Yesterday I received a call from the DSCC asking for money.  Usually I just say that I support individual campaigns and hang up.  But it was the day of the House vote and I was on edge.  So I started berating the DSCC (with due apologies to the guy on the phone, who wasn't at fault).  I said unless the DSCC makes clear to the Senators who refuse to vote for the reform bill that they will not receive a dime from the DSCC and no support from the President in their next election, I couldn't give any money to them.  

Mary Landrieu is one of our senators.  She is smart:  she knows that she is in a position to extract promises in exchange for her vote.  But no matter what promises she extracts, she's not going to vote with the Democrats.  She is owned by the oil companies and the insurance companies.  It is probably a political reality for her that she would lose votes if she voted for the bill.  ( I don't know if she would lose the campaign funds from the oil companies.) But why should I give money to an organization that will turn money over to her just because she puts a D after her name and then continues to vote R?  The DSCC rep told me that we have to work to retain our majority.  I said we don't have a majority in the Senate except in name only.  When I asked who the new head of the DSCC was, he didn't know!  That's how visible the leadership in the Democratic party is right now. 

Maybe Rahm Emmanuel is putting the squeeze on the Dem Senators:  I hope so.  But we need everyone in the party to put the squeeze on them.  What can we do?

  Let's start by telling the DSCC that we won't give them any money unless they align their campaign funding with the party's agenda.

During the Bush years, when anti-science fervor was at its peak (or so I thought) I dreamed of a day when we could say to these ignoramuses, okay, you think that the Bible is the last word?  Then you are not allowed to take advantage of any invention or advance since that time.  You can eat roast goat, but you can't get it delivered by refrigerated truck to a grocery store.  You can't drive a car, use a lightbulb, get your water from a tap.  You can't use any modern medicine.

Now my dream seems within grasp.  Let's create a  single-payer, public insurance system that everyone EXCEPT Republicans  and their shills can use.  That's it.  I'm no longer for universal health care.  I'm for health care for everyone except anyone who stands in our way.  Go on record as against the public option (I'm talking to you, Landrieu) and you don't get to use any publicly funded medical services.  NOT ANY.  You don't get to go to a hospital that uses federal funds.   You don't get to use a doctor who took out student loans from the government.  You don't get to use any medications developed by scientists who took money from the government. 

Please make my dream come true.

The one issue that touches every American where we are most vulnerable physically, psychologically, and economically is health care.  If you are blogging about anything other than healthcare, no matter how well-intentioned you are, you need to get down to business on this issue.  There is only one story right now:  passing the public option. Not co-ops, but a public insurance system.  In fact, we ought to be organizing for and demanding--as noisily and crazily as possible, if that's what it takes--a single-payer system.  We won't get one, but if we don't demand that, we have no bargaining room at all.

It needs to be a 24/7 nonstop, full-court press response NOW.  Perhaps the White House leaked this information in order to galvanize us, perhaps not.  Whatever.   If you want our country to survive, we must pass the public option this September, and make it available NO LATER THAN JANUARY 2010.  Not 2012, for crying out loud. 

And forget about what Obama is and isn't doing.  The action is at the Congressional level.  Whining about Obama is a waste of time.  Obama can't create this legislation.  Get to work.  Okay, by all means, FAX the WH, email the President.   But it is MUCH more important that we create the MSM MEDIA perception for these "representatives" that a vote against the public option is a vote against Americans.  We have to make sure that they understand that they will be vilified IN THE MSM.  So all of you who hate the MSM--too bad.  The MSM is what Congressmen care about.  So we have to care about it too. 

We need the equivalent of a Seattle, a Civil Rights gathering in Washington, a boycott, something dramatic.  And we need it quickly.  We need to scare the shit out of the Democrats so that they get their act together.   For example, we could to take out a full page ad in the NYT that is endorsed by MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS saying 1) we want public option; 2 ) we won't vote for any incumbent who doesn't support public option; and 3) we will not give a DIME to the DNC or DSCC if a public option doesn't emerge in September. I don't give a f*** that Rahm Emmanuel thinks liberals shouldn't attack Conservative Democrats.  Rahm wants to pass something--f*** him.  We want REAL health care reform. 

If you live in Louisiana, you need to get organized now against Landrieu as well as Vitter.  If you live in Montana, you need to get organized against Baucus.  Get organized against Conrad.  Picket their offices, picket their homes, create media events to get yourselves on TV.  Find your most articulate and best spokespeople and demand to be on your local TV station.  77% of us want this option.  How DARE they deny us?  I agree wholeheartedly with the post (sorry, I can't remember who posted it today--whoever you are, you rock) that the MSM only reports what people say to them.  So start talking!

I'm an older person, not a very creative person.  But I know that there are many of you out there who are great organizers, talented communicators, savvy with media, and creative as all get out.  so HELP!  This is the defining issue of our day, not just because it's about health care but because it's also about whether a tiny minority of completely amoral jerks can get their greedy ways simply because the rest of us let them. 

Okay, that's the rant.

Yep, in a CBC poll, Canadians voted for Tommy Douglas as the Greatest Canadian of all time. Tommy Douglas is the man who brought Canada universal health care, labor rights, and a host of other progressive (and compassionate) legislation resulting in better lives for Canadians.  Not a sports figure, not a celebrity, not a flash politician.  A hard-working progressive who lived his values and made a better world for his compatriots.

Now I live in Canada a few months of the year in a rural area where health care is far from perfect.  In rural Canada, it is hard to provide enough doctors and nurses, hard to keep hospitals staffed, and sometimes just hard to get to the place where the health care is provided.  And people do complain about that.  But if you ask them would they give up their universal health care for the US system of private insurance, they look at you with pity or as if you are crazy. 

You see, they don't pay anything for health care here (apart, of course, from taxes), and that includes senior residence living and home health nurses.

As I said, it's not perfect.  But it provides something that is crucial in their lives.  The people I live among all summer long are rural working poor.  They are fishermen and farmers in a failing economy.  They have to go on unemployment during the winter months.  They are self-sufficient, hard-working people, who have very little money.  They work hard, they re-purpose and re-cycle, they make use of the natural resources that are available to feed themselves and shelter themselves.  And yet they don't worry about whether their children will get help if they get sick; they don't worry about what will happen to them when they get old; they don't worry about having to choose among rent, food, and medicine.  There is a basic sense of justice, fairness, and security:  ALL Canadians deserve and get basic medical care. 

I think that it is for making possible  that sense of security and fairness that Tommy Douglas is so beloved.   

I don't like to complain about the Democratic National Committee but I just have to.  Today I am being asked by Organizing for America (which is the DNC's web outreach arm) to commit to a dollar a day to defeat the anti-health care reform types in Congress.  The only obstructionists mentioned are Republicans.  But the Republicans aren't really the problem, are they?  According to the numbers, we don't need the Republicans to pass these reforms.  It's the Democrats who are in the way.

So, why should I give money to the DNC when they are going to turn around and give it to Mary Landrieu and Max Baucus at the next election cycle?  

When is the DNC going to come out and say that not one dime will go to these industry prostitutes? 

Now if Krugman's suspicions are correct that these obstructionists are in the pockets of big Pharma and the insurance industry and/or planning to become lobbyists for them, then it's not clear that such a threat would do much.  I don't know if the DNC gives each Senatorial candidate as much money as the pharmaceutical companies do (anyone?).  But it would send a pretty clear signal to the Democrats to get their act together now.  What is Howard Dean waiting for?

Several posters (thanks Greg Greene) have pointed out that OFA's website now does permit one to express support for a public option.  This is a new option--my post was based on my experience with OFA last week.  So, I retract the post, but not the point that we have to be on our toes about expressing our support for public option, a point that Synchronicity makes very well in the comment to my original post.

It seems that everyone is speculating on the future of the Republican party as one "star" after another goes down in flames.  The primary reason for the lack of real political talent in the Republican party in my view is due to their inability to develop a real farm team system.   The Democrats farm team system  includes community organizers, labor organizers, local school board members and city council members, scientists and educators, doctors and lawyers, among others who work "in the field" to solve real problems.  Democrats tend to look for people who have experience in the real world, people who show the ability to get things accomplished by applying intelligence, insight, and learning.  Republicans (now) look for people who look good, toe the ideological line,  have money (or know how to engage in practices that accumulate money--legal and illegal), and can grab the spotlight in any way whatsoever.  So the Republicans have no sense of the staying power, or character, or abilities of their players:  they've never really seen them in action, except as ideological parrots or media figures.   They've never been tested on the field, so to speak.  The old GOP, with its old style conservatives, had public servants in their ranks.  That proud tradition is gone--and with it the ability to vet new talent.  Now the Republicans WITH a farm team system no doubt would look for different abilities than Democrats would, but at least they would know their men and women and be less likely to be surprised by the shallow characters they encounter.  The baseball metaphor is probably not as felicitous as it used to be, given the characterological problems with some baseball stars who came up through the farms!  But I think the basic principle holds.  Know your people, test them on the ground, observe them in action--and in combination/confrontation with others. 

I've been thinking that it's about time that we got together to bribe those Senators and Representatives to vote for the change we voted in last November--and in particular the public option (why not even single payer?) health care reform.  I'm particularly interested in re-bribing those Democratic members of Congress -- and some otherwise sensible Republicans--who have sold out to big Pharma and insurance companies for the sake of campaign donations.  What if we got together a majority (necessarily bipartisan, given the 70% approval for a public option), targeted these key people, and GUARANTEED them our vote, obviating the need for campaign financing at all.  That's right.  Bribe them with a guaranteed win.  They don't seem to respond to threats of not being re-elected.  Let's make campaign financing a thing of the past for the Senators and Congresspeople we want to keep--then we can turn our attention to campaign finance reform that has some teeth.  Just a thought.  Bribery.

Josh has implicitly raised the question that I asked last week:  why doesn't the US use this opportunity to set up a government-owned central bank?  TTarleton replied to my post with the notion that the Federal Reserve is our central bank.  Although the Reserve shares a lot of the same functions as government-owned central banks, it is not the same kind of entity as the central banks in most developed countries.  The Reserve is a system of privately owned banks with a board of people from those banks. 

A central bank that is government-owned (like the Bank of Canada) regulates private banks, regulates the money supply, and has such large liquid assets at its command that it can intervene directly.  The Fed needs an Act of Congress (TARP anyone?) to take the kind of action that the Royal Bank took. 

The market ideology of the US has mitigated against such banks.  The Fed was set up as a kind of compromise between those who wanted a government-owned bank and those who did not.  Again, it does serve many of the same functions.  But because the people running the government now (and under Obama) are conservatives market types, it is unlikely that they will seize this opportunity.

And it is an opportunity that is worth talking about.  Better (not necessarily more, but smarter) regulation, nimbler response, more revenue for taxpayers, and above all, greater stability in the market.  Here's one example I've heard:  if the US government had a central bank--with all the assets and liquidity that go with it--then if short sellers were ganging up on an otherwise sound company to drive its stock down, the bank could intervene and buy such massive quantities of stock that the shortsellers would not be able to destroy the company.  Currently the market is not reflecting the true value of many of the companies on the exchange--this is not due solely to the exotic securitization that led to the mortgage finance collapse but also to the abilty of heavily capitalized hedge funds to throw their weight around regardless of underlying fundamentals.  Only a government-owned bank would have the ability and the incentive to offset these destabilizing efforts.

Of course, free-market ideologues will consider such interventions to be anathema.  Even Josh seems to think (reflexively) that government ownership of banks should be short-lived (why, exactly, Josh?).  But wouldn't a central bank buying assets for the taxpayers (I don't mean Treasuries but other banks, buying stocks in companies, etc.)  be better than simply throwing taxpayer money at banks in the hopes that they will start lending again (and when they don't, throwing more money at them)? 

I would like to hear someone like Krugman weigh in on these issues.  Thanks for bringing them up again, Josh.   

I know several economists--not tied to any particular political party--who are suggesting that the time has come for the US to have a central bank, like other civilized countries do.  Why not use the Citigroup bailout as the tool?  Buy Citigroup for the country, turn it into our national bank, and let the other banks come to terms with that.  We will have stability, we will staunch the flow of handouts to bankers (Citigroup management included), and we will set up the conditions for continuing regulation of credit. 

Could someone explain why this is NOT a good idea?

With the economic disaster taking its proper center stage role, and the intense interest in who will be selected for Secretary of State, perhaps it is just asking too much that anyone pay attention to some of the other possible cabinet picks.  But if we can, let's keep our eyes on some other balls. 

Rumor in New Orleans has it that President-elect Obama is considering tapping Mayor Nagin for Housing Secretary:  Nagin is presumed to have done a good job after Katrina.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The failures after Katrina occurred at all levels of government, to be sure, with the federal government's negligence being the most egregious.  However, Nagin has been completely ineffective.  More than that, he has been mostly absent.  Following Katrina, he moved the mayoral election forward several months, ostensibly to allow more people to return to the city and vote (despite the fact that people were permitted to vote from their temporary homes in other states) and to work on his "plan."  We were told that he would have a plan for the city within 100 days after his election.  Months later, we were told that he was developing a plan to make a plan and that the plan for the plan would be available in a few months.  It is now mid-November 2008, and he still has not presented any plan, not even a plan for a plan for the recovery of New Orleans.  About a year and a half ago (that is, a year and a half AFTER Katrina), he hired an academic, Dr. Ed Blakely, to head the recovery.  This week we learned that Dr. Blakely spends less than 50% of his time in the city or on recovery-related business, devoting himself instead to research for his academic career.  Mind you, no one was heading the recovery BEFORE Ed Blakely. 

Most people do not realize that New Orleans is far from "recovered."  Many neighborhoods are virtually empty.   Whole sectors of the city are still protected by the National Guard rather than police.  Many fire stations have not been rebuilt.   We talk about these areas of the city as the wild west frontier--lots of squatters, meth labs, criminals living in empty buildings.  People who try to rebuild find that as fast as building materials are delivered, they are stolen.

Nagin is a folksy guy, and he used to seem fairly intelligent.  But he has done virtually nothing for this city, spending most of his time immediately after Katrina convincing people who had emigrated to Houston and Atlanta to vote for him.  He does not communicate with the people of the city.  Occasionally we see him on the news talking to the city council about his budget, but he has not exhibited any leadership since the storm at all.   He refused free help from major urban planning organizations.  He summarily rejected several great ideas for bringing attention, materials, and planning efforts to the city.  This city has been rebuilt, to the extent that it has, solely on the efforts of its citizens and a host of volunteers from around the country.  Nagin's administration hasn't even cleaned up the blighted properties owned by the government.  He effectively supported Congressman WIlliam Jefferson, the politician who was caught by the FBI with $90,000 of cash hidden in his freezer collected in a scam to reward his own family when he doled out lucrative government contracts to Nigerian companies.  Jefferson has no committee assignments now and so can do nothing to help the city.  One must wonder why Nagin did not throw his support behind another viable candidate. 

But perhaps worst of all, he is a terrible manager.  He hires unqualified people, he does not supervise them or require them to do their jobs, he is constantly at odds with other elected officials whom he needs to work with him, and he is impulsive.  He has done nothing to solve the housing crisis--or even to begin to address the housing crisis--in this city after Katrina or in this current economic downturn.  I can't think of a worse choice for this position. 

Anyone who has Obama's ear should make sure that Clarence R. Nagin is a name that never is considered for any position in the new administration.   Come on down here, President-elect Obama, and talk to the citizens of New Orleans.  Take it from us, you do not want this guy on your team.  

We need to stop referring to the Democratic plan (or deal) as the BAILOUT.  There are three proposals--they must be distinguished.

Step one is to acknowledge the reality of the credit crisis that can in fact create a world-wide depression.  

Step two is to explain The CAUSE of this crisis-- the complete idiocy of ideologic Republic market philosophy which has now demonstrated its utter failure.

Step three is to clarify the differences between:

Plan 1 = WHITE HOUSE BAILOUT OF WALL STREET
    The Paulson plan that takes $700 billion and puts it in the pockets of Wall Street with no oversight or regulation.  Calms the markets but does nothing to address the cause of the problem--the abject failure of Reaganomics "no government intervention in markets"

Plan 2 = DEMOCRATIC FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
    This plan promotes prudent government buyouts of selected enterprises.  It is phased, so that only the amount of taxpayer money necessary to stabilize the market is injected at any given time.  In return for their money, taxpayers get ownership in these enterprises.  And taxpayers get regulations of the market to insure that this crisis can't happen again.  The markets get reassurance.

Plan 3 = House Republican Reaganomics
    The House Plan is against both Plan 1 (too much government involvement) and Plan 2 (too much government regulation).  The House plan does NOTHING to calm the markets (can't solve the crisis) and returns us to the philosophy of absolute non-regulation which created the crisis. 

STOP calling the Democratic plan a deal with the White House or a BAILOUT.  While both may be true, such language fails to clarify the actual differences, advantages, and disadvantages of the plans.

Today on HuffPo Donald Sutherland directs our attention to the NYTimes OpEd piece on the effect that Terry MacAuliffe seems to be having on the Obama campaign. (see below for link)
He offers the scary interpretation of Obama's turn to the right-- that it is a strategy on the part of the Clintonites to discourage Obama's progressive supporters, weakening them sufficiently so that the "on hold" Clinton candidacy can make a comeback.  
Whether this is a conscious strategy or not, it does seem worthy of remark that it  only after the Obama/Clinton rapprochement took place,  that Obama has been weighing in on a number of issues (some unnecessarily) which position him to the right.  Do any TPMers know enough about MacAuliffe strategies and positions to comment on this?  Coincidence?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080707/cm_huffpost/111222;_ylt=AsUcfG.l.B6vCwB_Mf0FTaWs0NUE

Today on HuffPo Donald Sutherland directs our attention to the NYTimes OpEd piece on the effect that Terry MacAuliffe seems to be having on the Obama campaign. (see below for link)
He offers the scary interpretation of Obama's turn to the right-- that it is a strategy on the part of the Clintonites to discourage Obama's progressive supporters, weakening them sufficiently so that the "on hold" Clinton candidacy can make a comeback.  
Whether this is a conscious strategy or not, it does seem worthy of remark that it seems to be only after the Obama/Clinton rapprochement took place,  that Obama has been weighing in on a number of issues (some unnecessarily) which position him to the right.  Do any TPMers know enough about MacAuliffe strategies and positions to comment on this?  Coincidence?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080707/cm_huffpost/111222;_ylt=AsUcfG.l.B6vCwB_Mf0FTaWs0NUE