Why Do Corporations Get Theirs In Every Legislation?
One Congressman says worriedly to another, walking briskly down to the House Floor, “Is my face red? I spent the whole morning in session with our Chinese lobbyist. Great deal. But, God, I hope it doesn’t show.”
National Journal reports in an article entitled, Under The Influence, that during the year of the Health Care Reform debate 2009, “The Chamber [of Commerce] spent $123.3 million on all lobbying activities, compared to $62.3 million in 2008, according to lobbying disclosure forms.”
The top 15 dollar contributors to lobbying in 2009 were:
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce $123,306,000
- PhRMA $26,150,520
- AARP $21,010,000
- American Medical Assn. $20,190,000
- Business Roundtable $13,410,000
- American Hospital Assn. $16,300,000
- Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assn.$8,860,000
- America's Health Insurance Plans $8,850,000
- Biotechnology Industry Org. $7,360,000
- American College of Radiology Assn. $3,681,015
- American Cancer Society Action Network $4,144,000
- Federation of American Hospitals $3,790,000
- National Federation of Ind. Businesses $3,146,276
- American Dental Assn. $2,660,000
- American Acad. of Family Physicians $3,193,850
The 2009 total for these lobbyists is $288,219,705 or, more than a quarter billion dollars. And that is just the top 15 lobbyists. There are thousands.
The following graphs come from the Center for Responsive Politics based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records:
It is, therefore, no surprise that the heath industry insurers and providers were major beneficiaries of the health care law just passed? But, it is just as true, that all Americans with insurance, and those without it who want or need it or, will one day want or need it, are also beneficiaries of this new health care reform law.
So, who didn't benefit? Well, Republicans and all the rest of us. Sounds like a contradiction. Allow me to explain.
Republicans bet approximately half the nation's public trust on defeating this health care reform law, and they failed. They failed. The public, right or left leaning, is not in a mood to reward failure these days. Polls indicate they are aware of far more failure in our government than they would like to be. What realistic hopes the GOP had for taking control of one or the other House of Congress in November were diminished, not aided, by their promises to defeat this law, and failure to keep their promise. It is just another reminder of the Republicans 1990's campaigns to be fiscally responsible and when the power to be, they nearly doubled the national debt and ran deficits every year under the Bush administration and Republican control of Congress.
The rest of us, and more so, the younger of us in America, did not benefit from this new law for the duration of their adult work lives. While, they will now be guaranteed health insurance regardless of their ability to afford it, current and future generations remain saddled with an unresolved growing national debt, resulting from spiraling health care costs, that will bankrupt our government and most working Americans in less than 30 years. Unless, that is, some drastic measures are undertaken in the next 4 to 5 years to avoid it.
The majority of Americans, mostly Democrats and Independents had it right. They wanted to see either a universal single payer health insurance system or the Public Option implemented. Neither was.
Why did the majority of American registered voters want one of those choices? Very likely it is because the majority of Americans recognized that the only way to drive down all health care costs throughout the baby boom generations was to implement one of these two options. In essence, both of these alternatives would have paved the way for a non-profit health care industry and insurance system. Non-profit was the only way to rescue the future from the spiraling costs of Medicare and health care inflation in the decades before us.
President Obama and Rahm Emanuel never seriously entertained either of these options, choosing instead to retain intact and assist, the for-profit health industries. As a result, the future economic decline of America was not seriously addressed in this health care reform law that just passed. Republicans were right to estimate, based on past experience, that the savings CBO projected to deficits and debt by this new law, will prove to have been overestimated. The 1.2 trillion to be saved from deficits over the next 20 years will very probably end up being more like a few hundred billion or, less than half of that 1.2 trillion.
But, that is neither here nor there. Saving is saving. This new law however, does nothing to address the unfunded mandates of Medicare and Medicaid and so far, very little to curb spiraling for-profit health care industry prices. The issue of America's fiscal mismanagement, extended to the point of economic collapse has yet to be addressed. The prospect of economic collapse does not have the same impact, it would seem, on these very wealthy Congress persons, (wealth graph to the left) whose wealth acts as an insurance policy for them against such a coming collapse, the advent of which they will be privy to, long before the rest of working Americans are, allowing these wealthy politicians to adjust and protect their investments before the collapse actually arrives.
There are tell-tale signs of what is to come as a result of our growing national debt and growing national risk in this week's tepid response to the sale of 5 and 7 year Treasury bonds on the international market. The bond's prices had to be decreased and the interest payable (yield) increased in order to get investors to lend the government the money it needs to keep operating and floating its 12 trillion dollar national debt.
The day will come when the international investment community will no longer find lending to the American people and government a sound and acceptable risk investment, if our politicians cannot or, will not bring, our nation's fiscal situation into balance with its revenues and find a way to halt the growth of debt and borrowing. This is no easy feat for American politicians whose attention span is only slightly longer than Wall Streets with regard to personal gains. Wall St. focuses on the next quarter's and next annual profit and loss statements as a means of insuring their lofty salaries and golden parachute compensation packages.
Politicians in similar fashion are focused on the next election cycle in which they will have to defend their seat at the table of power in America. These focal points leave little room for making the long term economic sustainability of our nation and people a top priority. If it is not a top priority, it is not on the priority list when it comes to spending, taxation, and borrowing.
- The key to understanding American politician's behavior, regardless of Party, is in recognizing that they fight over our tax dollars in ways to use those dollars, present and future, to buy our votes from us, to keep them in their positions in the government.
In the news this week is the shut down of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility project, at a cost as high as 100 billion dollars when all the waste on this waste facility is totaled. The NY Times writes:
Scientific concerns have since emerged, including the realization that water flows through Yucca Mountain a lot faster than initially believed. That raises the prospect that the nuclear waste would leach over time, polluting the water table. The scientific merit of the site has not been established by independent judges.
Nevada has fought the project bitterly in court and in Congress. The ascension of Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, as Senate majority leader, and President Obama's campaign promise to stop the Yucca Mountain depository and look for alternatives may finally settle the question.
President Obama's proposed budget for 2009 cuts off most money for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, a decision that fulfills a campaign promise and wins the president political points in Nevada -- but raises new questions about what to do with radioactive waste from the nation's nuclear power plants.
As if the waste of 1/10th of a trillion dollars of tax payer money was not enough, contrary to all sound business practice for such expensive experimental projects, we find that there was never any alternative plan established to make use of the facility should the experimental project for nuclear waste prove to be unsuccessful. Senator Harry Reid said on Feb 8, 2010, "We should be able to use it for something ... other than nuclear waste." At least he is honest about this being an afterthought, in total disregard by former Congress persons for the tax payer's hard earned dollars.
It is only in the wake of shutting down the budget for Yucca Mountain that Congress is beginning to speculate on possible alternative uses of this massively expensive hole in the ground. Had Congress decades ago, acknowledged the possibility that this experimental project might not prove viable, they could have authorized alternative engineering plans, that would have insured during the construction phase, the installation of alternative use infrastructure at minimal additional cost.
If and when Congress decides on an alternative and productive use of the facility in the future, the retrofit costs will be many times what they would have been to tax payers, had this second purpose plan been implemented throughout the years of construction. But, our politicians were not concerned about saving tax payer dollars with contingency plans. They were concerned about satisfying corporate lobbying interests who assured them this project would be a piece of cake, no worries, just give us unlimited funding and we will make this work for you and your next reelection.
This marriage between our representatives and corporate interests whose ONLY interest is profits at tax payer expense, must end in forced divorce. And the only judge to enforce such a divorce is the voters of the United States. If the voters have had enough of getting the short end of every legislative spending stick, they absolutely must refuse to reelect these incumbent politicians who thrive on the marriage. When enough voters subscribe to this divorce, the challengers who are elected instead will become all too aware that their tenure too will be short lived if they fail to produce vastly better results for the voters and tax payers supporting this government.
Our colonialists rejected being ruled by kings, aristocrats, monied blood lines, and the super wealthy of their day as criteria for powerful office. Though, they were concerned by the potential of mob rule by the uneducated and illiterate masses they, nonetheless, saw the necessity of empowering the people to choose their representatives in the House of Representatives. And later, with amendments, the people and their leaders saw it, as important to our democratic process, to place the selection of our Senators, and their removal from office, also in the hands of the voting public.
The judgment day has arrived to test whether the American voters are capable of electing and removing their representatives by their own common sense and wisdom, or, succumb to mob mentality which hangs on every word of sloganeering and sophistry of their representatives and their Party. Partisan politician's top priority is not to represent those who elected them but, to insure their own perpetual reelection and access to power.
America's future truly, and concretely, rests in the hands of the voting public. They can continue to vote for the failures and reelection of their representatives, while blaming all the other representatives for the failed status quo. Or, they can accept the responsibility of their vote to remove their own representatives, and keep doing so, until the collective Congress divorces the corporate lobbyist world, and marries the voters and tax payers of this nation as a true and faithful partner.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 08:59 PMDR
The country and world would be a whole lot different if what you wish for had been the case. IMO It would be a lot better. Sadly,the likelyhood is very slim. You are talking about revolution against very powerful and ruthless adversaries. It is doubtful that it is politically possible to pass laws to at least make it more difficult for corporations and owners to control the halls of power but they will not give it up,law or no law. The wealthy MUST control the government. It is a class imperitive.
David,
We the People have always put up with the Charlatans and Vagabonds of Washington spending their Masters and Stockholders Money in order to influence Americas’ Elected Officials; however, I do think today the problem exists due to the Status Quo wants to keep things the same and many Vhildren of the 70’s and 21st Century are ready to release Today’s Technology upon the Land.
Sort of like Mom and Dad not wanting Jane and Joey growing up to fast. And why that may have been ok during the Debate over the last year. Do you really think that the Doctors, Nurses, and PA’s today are ready for the Employer Based Healthcare System that can be built by the Children of the 21st Century considering the Children of the 70’s hold the technology to bring every American the Health Information and latest medical procedures directly in their home and car?
Yes, the Fools in Charge of the 20th Century may believe they are making money; nevertheless, knowing it is only a matter of time before Necessity requires Local and State Governments and Citizenry to rethink Health and Medicine. Nevertheless, seeing with three simple man-made devices the entire relationship between the Informed Patient and Learned Doctor of Medicine can be stood on Its’ Head. I doubt if the few billion dollars is any match for the many trillion dollars in profit awaiting a Healthy Nation and Society.
Besides, since the Corporations are allowed to have their voice heard during Americas’ Elections than being under no such confinement as the Members of Congress I wonder if the Lobby Corporations would care to explain to the American Public how them spending Labor and Management Money is helpinf to build a Better World?
Care to defend someone who wants to lobby Congress with the intent of removing all medical procedures from the land? Think a few billion dollars is enough to get a favorable action.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 26, 2010 09:01 AMDR
I disagree about the potential savings built into the HCR bill. There are several cost controling measures. They have never been tried on this scale. Some will work better than others. Some may be dropped. Others may work very well.For that reason the CBO,as actuaries are prone to do,gave them low estimates. There are also intangibles. How much will be saved by 32 million people have access to outpatient and preventive care instead of emergency rooms?Will access to mental health services,drug and alcohol treatment offered under many plans reduce the prison population? There will be other as yet unknown outcomes,some good,some not so good.
Looking at your list,at least two of the heavy lobbying groups are non-profit associations that speak for individual private contributers.They are not seeking oil leases or government contracts. AARP although they have a tidy little insurance business only have that because their membership continues to support their lobbying efforts with small donations. Their members are their market.They do a good job of representing their members interest. The AFL_CIO works in a similar way. Small contributions when pooled can have a big influence. The BHO campaign showed that it is possible to raise large sums from small contributers. Of course he did find out that you can get a lot on money from small contributers and even more from large ones. Point is that people can and do have a measure of influence beyond the ballot box if enough get together. I’d say we need more and the likely hood of ever matching the heavy corporate owners is nil but at least we people can get into the room.
Generally I do not see third party options as viable in our system. In a parlementary system,yes, but little chance of that. However,I can’t help but wonder if the swing votes in a Senate devided this closely and with the undemocratic senate rules, had been from the Green Party, whether we would have a public option.
“Taunton is to me the epitome of everything that keeps advertising from finding it’s rightful place with the clergy, medicine, and the bar in our way of life.”
“Our representative government now is perhaps more representative than it has ever been before in history. It is not necessarily representative per capita, but it most surely is ad valorem. If you like philosophical problems, here is one for you: should each human being’s vote register alike, as the law books pretend and as some say the founders of our nation desired? Or should a vote be weighed according to the wisdom, the power, and the influence-that is, the money-of the voter? That is a philosophical problem for you, you understand; not for me. I am a pragmatist, and a pragmatist, moreover, on the payroll of Fowler Schocken.”
Excerpts from:
The Space Merchants
by Frederik Pohl
and C.M. Kornbluth
Copyright 1952 by Galaxy Publishing Corporation.
Posted by: jlw at March 26, 2010 11:48 AMjlw,
Wow, I haven’t read Frederik Pohl in years. Thanks for the quote. Amazing writer.
Excellent post, David.
David,
There are two reasons for lobbying congress: 1) To get special favors, ie have a bill written that will game the market in your favor or even get money (bailouts) directly from the federal government, and 2) to defend yourself from ideologically driven socialist (or otherwise) legislation meant to control your business.
When you consider that the legislation is about controlling your company… what choice is there but to lobby congress? When the survival of your enterprise, your livelihood, is at stake what choice is there?
I agree, as a conservative and a libertarian, that reason 1 is not valid and is immoral. Reason 2 however is entirely valid and moral.
Posted by: eric at March 26, 2010 02:46 PMReady and waiting for the Nov elections so’s I can VOID whichever incumbents are on the ticket. Unfortunately, many will be running unopposed. But, the question remains, what happens after several hundred rep’s are voted from office? How long does it take the newbies to make contact with the special interests? I’d suggest, maybe 2 months max. I recall when some Republican’s ran for office promising to serve one term and bail. After being elected most chose to stick around.
While VOID is a strong tool to bust up the Corpocracy, any real and lasting reform requires a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. First item of business - - abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech law. Then carry out campaign finance reform to give us clean elections without the money influence. Do you really believe shuffling a few dems and reps thru a VOID action will achieve any real reform?
Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 26, 2010 02:46 PMeric, I agree with you entirely. Every individual or group of citizens has a constitutional right to lobby their representatives. That is protected under the 1st Amendment.
That is however, a distinctly different exercise in effect, from what is practiced by the organized corporate and oligopoly world, which controls the vote of representatives with the power of the their deep pockets and access to the public media those deep pockets create for them. An individual or group of individuals is effectively powerless to have their petition heard against such corporate control and dominance over the reelection odds of every representative.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2010 04:01 PM
Gergle, I quoted Pohl to show that the philosophical problem hasn’t changed in the last sixty years. It has only grown. Also, that advertising has taken it’s rightful place in society even if it remains in the shadows of political discourse.
Eric, IMO, the greatest threat to capitalism is capitalism. I say this for two reasons.
One, there are very few people who have not or will not recognize that the corporations and wealth control our election process, our government, most of the legislation that our government produces and what information will or won’t be presented to the American people through their so called free press.
Two, they use technology effectively to reduce their workforce. IMO, we are fast approaching a point where job production becomes static and the demand for jobs will continually outpace the production of jobs. With corporations filling more and more niche’s in the workforce with fewer and fewer people, small business and independent workers cannot fill the demand.
If job production is to be outpaced by technology, there will be more and more people dependent on the government and the taxpayers for support and that will shorten the period between now and the collapse of our economy. When that happens, capitalism, at least in it’s present form, will cease to exist.
Posted by: jlw at March 26, 2010 05:44 PMAs David points out, there is a difference between now and the period of our revolution.
The poor, women, and slaves were disenfranchised in the earlier period. Today the poor are disenfranchised, but so is a much larger segment of the middle class.
The middle class has been squeezed and is being forced into greater and greater divisions of class, largely influenced by the machine of the corporate lobbyists.
As long as enough wealth exists to placate this body, nothing will happen. That will change substantially once they begin to feel neglected and deprived, and feel a sense of loss, and tie that to the wealthy class and their enslavers.
The Republican party chooses to characterize the poor as deserving of their lot in life, a form of caste politics. Lately they have attempted to prey upon ignorance of the lower middle class to rouse rage at “elites”. Fox recently ran a piece on how college makes people dumber.
The Democrats do make some minor attempts to address these issues, as with the recent health care bill, but the corporate lobby wins again. Is this also an attempt to prey upon ignorance, or a real strategy to chip away at the power elite? Time will tell.
Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2010 06:29 PMDavid, jlw, gergle,
Eliminating all private wealth will not eradicate inequity or ‘disenfranchisement.’ What your policies will lead to is a condition where there is only one power center: Government. This is the condition of every dictatorship. I guess it’s theoretically possible that powerless individuals (as you put it David) could still enjoy substantial freedom under such a government but is it likely?
When you eliminate private industry and civil society you are effectively putting all your eggs in one basket. Winner takes all. It’s funny how those who least deserve power under those circumstances seem to gravitate and gain power under those circumstances.
Posted by: eric at March 26, 2010 08:22 PMBased on the latest SC decision a number of lawsuits are forthcoming to further open the ‘freedom of speech’ law to all groups or anybody(s) with money to give. Evolving Constitution you know.
Let’s check today’s news to see how the corporations are doing. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species just ended. Delegates rejected every proposal for trade restrictions on commercially-baluable martine species, including ones on blue-fin tuna, the polar bear, and multiple species of coral and sharks. They overturned the restriction put in place earlier in the week on porbeagle sharks. This while eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna has delined 74% over last half century. Western Atlantic counterpart has decline 82% over past 40 years. Many shark species have declined up to 99% compared with earlier levels.
James Bopp, Jr. vice chaiman RNC, has, for decades, worked to fight restrictions on ‘free speech’. Since the last SC ruling he has beefed up his lawyer force to 15, he has 27 cases pending in various courts. The effort is to make unlimited spending on independent expenditures legal for all people and groups, same as applies to corporations.
Obama is being asked to put pressure on China to devalue their currency and, this time the US may act to do that. Reason is that the corporations have been getting smacked around by an ever more confident China, wanting their blueprints and technology in exchange for cutting deals. So, if the corporations want China devalued, so it will be.
Greed abounds for the last fish and for the right to buy all the free speech one can afford and possibly balance China’s checkbook in the process.
Come November a few incumbents will lose office and maybe, in seeking change, we will ping-pong over to the Republicans’ again in 2012. Wouldn’t you rather see a 3rd party with a different political attitude come to the forefront? Once the boat starts over the falls it will be much harder to vet a good skipper to replace the pilot, IMO.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 26, 2010 09:01 PM
Eric,
Where, in any of this is anyone advocating elimination of capitalism or private industry?
There were no single corporate entities in the beginnings of this country that outsized foreign governments or state governments.
Now there are numerous such entities. To whom do they owe allegiance?
Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2010 09:17 PMDR et al
To gain some propective regarding interest for T-bills bear in mind that we have been paying historicly low rates. In 2007 we were paying a little over 5%. In 2008 they went down to near 2%. They have been gradually raising but are still below 4%. They have also ticked down a bit today. Among other things this means that the service cost (interest) on the deficit growth in response to the Republican Recession is about the same in actual cost as the service cost under George Bush the first. The recent,correcting, jog upward in rates is no cause for alarm.
Eric, I do not advocate the elimination of private wealth.
I advocate one citizen one vote.
I advocate the elimination of $1=1 vote, $1million=1million votes.
Roy, the last fish will go to the highest bidder. When the last fish is gone, the price of imitation fish will go way up. Six and a half billion humans creates a great strain on nature. Imagine what it will be like with eight or ten billion humans. By then, most of us will be eating vegeburgers, yeast taters and/or meat beast.
Posted by: jlw at March 27, 2010 01:53 AMbills, I said it was a sign of things to come, implying that debt growth will sour the investment desire in U.S. treasuries. There is no escaping that outcome unless means are taken to halt that debt growth.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 02:10 AMRoy, a challenge against soft money limits was defeated by a federal court just this yesterday or this morning. It is not all bad news. Not yet. There are a great many civil servants who yet are dedicated to the nation’s and people’s well being as well as their own. But, it is getting harder for them. I especially commend the many staffers with high costs and relatively low salaries on Capital Hill who, in a heartbeat could pass through that lobbying revolving door to 10 to 100 times the income, but, refuse that direction.
Perhaps if we sung their praise more often and condemned the others as frequently things might move in a better direction. But, people in general buy the news cycle spectacle and shock and awe stories and completely ignore the throng of American civil servants and citizens upon whom our entire civilization depends for order, organization, and implementation of our rule of law.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 02:19 AMeric, thanks for the straw man and red herring arguments. I will leave you to argue it with yourself since you appear to be the only one raising the spectre of that which no else even contemplates. Paranoia is a term for such flights of fancy projection of malignancy where none exists.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2010 02:21 AMDavid R. Remer:
You forgot to add the contributions of AIPAC in there.
Posted by: Henry Jones at March 27, 2010 09:10 AMDavid, there are many good and hard working civil servants and they get scant recogniztion from the public. Though, I’m prepared to VOID all the incumbents to make a point.
I do like the idea of a 3rd Party with a different political attitude whereby, the membership serves as oversight for elected/appointed officials. The incumbent can broach any idea that goes thru their mind but they will need to check in with the membership before they vote their mind. If an incumbent wants to do something counter to the party agenda they would want to avail themselves of the Party website video and audio and text media links. Get their big ideas before Party members before any voting takes place. If 20% or greater of the membership finds disfavor with an incumbent and make it known by registering a pro forma complaint with the Party website then the incumbent is subject to a mandatory up/down vote by the membership. If the incumbent fails to garner 60% of the majority vote then he/she would be rejected from the Party. So, it gives the incumbent the incentivie to gain favor with their Party members before voting on some issue that is not in accordance with the Party agenda. The agenda would be developed from input by the membership and incumbents. The incumbent would want to communicate with their Party members to the extent their ideas are radical relative to the agenda. An incumbent could likely survive a couple of votes with no membership support but three strikes would likely get the incumbent rejected. Also, the process would tend to develop a shared ownership of the idea between all concerned. It’s harder to disagree with a vote that you previously agreed with. I find ending with a preposition enjoyable once in a while.
Roy
That is more or less what goes on in the Democratic Party already. Involved members including elected officials, adopt a platform,agenda if you will.. Officails are not bound to support the entire platform, but if the blatantly violate it they reciece pressure from party leaders and members and less support come election time. They do not get kicked out. You don’t build a party that way but they are incouraged to comply with the platform.You do not have to reinvent the wheel,just get involved.
DR
Nice little P. Krugman piece of the debt.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/dealing-with-the-debt-a-brief-note/
I liked this:” Or we could save a significant share of that total by not being totally prepared for the day when Soviet tanks sweep across the North German plain. “
David,
Limited to a Personal Opinion, I do believe Labor and Management needs to tell those on the Left and Right that even Congress has to answer to a Higher Power. Since somebody has to be the Adult to some of the “Insane Actions and Thoughts” of a 10-year-old Child.
Bills, surely you jest! I went to the Dem’s website one time and all I found was 52 pages of boiler plate. Much like those 2k page bills floating thru Congress that nobody reads. I tried to sign on this morning but the only way I could get on was to sign up for Dem emails, so I demurred. A week after the HC bill passed and many rep’s can’t tell you what in the bill. Surely, you agree that the duopoly is orchestrated by the Fortune 500’s. The HC bill simply insures that the monopolies continue to get a 10% yearly raise. Then, there’s NAFTA and CAFTA and all the AFTA’s. And, we are aware of the radicals from the 60’s running the Executive.
I’m advocating for a Populist movement whereby Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech law will be abolished. Followed by Campaign Finance Reform where we can get back to one person, one vote, restricting or severely limiting the money influence. You want get that kind of government from the duopoly now or in a thousand years bills.
Here is some bad on NAFTA.
From a Wash Post article: The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.
Some excerpts from wiki on Nafta:
The proposed Canada-U.S.trade agreement had been extremely controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but more seats in parliament were won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were able to easily pass the Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However Mulroney himself had become deeply unpopular and resigned on June 25, 1993. He was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell, who then led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal party under Jean Chrétien. Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA, but instead negotiated the two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president.
In 1999, Sun Belt Water Inc., a company out of Santa Barbara, California, filed an Arbitration Claim under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA claiming $105 million as a result of Canada’s prohibition on the export of bulk water by marine tanker, a move that destroyed the Sun Belt business venture. Sun Belt maintains a website where many documents concerning the Arbitration are posted www.sunbeltwater.com. The claim sent shock waves through Canadian governments that scrambled to update water legislation and remains unresolved.
Although the U.S. total civilian employment may have grown by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000 in the same time period.[35] Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded.[35]
According to Graham Purchase in Anarchism and Environmental Survival, NAFTA could cause “the destruction of the ejidos (peasant cooperative village holdings) by corporate interests, and threatens to completely reverse the gains made by rural peoples in the Mexican Revolution.” [
In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of the alleged environmental concerns.
I recall all the ‘fast track’ and constitutional straining legislation from the 80’s and 90’s. The NAU thing. Everybody went along to get along but now that America has been harmed by such actions people are resisting ‘more of the same’ such as ‘the change you voted for’ concept.
Otherwise, it is ludicrous, IMO, to expect any useful legislation from a duopoly operating as the legal arm of the Corpocracy. I tend to believe David Walker and others who say we have less than 5 years for the government to make the necessary corrections to our out of control budget problems.
Roy said: “I tend to believe David Walker and others who say we have less than 5 years for the government to make the necessary corrections to our out of control budget problems.”
Me too. Bernanke has said the same thing substituting soon for 5 years. And it is the consensus of the Fed Bd. of Governors, as well as a host of economist and economicians.
An economist, although pretending to be scientific, is in fact an ideologist of the Modern Era (the era of creation of Nation-States) while an economician is a scientist who contributes to a “Post Modern” ideology –an ideology that seeks solutions to otherwise unmanageable problems in social sciences: be it in sociology, economics, political science, international studies, peace science or psychology.Definition Reference: —Shodja Ziaian, Peace Economics - Peace Science and Public Policy, Volume 7, Issue 3 2001 Article 4, SUMMER 2001, Is Malthus an Economist or a PeaceResearcher? A New Paradigm. Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2010 07:02 PM
Roy
I am not jesting at all. Try getting off your seat and go down to a Central Committee meeting or two. If you are willing to put forth some effort people will listen to you. In time you may even help write platform proposals,meet candidates,etc. Do not expect everyone to agree with you or recognize your brilliance right away but if you are willing to work at it your effects will be far greater than fantasy third party proposals.
bills, you miss the point the entirely, as partisans are want to do. I could go into a litany of what is wrong with Democratic Party, and I was a precinct chair, but, it would be a waste of time on a partisan loyalist.
Suffice to say that Democrats have been part and parcel of America’s national debt, even through the Bush years, lending their votes to spending in exchange for other deals good for them personally or their districts, and this HC reform bill was a giveaway to the Health Insurance lobbyists and corporations, and enforcement of waste fraud and abuse laws have never been Democrats strong suit.
So, take your partisan ‘there is no party like ours and its where Roy or I need to be’ and shove it back into your keyboard. The arrogance of implying in your comments that Democrats have sound reasons for being partisan, and Roy or any third party or independent voter does not, won’t persuade such folks, I assure you. In this regard, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
In case you hadn’t noticed, it is Independents who are calling the elections these days, and the reason Democrats are in power. Get used to appeasing independents or your Party will find its power share very short lived, indeed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2010 09:48 AMbills, I don’t have any gripe with the local dem’s and rep’s. And, there are many congresspersons trying to do a good job. But, the corruption goes to the center of power. The Corpocracy is the problem. Simply put, we have the best government money can buy.
Any finger pointing should be directly at the people, the voting populace. For whatever reason, none of them good, voters have refused to get involved, to understand the issues and follow the money. We didn’t listen to Jefferson’s ‘every 20 years’ and other’s:
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. ~Louis D. Brandeis
Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who Do not.’
~Thomas Jefferson
IMO, only one way to put things right. A 3rd Party with a different political attitude, etc. VOID action will be a big help, a good start. Expect that when we ping-pong back to the Rep’s they will undo or not fund much of the HC bill the Dem’s put in place. We need a 3rd Party designed for the 21st century that can accomplish needed reform and keep it that way.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocratic-Socialistic government we deserve.
Roy, you raise one of the best arguments possible for a viable and competitive third party, which I have argued previously here. That is, the Duopoly Party cannot so easily undo previous solutions to the nation’s problems rendering all solutions ineffective before they have had time to come to fruition, IF there is a third party. The reason is simple, to rescind previous solutions before their time, it would have to make sense to NOT ONLY the majority party, but, the third party as well. And that would mean rescinding a solution passed would have to make sense to a minimum of two competitive Parties, not just one, better insuring a majority public representation on such issues as well.
Conversely, it would require the assent of a minimum of two parties to pass any new legislation, and hence, such legislation would have to make solid common sense to a majority of Americans and the two parties before new legislation could be passed.
This country desperately needs a viable third party, that is rooted in common sense and pragmatism as opposed to left right ideological extremes. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2010 12:00 PMjlw,
Eric, IMO, the greatest threat to capitalism is capitalism. I say this for two reasons.
Define capitalism. Because I think you and I have entirely different definitions.
Also, you might consider that there are government and political factors making job production static. Historically, technology has produced many more jobs than it has made obsolete.
Two, they use technology effectively to reduce their workforce. IMO, we are fast approaching a point where job production becomes static and the demand for jobs will continually outpace the production of jobs. With corporations filling more and more niche’s in the workforce with fewer and fewer people, small business and independent workers cannot fill the demand.If job production is to be outpaced by technology, there will be more and more people dependent on the government and the taxpayers for support and that will shorten the period between now and the collapse of our economy. When that happens, capitalism, at least in it’s present form, will cease to exist.
With all respect, this is a confusion of what happens. It’s more logical that government’s larger role is in fact creating the situation you are describing where jobs become harder to find.
The more the government steps in to create dependency the less resources that will be available for investment and job creation.
David, gergel, jlw, et al,
…Eric,Where, in any of this is anyone advocating elimination of capitalism or private industry?
…eric, thanks for the straw man and red herring arguments. I will leave you to argue it with yourself since you appear to be the only one raising the spectre of that which no else even contemplates. Paranoia is a term for such flights of fancy projection of malignancy where none exists.
Hmm. Well, let me just ask you then how much wealth you do want to eliminate?
If I’m not mistaken you are saying that it is wealth in the hands of private industry which threatens this nation, no?
Posted by: eric at March 29, 2010 07:32 PMYes, Eric, you are very mistaken. And your comment’s supposition is 4th grade simplicity; the issue is far more complex than corporations earning profits, which they were always meant to do, and which is good for any economy anywhere in the world, with appropriate regulation, oversight, and accountability, and contributions back to the society that protects their enterprise activities.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2010 08:04 PMDavid,
It might seem simple.
But I am glad you are willing to stipulate that businesses should be allowed to make some profits under the careful and strict supervision of politicians and bureaucrats who should never be questioned about exactly what or how much control they have over those businesses or how much profit they allow those businesses to keep. Right?
Posted by: eric at March 30, 2010 09:57 PMEric threw out some more straw man and red herring commentary with: “under the careful and strict supervision of politicians and bureaucrats who should never be questioned about exactly what or how much control they have over those businesses or how much profit they allow those businesses to keep.”
Got only one reply to that comment, eric. Those businesses reap the benefits of this powerful government which protects their lives, their businesses, and their profits in a host of very expensive and costly ways. They OWE their share or taxes to CONTINUE to enjoy those safeguards, liberties, and protections.
Republicans: always looking for a free expensive ride on someone else’s dime. Does Lesbian enacted nude clubs ring a bell? Sure does for the leadership of the RNC. HAHA!
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 31, 2010 03:18 AMDavid,
You said, “Those businesses reap the benefits of this powerful government which protects their lives, their businesses, and their profits in a host of very expensive and costly ways. They OWE their share or taxes to CONTINUE to enjoy those safeguards, liberties, and protections.”
Since those businesses have contributed and are expected to continue to contribute their treasure to the construction and maintenance of those safeguards, should they not have a voice in deciding which measures are necessary, prudent, and sound investments to protect their ability to continue to generate profits?
Posted by: Rob at April 16, 2010 02:32 PMHTML 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. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
