, how long can the government keep the system afloat? How long will China/Japan continue to buy our debt.
It’s likely to be a couple of more years before the US becomes weak enough to compete in the global economy. The 2nd tier, lawyers, doctors and the like, have yet to feel the need to reduce prices, take less. But, one would think that when the middle class goes down hard the upper crust will have to fall as well. And, perhaps I am way wrong here. Perhaps it is possible to operate the US economy without a middle class. Just with the have’s and have not’s.
I believe the people will tolerate world socialism so long as they can cloth and feed themselves and have some modicum of freedom. The educated and innovater’s can find their way to Asia. I would think the best one could hope for in this country going forward is to glome on to a $4/hr job cutting hair, using clippers made in India, or driving a school bus, made in China.
Was globalization the right decision, made to prevent a nuclear war? Still a work in progress with N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran not fully globalized at this time.
Roy, sorry, but you force me to stop right at the beginning of your reply with: “I see today’s free trade market as a failure. Driven by monopolies,”
It is OBVIOUSLY not a failure. It distributes goods and services around the globe more efficiently than ever in human history. And the great vast majority of goods and services are NOT controlled by monopolies, though oligopolies are certainly growing at an unprecedented rate, and pretty much outside anyone’s oversight and regulatory control. Still, these group monopolies or industry monopolies constitute still a very small amount of the vast majority of goods and services transacted.
When an argument’s assumptions are fallacious, then the conclusions will be false. These are the rules of logic.
Globalization was NOT a decision. It was an evolution well beyond any one person’s or corporation’s decision. Might as well condemn mankind for failing to keep the strengths of all the forms from which it evolved, as condemn globalization of the market place, for having evolved beyond any one person’s or nation’s control. Then blame the orbit of the Earth around the Sun for having spawned life on this planet in the first place.
One cannot logically, nor reasonably, condemn evolution, in light of the empirical evidence. Mankind is what it is, and globalization of markets for goods and services is what it is. It is a waste of time to say it shouldn’t be what it is. The productive question is, what can we do with who we are, and what it is, from here?
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 25, 2010 11:39 PMDavid,
Globalization was NOT a decision.
True enough. However trade deals are decisions, that often aren’t in the best interest of the bulk of a national population. Trade deals and legislation that benefit those who move operations offshore to the detriment of previously competitive onshore operations, and which expose the US labor market into direct competition with third world slave labor IS a poor decision.
Posted by: gergle at February 26, 2010 12:05 AMRoy said, “I cannot believe that the Ru’s and Ch’s folks have trust and confidence in their governments leadership and direction. 80M commie’s are in charge in China and some mafia businessperson gets knocked off every day or so in Russia.”
And if you would do your research instead of invoking prejudice, you would discover that the Chinese and Russian people DO, in fact, in polls, state they are better off today than in anytime in their memory by a very large majority. And that engenders trust in their government that it is moving in the right direction for them. Like Americans, they have their criticisms of their government, but, they the polls show they also have hope that in general, life in their country’s is improving for them, and their children.
Russia 1 and Russia 2. Actually, these are polls of Moscovites. Polls of all Russians don’t exist yet, as the infrastructure and affordability for such polling is not yet in place.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2010 12:08 AMgergle said: “However trade deals are decisions, that often aren’t in the best interest of the bulk of a national population.”
That is true enough, as well, gergle. Trade agreements in America are forged by corporations and enacted by their bought and paid for politicians. That can be changed.
Globalization of markets for goods and services, however, cannot be changed, short of a global catastrophe that brings the global economic system crashing down. (Which almost happened in the Fall of 2008).
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 26, 2010 12:12 AMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
