Tag Archives: U.S. politics

Nation on the Take

In Nation on the Take, Wendell Potter and Nick Peniman talk about the extent to which the U.S. political system has been hijacked to serve the interests of big business.

On campaign finance:

It is the knowledge that an elected official has of who is writing the check, who’s going to be there if and when this person decides to run for reelection, that they can expect another campaign check if they have demonstrated that they are voting the way the donor wants…One of the things I used to do in my job in the insurance industry was administer the political action committee and there’s a lot of thought that goes into who you write checks to, and you want to make sure that you’re writing checks to people who can be persuaded to see things from your perspective and vote for the things that you want them to or vote against things you are not supporting when the time comes.

On the finance industry:

Their contributions have been extensive and continue to be so and certainly the legislation that was finally approved by Congress, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other pieces of legislation that have been proposed to regulate the financial industry were written to a large extent by the lobbyists for financial institutions. And we point out in the book how the interest of the banks and mortgage companies were served first, and the challenges and the difficulties that a lot of average homeowners are having even yet today to keep their homes out of foreclosure… I remember watching Bill Moyers’ show a number of years ago when he had Gretchen Morgenson on, the chief financial reporter for The New York Times, and when she was asked whether or not Dodd-Frank had tackled the big stuff, she said, “No, absolutely not. It hasn’t and we could likely have another financial crisis as a result.” And when asked why, she said, “Because the banks have hundreds of lobbyists in Washington and the American people have none.”

On the pharmaceutical industry:

Despite the promises that Barack Obama had made when he was running for president that at the very least Medicare should have the ability to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries — and he also campaigned on making it lawful for Americans to reimport medications from Canada where drugs are a lot cheaper — despite those campaign promises, President Obama gave both of those up under intense pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to be able to get something passed…Yes, few people realize that even though the pharmaceutical industry talks a great deal about how much they spend on research and development, the companies spend far more on sales and marketing than research. In fact, most of the research is done at taxpayers’ expense by governmental or quasigovernmental entities like the National Institutes of Health and universities that get funding from the government. So much of the research is done at the taxpayers’ expense, and rightfully so. But the companies themselves spend relatively little on research. They take the research typically and invest in the development of medications but most of the prescription medications are developed at publicly funded institutions. And in a sense we pay twice as a consequence. We pay for the research as taxpayers and of course we pay dearly whenever we need the medication.

On the food industry:

We want our kids to eat healthy, period. That should just be a no-brainer, a fait accompli in a good society. But instead, because of the power of money in politics, it becomes hyperpoliticized, a massive battle with all kinds of very powerful people who make a lot of money trying to manipulate the food items that show up on our kids’ plates at their school cafeteria.

Economist Risk Analysis

The Economist “Intelligence Unit” issues a top ten list of global risks each month. The high probability and high impact ones include severe recession and debt crises in Asia, military tension between the U.S. and Russia, and a breakup of the E.U. Donald Trump makes the list as high impact but only moderate probability:

In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war – and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Terrorism, U.S.-China confrontation, and a sudden oil price shock make the list lower down as potentially severe but less likely.

collateral damage

Trump and Cruz are openly talking about indiscriminate killing of civilians abroad. Which is illegal. You’re not supposed to talk about it. There are really no perfect options when it comes to terrorism. Option 1 would be to only collect information abroad, then play defense at the border and within our own borders. You could argue that is sort of what the U.S. was doing before 9/11. It’s not hard for people to point to pictures of a smoking hole in Manhattan and make a case that is not good enough. Option 2 is scorched earth attacks against entire civilian populations anywhere we think a few enemies may be hiding. This is clearly illegal, although it has happened on a large scale in most wars. That is what Trump and Cruz are advocating. In the middle is pursuing “targeted” attacks abroad, destroying a few houses or groups of people that we think may contain our targets, usually with permission of the government of the host country. This (let’s call it Option 1.5) is the path Obama has chosen. How targeted is it really? Here’s a Guardian article from 2014 arguing that the United States has killed about 27 innocent people for every enemy killed. Most disturbingly, this includes many children. I personally like the idea of doing a really good job with #1. But I think Obama has made some tough choices and I respect that. Let’s not pretend that the more violent options are ever for the benefit of the people in the countries where they are carried out, though. They are about sacrificing the lives of a certain number of (mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-English speaking) civilians abroad, whose lives our government implicitly decides are worth less than the lives of civilians at home (although let’s remember that civilians at home are subject to mass death from gun violence, suicide, motor vehicle violence and lack of health care, which we don’t factor into this equation). I’ll give Trump and Cruz some small credit for saying what they mean and meaning what they say on this one. Listen carefully to what they say, and vote accordingly.

Ted Cruz

Thinking of Ted Cruz as an alternative to Donald Trump? Looking at Ted Cruz on ontheissues.org, here’s my assessment. He’s a traditional “god, gays, and guns” Christian fundamentalist. The government should have the right to tell us what to believe in (his particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, of course) and what it is okay for us to do in our own bedrooms and families. He would continue the failed “tough on crime” policies that have put so much of our poor and minority population behind bars at enormous taxpayer expense. He would “stand up” to nuclear-armed foreign governments like Russia, China and Iran through aggressive military means. On the other hand, in most matters not involving personal religious beliefs, sexual practices or armed violence against the already-born, he’s a “starve the beast” zealot who is ideologically opposed to the very idea of government. He would try to end government involvement in retirement, health care, education, environmental protection, financial stability and the ability to counteract recessions through fiscal and monetary policy.

Personally, I consider it completely non-partisan to look at the risks involved and just say no. This irrational, inconsistent set of ideas is not based on any sort of factual analysis or attempt to understand how the world works. It is likely to destabilize the economy and/or get us into wars. It’s just dangerous. Thinking people of any political stripe should just say no and back candidates who are interested in real solutions to real problems.

Romney vs. Trump

Here we have the last Republican nominee sagavely attacking the current front runner. It suggests to me that Republican leaders are worried the general election may be a lost cause. Maybe it is time for a rational pro-growth, pro-business party to emerge and leave the intolerant fringe behind. A rational pro-growth, pro-business party could embrace policies like clean elections, a universal health care system that takes the burden off employers, investment in education rather than prisons, a rational guest worker program, and a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Donald Trump is not a real Fascist, he just plays one on TV

I have been thinking that Trump is basically a psychopath, someone without normal human emotions or morals, who nonetheless has a very keen sense of how to manipulate other peoples’ emotions and morals for his own gain. This sounds bad, and it is. But the silver lining, if it is true, is that although he is appealing to some very ugly impulses in a certain segment of the public now, he would become more moderate if he were elected and had to appeal to the full range of the people. However, it turns out that people said the same thing about Hitler in 1922.

February 2016 in Review

I’m going to try picking the three most frightening posts, three most hopeful posts, and three most interesting posts (that are not particularly frightening or hopeful) from February.

3 most frightening posts

3 most hopeful posts

3 most interesting posts

  • The U.S. election season certainly is getting interesting, although not really in a good way. ontheissues.org has a useful summary of where U.S. political candidates stand…what are the words I’m looking for…on the the issues. Nate Silver has an interesting online tool that lets you play around with how various demographic groups tend to vote.
  • Fire trucks don’t really have to be so big.
  • Titanium dioxide is the reason Oreo filling is so white.

Sanders’s socialism

According to the New York Times, “left leaning economists” say Sanders can’t pay for his proposed programs. (For an alternative viewpoint, see BillMoyers.com which says the NYT irresponsibly cherry-picked experts with ties to the Obama/Clinton administration).

Mr. Sanders’s plan includes a new, across-the-board 2.2 percent income tax to help pay for his single-payer, government-run health plan for all. But progressive economists and business groups say middle-class taxpayers would pay more for the European-style social welfare state that Mr. Sanders envisions.

They dispute his contention that all but the richest Americans would be better off, on balance, with higher wages and benefits like expanded Social Security, free public colleges and, most of all, free health care. His policy director, Warren Gunnels, dismissed the critics in an interview, saying, “They’ve picked sides with Hillary Clinton.” The campaign has a list of 130 endorsees, including some economists.

“If, at the end of the day, people don’t believe that we can achieve the same savings as Canada, Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia are achieving on health care, then we have a fundamental disagreement,” Mr. Gunnels said, naming countries with single-payer systems.

There’s that cynicism again. It works everywhere else but it can’t work here because…why exactly? Because we choose to be cynical, for one. And because we let the medical and insurance industry buy politicians and write laws in its favor and at everyone else’s expense.

I will say, though, that I am attracted to the idea of a well-functioning market setting prices rather than the government setting them. We live in a world of finite resources, so if you truly have no price signal – no premiums, no co-pays, no bills of any kind – then people can’t be allowed to choose any amount of health care they want, because our collective wants will always exceed what we can collectively afford. Then you have to have government rationing and price controls. That is what single-payer is. It is an efficient system to deliver some amount of health care the experts think is affordable and cost-effective. It’s equitable because it can deliver the same rationed amount to everyone, rich or poor. It is not a market-based system.

What could a hypothetical pure market-based system look like? First, the U.S. political system would have to not depend on contributions from the medical, insurance, and finance industries, so politicians would have no incentive to favor the profits of these companies over the interests of voters. Then people would have the option, or perhaps the requirement, to save a portion of their incomes in a health savings account. Then they would use their own money to purchase health care. Government would make copious amounts of education and information available on what medical services are available and how much they cost and what outcomes are being achieved, in terms simple enough for anyone to understand, so that true apples-to-apples comparison shopping would be possible for anyone, even under the stress of serious or sudden illness. Prices would settle at a level where supply and demand are in harmony given what the society can afford in aggregate and what other goods and services people are willing to give up in exchange for health care. Companies would have to compete based on price and outcome, and would have to innovate over time or else lose their edge.

The above might be an economist’s utopia, but it would not be remotely equitable, because the rich could afford much more than the poor. Government could do a few things to help. The savings accounts could be tax-advantaged, obviously. The savings could be matched by government, and the match could be larger for the poor and gradually phased out for the rich. Basic preventive care and maintenance care for chronic conditions could be provided for free (i.e. by taxes), because we know that is cost-effective. Catastrophic insurance could be provided for the big expenses, because we know those are back-breaking for all but the super rich, and when the poor show up in emergency rooms we end up treating them (poorly) at enormous taxpayer expense. With these policies in place, people are now using their savings only to make those decisions in between preventive and catastrophic, the things you could argue they want but don’t necessarily need. The rich would still be able to afford more, but hey, that is the nature of a market economy unless you want a true socialist utopia. I assume we still want some incentive to work or start a business.

Death of Hard-Line Jurist Throws Regime Into Chaos

With apologies to the recently deceased, I like this Slate parody of how the U.S. media might cover the death of Antonin Scalia if it happened somewhere else.

The nine unelected justices who sit for lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are tasked with ensuring that laws passed by the democratically elected government don’t violate the ancient juridical texts upon which the country’s laws are based. As such, they wield immense powers and have the ability to overrule even the president himself. The aged, scholarly jurists, cloaked in long black robes, conduct their deliberations behind closed doors, shielded from the scrutiny of the media, and their most important decisions are often released to the public with great drama but little warning…

Both sides of America’s traditional political divide are under more pressure than usual this time around. Any compromise by the conservatives in the legislature could benefit the surging ultra-nationalist, far-right campaign of television performer Donald Trump, considered a threat to the establishment across the political spectrum. Obama is likely hoping to hand power to his former foreign secretary Hillary Clinton, a member of the powerful Clinton clan, but radicals within his own coalition have broken off to support the far-left populist campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, known for his scathing attacks on the political influence of America’s ruling oligarchs. The court has abetted this influence with some controversial recent decisions, which Sanders has vowed to overturn…

But American legal scholars disagree on what the ancient texts say should be done in this situation, and the confrontation is likely to drag on for some time.