The Agonist - USA: Congress

House Financial Services Committee Passes Paul-Grayson Amendment to Audit the Fed

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:33:48 -0800

Michael Smallberg | Nov 20

POGO - The House Financial Services Committee voted 43-26 yesterday afternoon in favor of an amendment introduced by Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) that would remove restrictions preventing the GAO from auditing the Federal Reserve. The amendment was modeled after Rep. Paul’s long-standing bill to audit the Fed, which was co-sponsored by over 300 Members in the House and supported by POGO and many other groups.

The vote on the final passage of the financial regulatory package to which the Paul-Grayson amendment is attached has been delayed until after Thanksgiving. Nonetheless, yesterday’s vote signals a defeat for Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), who had introduced an alternative amendment that would have limited the scope of the GAO’s audits.

Kudos to FDL: FDL Statement on the Committee Passage of H.R. 1207, the Paul-Grayson Bill to Audit the Fed

The real reason Obama is not making much progress

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:55:56 -0800

Johann Hari | Nov 20

The Independent - Before you can appeal to America's voters you have to appeal to the corporations

Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His healthcare bill is a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the over-charging insurance companies - if it passes at all. His environmental team is vandalising the vital Copenhagen conference by saying the US – the single biggest emitter of warming gases – will not sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on Bush – such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras – many people are asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?

A pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues – Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine that bankrolls both parties – have rallied over the past few months to defend two causes with very little popular support in the United States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.

Catholic Bishops' leader defends role in health debate, (& swipes at New York Times)

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:35:03 -0800

Julia Duin | Baltimore | Nov 16

Washington Times - Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, defended the bishops' involvement in national health care legislation Monday, saying the church must be "leaven" in the debate.

Speaking at the opening of the bishops' annual business meeting, "to limit our teaching or governing to what the state is not interested in would be to betray both the constitution of our country and, much more importantly, the Lord himself," he said.

Not only did USCCB staff and individual bishops play a vital role in getting abortion restrictions into the recently passed House version of the health care overhaul bill, they served notice Monday they will influence the bill's future.

"We will work to persuade the Senate to follow the example of the House and include these critical safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation," Cardinal George said.

Other prelates expressed jubilation at how the USCCB's lobbying proved crucial to the House bill's passage earlier this month as well as anger at some of their critics.

"This is a principled position, not a political position," Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre said.

In a reference to the New York Times, "The grey lady of New York has continued to misrepresent this as a fundamental change to the availability of abortion in this country being curtailed because of the nefarious bishops," he added. "That is not the case."

Report links donations, lawmakers' support of Cuba embargo

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:53:24 -0800

Lesley Clark | Washington | Nov 16

McClatchy - Supporters of the U.S. embargo against Cuba have contributed nearly $11 million to members of Congress since 2004 in a largely successful effort to block efforts to weaken sanctions against the island, a new report shows.

In several cases, the report by Public Campaign says, members of Congress who had supported easing sanctions against Cuba changed their position — and got donations from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee and its donors.

All told, the political action committee and its contributors have given $10.77 million nationwide to nearly 400 candidates and members of Congress, the report says.

The contributions include more than $850,000 to 53 Democrats in the House of Representatives who sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this month opposing any change to U.S.-Cuba policy. The average signer, the report says, received $16,344.

The top five recipients of the embargo supporters' cash: Miami's three Cuban-American Republican members of Congress, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, whose parents fled Cuba before his birth.

The report comes as defenders of the embargo fend off efforts to repeal a decades-old ban against U.S. travel to Cuba. Proponents of greater engagement with Cuba contend that they have the votes, and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for Thursday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Critics of U.S.-Cuba policy long have suggested a link between campaign contributions and policy. Public Campaign — which advocates for public financing of political campaigns — says the contributions raise questions about the role that money plays in lawmakers' decision-making.

duh

"The pressure they get to raise money plays heavier in their decisions than it ought to," said David Donnelly, the national campaigns director for Public Campaign. "We think this is a damning pattern. We think these are good people caught in a bad system. If members of Congress have to spend too much time raising money, they have to listen to people who give money."

The director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, Mauricio Claver-Carone, defended the contributions as support for lawmakers who side with Cuban-Americans who think that easing sanctions against Cuba will only benefit the Castro regime.

"I will not apologize for the Cuban-American community practicing its constitutional, democratic right to support candidates who believe in freedom and democracy for the Cuban people over business and tourism interests," Claver-Carone said. "Unions help elect pro-union candidates. The Chamber of Commerce helps elect pro-business candidates. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) helps elect pro-Israel members. Who are we supposed to help? Pro-Castro members?"

Public Campaign looked at the Cuba committee because of a seeming disconnect between congressional votes and public opinion polls that suggest most Americans support lifting a ban on travel to Cuba, Donnelly said.

"On this issue there appears to be a clear distinction between what the American public appears to want and what some in Congress are advocating," Donnelly said, pointing to a World Public Opinion survey in April that found 70 percent of Americans support travel to Cuba.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who backs greater engagement with Cuba, said the report wasn't a surprise.

"I don't know how else you can explain how our current policy has survived for so long without yielding any meaningful results; it's all politics," Flake said.

The report says that at least 18 House members — including several from agriculture-rich districts — received campaign contributions from the PAC or its donors and switched their positions on Cuba, from voting in favor of easing travel restrictions to voting against any efforts to soften the embargo.

Politicians Have Filled the Pipeline with Pain for Middle America

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:59:44 -0800

The announcement of financial overhaul legislation in the U.S. Senate this week smacked of irony as its author, Senator Chris Dodd—the recipient of a sweetheart rate on his own home mortgage—announced a sweeping 1,136 page piece of legislation to “protect consumers.” It appears at this point that the protection consumers and Middle America really need is from this nation’s politicians, who have too long lined their pockets with campaign contributions from big business and who have allowed financial institutions to fleece Middle America.

It wasn’t but a couple of years ago that big business and congress all but eliminated the ability of consumers to effectively discharge their debts in bankruptcy proceedings. At the same time, banks and financial institutions were making loans to borrowers who clearly could not qualify. Banks, financial institutions and credit card companies continued extending generous limits on credit cards and lines of credit to consumers. Now be fair, much of the mortgage activity came from Democrats in congress who believed that everyone had an inalienable right to own a home, evidently whether they could afford it or not. And naturally, Republicans, who long ago sold their soul to big business, positioned their bank and financial institution contributors for all of the mortgage business.

Middle America knew and assumed the risk that what goes up would someday come down, perhaps crashing down, which it did. But when it did and as many Americans lost and continue today to lose their jobs, bankruptcy was and is simply not an available option. Our politicians and big business have virtually eliminated it as an effective option for many consumers.

Now, consumers that are interested in honestly reworking their mortgages cannot even get a return phone call from their lender, and if they do they are told they do not qualify for any sort of loan modification.

So here we are—after encumbering themselves with mortgages they cannot afford, credit cards and credit lines they cannot pay down, financial institutions have the shameless and arrogant audacity to raise consumers’ credit card interest rates to 30%. Clearly, consumers have to take a certain degree of responsibility for their own condition, but how did our elected members of congress and the senate allow big business to systematically repeal consumer protections at virtually every turn?

Middle America really needs to understand how and why our politicians have allowed financial institutions to raise credit card interest rates to a level that is clearly usury. No consumer knowingly consents to a 30% interest rate, regardless of whether there’s a meaningless disclosure on the back of his or her monthly credit card statement on page 3 in tiny type font. Nor do consumers knowingly consent to what has become an ordinary practice by banks and financial institutions of charging consumers $35 for overdraft protection or checks returned due to insufficient funds. Sure, consumers can choose to bank elsewhere, but the practice of fleecing consumers with fees has become so universal by financial institutions that consumers really have no choice.

Without bankruptcy as a viable option for many in Middle America, there is plenty of pain left in the pipeline for years to come as consumers will remain enslaved with unmanageable consumer debt. With no end in sight, consumers will continue to labor under the heavy load of mortgages on devalued homes they cannot afford, credit card bills they cannot pay, and no available remedy in a bankruptcy court that can set them free to start over. It appears that consumer protection is dead and caveat emptor is alive and well.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

Middle America is Disillusioned with the Left and Right

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:54:28 -0800

“Disillusioned” is the word that best describes how many Americans feel after eight years of George Bush and the election of Barack Obama a year ago. Republicans had a majority in congress and the presidency, yet achieved little for Middle America. They betrayed voters by inflating the deficit and growing government, sending men and women into nation-building wars whose purposes are still unknown, and created a culture of moral and ethical corruption in Washington D.C. It was under lax and pathetic regulatory oversight that a Republican president and Republican congress allowed corporations to betray shareholders with questionable and highly leveraged credit default swaps, only to be followed by a $700 billion taxpayer bailout created by the Bush administration—so much for limited government. Republicans are a party without a message and without a messenger.

Last week’s election results in Virginia and New Jersey, where Republican candidates for governor triumphed over their Democrat opponents, say more about the public’s rejection of Obama’s big government solutions and less about Republicans articulating a message to help Middle America. If Republicans think the public is embracing the party again, they are simply whistling past the graveyard, drunk on their own greed, and completely out of touch with the needs of Middle America.

Not that Democrats are offering any worthwhile solutions to address the most pressing needs of Middle America—job creation—but at least Democrats are intellectually honest about their desire for big government, universal healthcare, taxpayer-funded abortions, labor union power, and a litigious society for plaintiff lawyers to fleece the public. There is something, dare I say “refreshing and frank” about knowing where Democrats are on issues that impact Middle America, whereas Republicans pretend to be something they are not.

It is time for the Republican party to stop blindly whoring for the business community and begin addressing the issues that impact Middle America—job creation, affordable healthcare for all, and quality public education for our children. Republicans are a one-trick-pony, where “tax cuts” are their solution for all of Middle America’s problems. It’s because the party cannot articulate rational policy solutions to the real problems we face.

Take healthcare for instance; the Republican solution has been health savings accounts (HSAs). Are you kidding me? We can’t get people to save money in IRAs, never mind HSAs. That’s the best Republicans have got? Why don’t Republicans push to allow consumers to shop for healthcare across state lines, require everyone to have healthcare, and deny insurers from rejecting consumers with pre-existing conditions?

If Democrats have any hope of maintaining power, they too need to put viable solutions on the table for Middle America, where people care a hell of a lot more about jobs and the economy than government-run healthcare, union card check, the protection of gays from hate crimes, and cap and trade. Both parties have failed miserably to address the needs of Middle America, which I suppose is why I feel so disillusioned with both parties.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

Graham Censured for Sensible Climate Stance

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:11 -0800

Kate Sheppard | Charleston County, SC | November 11

Mother Jones - The Republican Party of Charleston County, S.C. on Monday voted to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham over his support for climate legislation and his willingness to work across party lines on the issue.

The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.

The party resolution passed Monday says Graham has weakened the Republican brand. Bennett expects a similar resolution to be introduced at the state GOP convention next year.

Bennett called his views "out of step with the beliefs of Republican voters."

"Never A Good Time to Say No"

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:52:37 -0800

I could not agree more with this sentiment:

This is the argument made over and over again: If the repro rights activists would just stop agitating about the pro-life Dems, we could get majorities, and things would improve for women and men everywhere. I get that argument. Most days, I believe it. And then I wake up to a Democratic majority that will only pass progressive healthcare legislation if it includes antiabortion provisions.

These trade-offs build on each other. Stupak did not happen in a vacuum. It's part of a larger cycle. Is this the moment to stand up and say "no"? How could I say it is, especially when I am all too aware that if pro-choice Democrats were to revolt over this issue, they would be vilified and further alienated from a party that already allows the erosion of reproductive rights? We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure. It's not exactly a bright set of options for anyone who has gotten into this quandary simply because they fervently believe that the rights of half the population to control its own reproduction are fundamental to full and equal participation in our democracy.

As I have noted in countless posts from multiple nations: when women are emancipated from the clutches of religion progress happens. And yet in America we are sliding backwards. At some point all of us have to stand up and say no more. And I don't see an issue that affects fully half of our population as one critic put it:' the same of sh&*^&%.' So, when are we going to heed the voices of fully half our population? Too add injury to insult, how's this for coverage:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

I guess this is what's meant by a 'sense of victimhood,' eh?

More detail on the HR3962

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:30 -0800

I've written this in reference to Michael Collins's diary post One More Reason to Kill this Bill and some of the confusion over sections and what is in the bill as far as coverage requirements and penalties.

I'm looking here (.pdf file) for the new Health bill and somewhere around here for the IRS Tax Code. Will post more precise links (possibly to other sources) as needed.

1) HR3962 Sec. 501 (p. 297) If you fail to purchase insurance you will pay 2.5% of (modified adjusted gross income - gross income) but, if that value is higher than the “average premium for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange…” you will pay that average premium instead. So, there is a cap on the 2.5%, set at the average premium of a plan on the exchange. Not sure how high that average will be. HR3962 Sec. 501 (p.298) This amount is pro-rated based upon the fraction of the year that you go without coverage.

Note that a “basic plan” is outlined in HR3962 Section 303(c) on page 168.

Modified Adjusted Gross Income is defined as adjusted gross income increased by (A) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911 of IRS Code (see the link below) and (B) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax.

2) HR3962 Sec 501 (p.299). For Americans living overseas, you are exempt from paying this tax if you have been living abroad and are a resident of a foreign country for at least one taxable year. Relevant IRS code is here (scroll down a bit to sec. 911(d)(1)). I assume the prorating would apply if you’ve only been living overseas for less than a year.

3) You can apparently file an exemption from the requirement to purchase insurance based upon religious beliefs, though you must document your adherence to a faith that would want this. There’s a bit more in there, starting on HR3962 Sec. 501, pages 299-300.

4) HR3962 Sec 501, p. 304. Seems to state that small lapses in coverage are not going to result in taxes. I would assume this means a few days, but I don’t see any specific numbers. The bill just calls them “de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage.”

Now, if you don’t pay the tax in point (1) above then you will be subject to normal IRS rules and regulations. I would assume this is where IRS Code sections 7201 and 7203(see links below) come in. They feature up to $25,000 in fines and no more than 1 or 5 years in jail (depending on which is applicable). I’m not sure how these are applied in practice.

So, it looks like no specific penalties are outlined in the bill, but the 2.5% is designed as a tax and so would fall under IRS rules for non-compliance.

IRS Code Section 7201
IRS Code Section 7203

One More Reason to Kill this Bill - 40 Million "Health" Criminals

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:44:43 -0800

At least two provisions in the House health reform bill are very troubling, the de facto repeal of Roe v. Wade and this. In a powerful post on the Welcome Back to Pottersville, poster Jurassicpork laid it out. This is as clear and logical a statement as I've seen on the utter contempt that Congress has for the people. We're creating a new criminal class, people who can't afford health insurance. The solution - fines and prison. All thanks to the Money Party which has reached depths previously unimaginable. Well worth a read. Michael Collins

Congress Pulls the Trigger

From: Welcome Back to Pottersville blog. Posted by jurassicpork

In the dead of Saturday night, the House passed their version of a health reform bill that, frankly, makes Max Baucus’ first health care proposal look like a bleeding heart liberal/socialist piece of legislation by conspicuous relief. One of the most alarming aspects of HR 3962, that passed 220-215 (219 Democrats and one Republican voted for it) are the purely evil sections 7203 and 7201. The less evil of these sections, 7203, calls for $25,000 in fines and up to a year imprisonment for “defying” the federal mandate for getting insurance. That's the misdemeanor. The felony? A quarter of a million dollars in fines and up to five years in prison.

And those of you who are actually found guilty of the crime of not buying over $100 of health insurance every week will lose their jobs and earning potential. For up to five years, we will not be contributing to anything other than a prison economy. We will not be paying taxes. We will not be paying child support if we already are. And when we get thrown into the prison system, who gets to foot the bill for the health care that we'd defiantly refused to get?
Entire post

The Soul of the Party?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:46 -0800

Many people have described what took place in the 23rd district of New York congressional race as an internal struggle within the Republican Party, an internal struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. I find this analogy difficult to accept and understand because how can you fight for something that doesn’t exist? To say the Republicans are fighting over their soul is akin to saying the Civil War was a fight for the soul of America, while poetically it sounds good the truth is somewhat less pleasant. The Civil War was not about the soul of America, it was about the viability of a nation and its dependence on a corrupt regional power structure. What happened in New York was not about the soul of the Republican Party, it was about the viability of a national party and its reliance on a corrupt regional power base.

What we saw happen in New York and what I predict we will see more of in the coming months is the beginning of a third party. If you notice who the main players were in this debacle it is not hard to understand why they would want to see a third party launched. These are the unrepentant right wing neo-cons who believe that the lesson from the last two elections was that the Republicans were not far enough to the right. They continue to cling to the false mantra of Karl Rove that America is a right of center nation. These are the unapologetic neo-con architects of some of the worst policies in American history and believe that it wasn’t their policies that Americans soundly rejected, but the packaging. They are tin-eared musicians who cannot understand the tune that the American public is playing and so they have crafted a strategy that while it may be personally gratifying and enriching to some of their wallets will not translate into any electoral majority.

If these clowns were not so out of touch they would recognize that the voices they are hearing are not pushing to the right or to the left, those are just the loudest voices. The real voice of change that many in Washington, in Alaska, and in other parts of the establishment circles are failing to interpret is not about party affiliation or cultural warfare. The voice of change taking place in local communities is about watching this nation become a second rate empire and there is a feeling of helplessness on the part of many people. They are watching the wealthy plunder this country without any regard for those in the middle who have been the creators of wealth in this nation. They are watching the vice slowly squeeze them from both ends with mounting debt created by a capital system that socializes risk but privatizes profits and an ever increasing social burden for those who are becoming obsolete in this society. They look into the eyes of their kids and for once they cannot say with any conviction, “That your life will be better than mine.”

The problem with trying to harness the voice of change of this magnitude is that it is easy to misread it. The reason that it is so easy to misread it is because it has not crystallized into a single rational voice. Currently there is just this dissonant cry of anguish that is being misdirected down many incongruent and disconnected paths. What we are witnessing is in the face of unknown fear many people are finding comfort in the ghosts and bogeymen of the past, but these are not the majority of voices again they are just the loudest. The majority are sitting quietly in front of their televisions hoping, praying, and waiting for someone, anyone to hear their silent screams and rescue them and their children from the coming apocalypse. What happened in New York was a group of out of touch and disconnected frauds who tried to stage a coup and at the same time launch their third party strategy. But of course because they were not close enough to the action they completely misread the situation and went down in defeat. You can’t be grassroots and not mow some yards. This thing is not about ideology and moral victories on either side, it is about can we prevent the Armageddon that so many are so hell-bent on bringing about?

Let us be clear; there is no soul-searching taking place in the Republican Party. What we have is a group of political hacks who are trying to exploit the fear and uncertainty of some people for their short-term political and economic gain. As this process moves forward it is important not to discount what lies beneath the upheaval which is genuine fear and concern on the part of many well meaning folks and anyone who dismisses this will do so at their own peril. It is important that progressives also realize that many of these voices for change don’t even know what they are looking for so to assume that it is the progressive agenda will be as harmful as the wing-nuts assuming it is in support of their agendas. Right now what we have is this giant blob that is searching for a shape or a form to take and whoever can articulate its goals and direct it will be successful while others will fail. The key in uncertain times like these is to do the right thing for the country regardless of how popular or politically correct it is because in the end that will be the final judge-did it work?

Oh by the way if the Republicans are looking for a soul I understand they can be had pretty cheaply these days on Wall Street and with some insurance carriers it is not considered a pre-existing condition to be without one.

I know well what I am fleeing from but not what I am in search of. - Michel de Montaigne
The Disputed Truth

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:58:27 -0800

Nov 8

NYT - Frank Rich:

On Tuesday, Congressional Democrats, with the White House’s consent, voted to gut the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the post Enron-WorldCom law passed in 2002 to prevent corporate accounting tricks and fraud. Arthur Levitt, the former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, told me on Friday it was “surreal” that Democrats were now achieving the long-held Republican goal of smashing “the golden chalice” of reform. If investors cannot have transparency, Levitt said, “the whole system is worthless.”

Floyd Norris:

The Sarbanes-Oxley law also took steps to reinforce the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes accounting rules in the United States. By giving the board a secure source of financing, legislators said they were protecting it from the threats of the companies that had previously made donations to keep the board functioning.

But this Congress has made clear that independence for the accounting rule writers can go too far — particularly if the rules force banks to reveal the horrid mistakes they previously made.

This year, a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at which legislators sought no facts but instead threatened dire action if the chairman of the financial accounting board did not promptly make it easier for banks to ignore market values of the toxic securities they owned. The board caved in, which may be one reason why banks are reporting fewer losses these days.

But the board’s retreat was not enough to satisfy the banks. The American Bankers Association is now pushing Congress to give a new systemic risk regulator — either the Federal Reserve or some panel of regulators — the power to override accounting standards. The view of the bankers is that the financial crisis did not stem from the fact that the banks made lots of bad loans and invested in dubious securities; it was caused by accounting rules that required disclosure when the losses began to mount.

** Committee Allows a Break on Certain Auditing Rules

GOP Senators Absent at Start of Climate Debate

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:32:59 -0800

Washington DC | November 3

AP - Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic ''is not a ruse'' to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided ''a full blown economic analysis'' and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted ''we're not rushing we are taking our time.''

The partisan rift in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which delayed votes on amendments to the legislation, exposed the sharp divisions in the Senate over how to address global warming. Democrats also have been split on the issue. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who said he had deep reservations about the bill also was absent.

Congressional Address: GOP picks Joe Wilson to escort Merkel

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:24:50 -0800

Kelly O'Donnell and Mark Murray | November 3

MSNBC - The House and Senate are together this morning in the House chamber for a joint session, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel addresses Congress.

Note that South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson (R) -- who yelled "You lie" at President Obama during the last joint session -- will be an escort for Merkel. Wilson was selected by the GOP leadership.

Failure by Design - The "Public" Option

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:37:06 -0800

Triumph of the Money Party

Michael Collins

Do you know what the "public option" does or who it covers? If you've had trouble finding out, it's not your fault. Reading corporate media coverage provides little or no clue. It's hardly ever defined. There's a very good reason for the lack of clarity and definition. But first, a brief summary of the public debate that characterizes just about every public debate we have on critical issues.

If you think that the current version of the public option will provide a choice for a government administered health program, you're right. If you think that this option was designed for the general public, then you're wrong. It will apply to only some of the uninsured, possibly as few as six million citizens. It's a kind of public option.

But, if you support true choice by the public, then you probably expect this as an option: a single payer system for health care -- one source of payment for doctors and others funded and administered by the government for the public. Medicare is such a program. But we don't get to hear about single payer proposals except from proponents like Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who define single payer universal health care very clearly.

President Obama's outline of the public option in his September 9 speech to Congress is essentially unchanged in the current legislation. The Democratic plan offers "a new insurance exchange" for "Americans who don't currently have health insurance." This sounds good so far, but wait. This exchange will be "a new insurance exchange --a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop." The option will be "available in the insurance exchange" and "it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance." (See What Obama Actually Said About Health Reform)

It's not really public, it's for a small segment of the population, and it is any where from four to ten years out in full availability. This reflects the Oct. 29 House proposal, H.R. 3962, and some aspects of the latest Senate claims for a public option.. The entire effort, limited as it is, will be compromised from the very start since Congress linked public option provider reimbursement rates to those of the health insurance companies.

When citizens see "Open to the public," they don't take that to mean only some of the public. When land is set aside for "public use," does that mean only 5% or 6 % of the public? All of this makes no sense unless you accept the deliberately confusing definitions and assumptions of The Money Party.

Why would any member of the public think that they were excluded from a public option?

Why would those controlling the debate want us to think that?

Here's why. The findings in this poll strikes terror into the heart of The Money Party.

Link

The poll shows a clear majority in favor of a single payer, universal health care program as an option for all citizens. This poll is consistent with other polls despite the confusion from Washington. In a fair debate, the health insurance companies would get their clock cleaned and be out of business within a year or two. But we're not allowed an open and fair debate because the risk of vanishing corporations is never in The Money Party's game plan. Their political bouncers just tossed us under the bus.

The "Long Con" - How Things Work

"A ’short con’ is an opportunistic scam designed to instantly fleece the victim of all the money they have with them at that time. On the other hand, a long con takes much longer to execute and requires meticulous planning in order to scam the victim out of much larger amounts of money." Scam Types dot Com

The Money Party runs both short and long cons. When they weren't able to sell the Iraq invasion, the short con was: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He's ready to use them … on you! Get on board now or else! That short con operated within the long con of perpetual threats and endless war.

The current health reform debate is a classic long con. The debate is limited to only those positions that will work for the status quo. If reform fails, there's no change from the extortion perpetrated against citizens in need of affordable health care. If reform is adopted, the insurance companies are enshrined at the center of the program. The fight is then over the size of the rake off. That's called bending the curve of health care costs. Bend, don't break. It's a win-win proposition for The Money Party.

What do legislators do when their patrons demand that an irrational and deadly system remains in place? Confuse the dialog with weasel words and highly deceptive terms. Keep the public thinking that they're really going to benefit from a program and, better yet, that the opposition is trying to prevent that benefit. Get party loyalists whipped up to fight for your program even though it's a sham.

The current kind of public option is essential to The Money Party's long con on health reform. It allows people to think that there's a real debate going on. Someone is fighting for our option to choose decent and affordable health care.

It's all part of the long con that limits critical debate to unacceptable options advanced by allegedly differing parties. These debates always end the same way -- the perpetuation of the major corporate interests, the retention of those in power, and oligarchy; the triumph of The Money Party:

"The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us.

"In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal … even though it looks like bribery.

'In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. … Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars." Michael Collins: The Money Party, Sept. 30, 2007.

END

See: Special Health Reform Series: The Money Party and the sickness unto death

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this web site.