Notwithstanding the postmortem, rah, rah, siss-boom-bah appearances on cable news by Senators Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer, it should be noted that yesterday, just to frame the immensely conspicuous in the gentlest terms, was not a good day for the public option. A child could deduce that. Yet there they were, God love 'em, bursting with all manner of pasted-on pride and yapping unabashedly like Churchill after Gallipoli.
And it was children, I guess -- either that or Tom Cruiselike Navy defense lawyers -- whom they thought they were speaking to: those they believed couldn't handle the truth. So they blew more smoke, more hope, prattling about 15 to 8 and 13 to 10 losses being such splendid signs of progress.
Indeed, Schumer's spokesman had entered the eerily metaphysical even before the votes: "Just bringing up this issue in the Finance Committee has helped to revitalize the overall push for it. Its chances only get better from here." Well, I suppose that's true in the sense that they can't get any worse.
Rockefeller and Schumer were steadfast, even valiant, in their advocacy before the committee, with the former intoning, for instance, and with rare and true political righteousness, that private insurers are "getting away with terrible things," which only a government-run plan could stanch.
For sheer entertainment value, however, there sat Chuck Grassley, in his Elmer Fuddian way, being vewy vewy cwever. Citing the well-known intellectually objective sources of the Heritage Foundation and Lewin Group, which is owned by the corporate giant United HealthCare, Grassley caterwauled that "a government run plan will ultimately force private insurers out of business."
That merely led the thinking crowd to ask itself, Your point being?
But let's not blame yesterday's dark albeit expected turn of events on Mr. Fudd, and his partisan playmates. He's part of the opposition; he was opposing. So much for that shocker. And from a purely political point of view, I've got to admit with no little amount of awed admiration that his bait and switch, so skillfully executed on the "bipartisan" Max Baucus, was one for Machiavelli's record books.
No, an inversion of the vote-count on Schumer's reasonable alternative amendment -- permitting negotiated rather than Medicare-set payments to health-care professionals for a two-year period -- was there to be had, had it not been for Democrats Baucus and Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln.
But what the hell. They're only the proverbial pigs at the trough, doing what pigs do; snorting and stuffing themselves with as much detestable corporate slop as they their bottomless bellies will hold.
Progressive efforts to change their diets have been, to say the least, somewhat pathetic. The Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America, for instance, have been running an emotionally moving ad against Mr. Baucus in his home state, coughing up $50,000 for airtime and hoping to raise another like amount. That, against the health-care industry's $1.4-million-a-day campaign being waged in the halls, cloakrooms, and private offices of Congress.
These progressive groups tried the same against Ben Nelson. And do you know what it got them? This, from the Omaha World-Herald: "Any attempt by Senate Democrats to pass health care legislation with no Republican support won't have the vote of Nebraska's senior senator. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat, said Sunday that he would [even] vote against using a tactic called reconciliation to push through a health care bill."
Look at it this way: Yesterday's votes weren't so much a deplorable stand against intelligent health-care reform as they were naked cries for the public financing of political campaigns. Sen. Lincoln of Arkansas, for one, knows damn well that any health-care reform without genuine competition is the weakest possible reform of cost-explosions; but she also knows that her best chance at job retention in 2010 is to side with the cost-blowing money.
This isn't, essentially, some vast ideological war between the entrenched forces of liberal good and conservative evil. It is, rather, a matter of personal political survival. Years ago I knew an exceedingly timorous gay fellow who once joked that should he ever find himself in prison, his first act would be to throw his arms around the biggest, strongest, ugliest brute he could find and declare, "Honey, I'm all yours." And that's all Sen. Lincoln is doing. We can lament her profile in poltroonery, but facts of life are facts of life.
Somehow, we've got to find a way to spring the Ms. Lincolns of Washington from her barbaric imprisonment. Otherwise -- in the absence of campaign-finance reform, that is -- we will continue to invite that massive train wreck ahead. Whether it's necessary health-care reforms today, or higher taxes to repair our mammothly disheveled fiscal house or organic regulatory reform or a responsible environmental policy tomorrow, each is doomed as long as big money owns Congress.
Getting there, to that happy philosopher-king's place, will make the battle over a public option look like a good-natured pillow fight. As the system stands, every incumbent is virtually guaranteed a massive war chest by special interests -- plenty to scare off any pain-in-the-ass primary challenger and often a credible general-election opponent. Demanding that Congress change the law from which it makes its living will be the most demanding progressive campaign ever; and then there's the Supreme Court, which seems unable to distinguish between coercive money and free speech.
But it's a public campaign that can't wait. Without it, we're going down.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
These venal fux in Congress don't care about how much
they spend--or save. It's all funny money to 'em. Unreal.Money itself doesn't matter to 'em, at all. It's like poker chips in a televised game. They're worthless in and of themsselves; but they are a statement of your rank at the table...
What theCongresscrooks care about--the ONLY thing they care about-- is that money being spent go exclusively to corporations/interests which, in turn, return some of the glim to the Congresscritters, in the form of campaign contributions (at best--see Ted Stevens, e.g.) and other valuable services...
Chris Floyd tells you like it is:
The Reason for the Anger and Intractability of the Debate Over Health Care Reform in the United States: Written by Chris Floyd Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:58
One side is lying; the other side is not telling the truth.
* Or to put it another way: One side is pretending that a wildly reactionary plan to further enrich rapacious corporations is really hardcore, gutbucket socialism from the Bolshevik trenches, while the other side is pretending that its "reform" is not really a wildly reactionary plan to further enrich rapacious corporations but something that will somehow, in some way, be good for some people at some point way down the line.
* One often finds that dealing in such utter unreality makes it ... difficult to achieve workable solutions to real-life problems.
This oped IS NOT about "public financing of political campaigns"
Shame on you Carpy!
It's one thing for you to rant on endlessly with your "no public option" propaganda. But to dishonestly misrepresent the content of your propaganda just discredits you even further, if that is possible!
I still can't figure out why Buzzflash keeps you around. You certainly don't help to attract donations. So what the hell are you good for besides being a propaganda parrot?
The public option, as well as single payer are both making a come back. Plus progressives are leaning very hard on Blue Dog DINO-Fascists and threatening to vote them out in their next primaries if they don't support the public option or single payer.
Once again, it is evident Carpy does not read Buzzflash headlines:
Michael Moore Stands Up for Single Payer, Tells Blue Dogs 'We Will Remove You From Office.'
And then there is this:
Harkin says he has the votes to pass public option bill in the Senate
And this:
Poll Shows Public Wants Medicare for All
Meanwhile, Carpy continues to root for failure...
Duh!
Without public financing, the CorpoRats will always win.
Sadly, the only way to get the CorpoRats out of the process is at the point of a bayonet.
None of the captive, wholly-owned "Peoples' representatives" will EVER betray the Owners enough to actually upset the status quo.
Wouldn't be "prudent." Which is why, in the end, Obama will be a vast disappointment (to those hopey/changhey folks)...
True of public finance, and universal health care, and freedom from religion.
finally
finally you got somehing right,its like if you give a chimp a million tries one of them will be a masterpiece.As long as corporations control political spending our government will be under their control and that means both parties.The only way we can change it will be a constitutional amendment,our congressmen certainly won't give up their corporation bribes and perks.And their is a little matter of the supreme court not seeing anything wrong with corporate bribes.i guess its hopeless to even try,we don't have the votes,that is your philosophy isn't it Mr. carpenter
Am ugly display
You know, P.M.--it's one thing to predict the demise of the public option--as I have done--but it's another thing altogether to relish it.
It's becoming apparent to me that you're quite the jerk. You got your prediction of the dead PO in the Baucus Ctte right, but that's not good enough--you've got to rub salt in liberals' wounds and infer that we're all children if we believe it's still possible to obtain. Christ, what an incredibly smug, elitist asshole you are. You're no better than Joe Lieberman.
I've got a bit of news for you. The PO is NOT dead. But the congressional liberals have to be prepared to do something they do not want to do:
Kill the bill.
This is absolutely the only type of pressure Obama will understand. If the liberals are prepared to do this then they can turn this around.
I have always been of a mind that liberals will do what they always do--cave. But it is becoming apparent that this issue may be different. This is something they REALLY want and are prepared to fight for. And it's also good politics.
I live in AR--and it's going to be interesting to see the honorable Sen Lincoln try to win in 2010 against a motivated conservative electorate without liberal support. What do you think her chances are?
Anyway, after your daily slights against progressives you did stumble onto a profound truth--we need public financing. Now I would refer you to your own writings of only a day ago--do you really think an electorate this uninformed even knows what that is?
No, it will take nothing less than a social movement. I took that class back in 1982--social movements don't come around very often and often require a perfect storm of luck, greatness and hard work. When we get our MLK for public financing we can talk about it, but right now, you're just wishing for ponies.
On the other hand, the current batch of congressional liberals can get a pony now, if only they show the fortitude of their convictions.
cheerleading for failure
is rather shameless of him.
So Pose The Issue In An Understandable Way
Hard Money, Soft Money! What the hell does that mean? Write a few columns that the mass of readers might relate to. Here is how I described our situation to a small businessman, a Republican in a small Florida town. He bitched about unions as I was ordering several signs for our business.
I asked him which "union" he belonged to. He told me "none". I asked are you a Democrat or Republican? "Republican". I told him he belonged to the Republican Union then. Hey, union, association, guild, party, lobby, special interest group, all the same thing- a group formed to benefit its members and advocate their views. Then I asked him if he knew how much his Congressman's union due were? How much does our Congressman pay in union (Party) dues each year to keep their support and consequently, his job?
He had no idea. Image his shock when I told him his Congressman's dues were between $90,000 to $600,000 per year, depending on his position, committee memberships, etc. I asked if he know how much his Congressman made per year? $180,000/year. I asked "Why would a man pay $600,000/year for a $180,000/year job? Would you?
And how is it that we hear the persistent urban legend that Congressman leave Washington richer than when they went there, if their Party dues are 1/2 to 3 times their salaries? I know I hadn't sent any money to my Congressman, had he? No, he said. Well, where do you suppose he gets the $50,000/month to pay his Party vig? He guessed the right answer to that question in one.
So write a column and ask all your readers to ask/phone/email their Congressperson- who provided the loot this month and how much from each. Then start asking at the city, county and State levels, "How much, from whom and for what". The article I draw from was in the New York Times, October, 2006. The reporter thought this was a giggle, that several Congressmen where past due, passed right over the obvious conflict of interest matter. Guess it is just "de riguer" Beltway banter.
Stop with the "hard money/soft money, what the hell is the difference between the two, the devil is in the details, but doesn't everybody know this Beltway stuff?". We don't. Explain that either we, the public, pay for the election campaigns or the special interest groups will, duh! Hey, fellow citizens, this is the hiring process for legislators. We need to fund the horse race to see that it is run fairly, or let third parties (ha, that is a pun) outsource it out of our control. Either our Congressmen work for us, or they work for their Parties. We already see what happens when our Congressmen work for their Parties- Parties first and Public second.
Oh, and maybe we should increase Congressional salaries. Given the temptations, apparently $180,000/year isn't much to lose for our current crop of Congressmen. Lets pay for the best talent to run for the Legislature, say $2,000,000/year. I'll bet we get a real race with qualified applicants, applicants who aren't alread rich and hand picked.
Losing a salary like that would give a cheating Congressman something to think twice about. And, face it, 435 Congressman at $2 million a year, working for us, instead of their union boss, is still cheaper than 435 pork distributing, low rent, Party owned shills.
Campaign Finance
What many people forget is that the politicians don't get to pocket the millions they are required to raise. The money goes straight into the pockets of the large media corporations, which charge their highest rates to politicians during campaigns. The main stream media demands money up front. If you want to run for Senate and cannot show that you have raised millions, they will not cover your campaign. Every politican is required to bribe the media, up front, and throughout the campaign, to get "news" coverage as well as to run the candidates ads. Until this changes, it will be very hard to effect reform. The solution is simple. Take the time from the media and give it to the politicians for free. There has never been a single TV station in history that has lost money or gone out of business. They can make money just running endless "male enhancement" ads. We own the airways (and yes, cable and satellite TV also use the public airways). Believe me, they will scream bloody murder, but if it means going along or losing their public license, which is virtually a license to print money, they will go along.
Jonathan Inskeep
Crofton, MD
I'm on it, P.M.
Just as soon as we, the 65% of us, in this country who are demanding it.... get the public option written into health care reform in the Senate.
Meanwhile I'll continue to support Dr. Dean's group, www.DemocracyforAmerica.com and the ad they are running in Montana.
I'm not going to be distracted from doing my level best to unseat the biggest DINO in the Senate, Max Baucus, when he runs for re-election.
The big corporate drug companies may be able to out-spend us, but what they can't do in Montana -- is vote. And, the message they are "out spending" us on, is not resonating with the voters in Montana. More people in Montana by about 47%-43% (last survey I saw) want the public option, than don't.
Corporations can spend in Montana --- but they can't vote.
In fact, I'd like to see the Democratic Party draft the kid in the commercial to run for Baucus's seat.
So, as soon as we get what we want in health care, in consumer protection, etc., we will get right on the public financing of campaigns.
We will tackle the "improbable" before we tackle the "impossible".
Campaign finance reform will take a new President, a new Congress, and probably a new Supreme Court. In other words-- decades.
People are dying now from lack of health care. Because of the decades that have gone by, and we have let the insurance industry have their way.
First things, First.
We have one a one party system
It's the party of money. Public financing of elections will change reality?