On Tuesday my home state passed two progressive tax increases in a special election to bridge our huge budget deficit.  Thats right, voters raised taxes-something we haven't done that since 1930.  After months of scary ads from both sides the Voters decided that the cuts to education and social services were more important then slightly raising business taxes and income taxes on those making more then 125,000$ a year (needless to say that income bracket wasn't very happy about this, and they spent a lot to try and defeat it).  

Check out what sensible republican Bruce Babbit Bartlett says about the vote:

This vote is considered a bellwether because the state has previously been supportive of tax limitation measures. Also, it appears that populist anger, which has previously been channeled toward the anti-tax tea party movement, may have the potential to swing in the other direction when people are faced with cuts in programs with wide support.

I can easily see many tea party goers becoming rabid tax-the-rich folks if the alternative is higher taxes on them. Let us not forget that just about a year ago many of the House of Representatives' most conservative members voted to impose a 90 percent tax rate on bank bonuses. As I noted at the time, those supporting this confiscatory tax measure included Eric Canter, Peter Hoekstra and Paul Ryan.

Oregon is considered fairly liberal, but like any sensible people we don't like taxes.  In fact we have voted a sales tax down 9 times, and this is the first time in modern memory that we have voted to increase income taxes.  We also have voted numerous tax limitation measures in through the years most notably measure 5- a property tax limit similar to California's devastating prop 13 (which has not only hamstrung revenue raising in that state for 30 years, but also added fuel to their spectacular property boom...and ongoing bust).  The truth is that outside of Portland Oregon's populace is mostly moderate conservatives and we owe our current hue of deep blue more to the republicans southern strategy and w's incompetence, then our intrinsic hippidom (well except for Eugene).  

What won this election was smart progressive messaging that blanketed the airwaves and spoke to voters like adults.  While Nike, the Oregonian, and Ari 'I will lie to your face and I don't give a shit' Flischer's 'freedomwatch' spent millions on scaremongering ads with doomsday themes and omninous soundtracks, Unions and Progressive Democrats worked together to present a strong campaign that addressed the complex problems of our economic times.  Public workers discussed cut backs and forced furloughs and then calmly presented the cuts that would happen if we didn't pass the measures. In the end voters chose to tax the rich rather then keep killing the schools.  
I confess I was a little surprised at the outcome- I mean Oregon voters just don't raise taxes. I think that there are two lessons the rest of the country should take from this election.  Populism presented calmly works, but it needs to be clearly explained.  You need to fight the fearmongering of the tea party right (stoked by Fox's propaganda) with facts.  Loudly and repeatedly.  You can't cede the bully pulpit, you have to be just as loud as they are (but not as shrill).  This is the mistake that the Democrats have made in the last year, they have forgotten to that get any change in politics you need to always, always play offense. People will vote their best interests if they understand what that is.  
The second lesson, and one that I think the left needs to embrace nationally, is our 'Vote by mail' model.  Turnout favors democrats, and voting by mail is easy, done on your schedule (you have weeks to mull your decision).  It is also substantially cheaper for the state (and special bonus for the truthers out there- no diebold machines!).  I know that a lot of people have some civic romanticism about pulling a lever and of course political strategists love to game elections but get over it.  Voting at some stupid booth, often with lines and in inclemental weather, is simply a pain in the ass. Most people don't do it, we have busy lives.  The poor and the elderly are most likely not to make it- those are votes we need. If this election had been a standard special election, I really don't know how it would have gone.  Progressives nationwide should embrace this model to increase turnout nationally.

Update- Conservative Bruce Bartlett, not Clinton era interior sectary Bruce Babbit.

Bankers are having a record year for bonuses thanks to the taxpayers largess and we are pissed. So Obama proposes to punish the big mean banks with a tax on institutions with over 50 billion in assets (maybe 117 billion over ten years!!!- who cares about interest).  I am sure they are quaking in their boots.

Can anyone explain to me why this tax won't simply be passed on to customers?  This doesn't hit shareholders, or executives, but the institutions themselves.  Which means we will pay for it and the MBA pricks that figure out how best to pass it on will be rewarded with bonuses. That, yep, we pay for.  This is the best populism the democrats can do?  Wow, We are so fucked. 

This is total bull shit.  Tax the bonuses directly.  Progressive dems in the house have proposed a 50% tax on bank bonuses.  Britain is doing it, France is doing it. It's the right policy, because it punishes those who are in charge now, not a decade from now. You know the ones that caused the meltdown.  It also comes out of their pocket, not ours (which the fee will do). So what does our fearless leader say:

"We're already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair," he said. "That by some twisted logic it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses."

Never mind that we are going to also pay the new tax through either fees or continued suppressed lending. Oh but wait it gets better:

The administration has opposed taxing bonuses in the past, saying shareholders should determine corporate pay policies. Mr. Obama, in his remarks, suggested that his proposal to tax some of banks' assets could have the same effect, by forcing them to shrink the size of their bonuses in turn.

What sophistry! This is cynicism at the highest level. We will pay for these fees.  Any idioit with half a brain knows this, but this is being presented to us as a populist anti-banker. Fuck you Obama do you think we are that stupid.  Yes, I guess you do.

Tax the bonuses directly.  That money is not earned, unless you completely ignore what has actually been going on in the last year- without TARP they would all be under.  After we saved them we let them borrow directly from the Fed at 0% and then lend back to us at whatever interest rate they can get away with (4% to 75% seems the range).  Then for good measure the Federal Reserve went ahead and purchased trillions of dollars worth of their toxic assets at full price.  And just to be safe we suspended 'mark to market' accounting so that right now there are literally millions of bank owned houses and condos sitting empty but listed at full price as an asset (even though they are worth half that).  All the while they enjoy the full assurance of a Federal government 

It would be impossible for these greedy bastards not to make money. Literally impossible.  So they did, big surprise.

Our cynical do nothing solution- lets implement a 12 year tax that you can be damn sure the banks will let us know about (and republicans will run on how it continues to suppress the economy).  Why?  To prove you are a gutless sell out? Do a 1 year tax on the fucking bastards that did this to us and be done with it.  That is real populism. Let the republicans defend that.  Good luck.  The midterms would be a whole lot smoother, and 2012 would bode well.  Instead, we get this convoluted cyclical gesturing, that pleases no one.

Just tax the bonuses.
Oh finish HCR and pass some job bills you idiots.

Related:
Simon Johnson argues we should go even further here

 

Today in the New York times Bob Herbert laments about changing the world.  Bob is very disturbed that we seem to be so passive in the face of our crumbling society.  There are many likely causes to this 'paralysis', but here I would like to argue one that I don't think gets much attention- Debt.

Herbert opens with a the tragic story of Andrew Goodman- a young idealist who went to Mississippi in 1964 to fight on the front lines of the Civil Rights campaign, but was then murdered by the Ku Klux Klan.  He contrasts this sad, but noble story with today's society.
 

Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.

This is so wrong. It is the kind of thinking that would have stopped the civil rights movement in its tracks, that would have kept women in the kitchen or the steno pool, that would have prevented labor unions from forcing open the doors that led to the creation of a vast middle class.

Bob then pivots to shift the blame where he thinks it lies:

This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.

I am not so sure that that is the correct diagnosis, in fact I think personal responsibility might be at the heart of our passivity.  In 1964, the same year that Andy Goldman set out to fight for civil rights, Eric Berne wrote a bestselling book, Games People Play.  In it he identified 5 life games, or patterns of behavior that are often destructive and can bedevil individuals throughout their lifetime but they have hidden psychological rewards.  Berne's fifth game, Debtor:

"Debtor is more then a game. In America it tends to become a script, a plan for a a whole lifetime just as it does in some of the jungles of Africa and New Guinea. There the relatives of a young man buy him a bride at an enormous price putting him in their debt for years to come. In America the big debt is a mortgage: the role of relatives is taken by the bank.  Paying off the mortgage gives the individual a purpose in life." 

Margaret Atwood (whose book Payback I lifted the above reference from) points out that Mortgage means "dead pledge" in French (How especially fitting today that 1 in 5 owe more then their houses are worth, and 1 in 9 is in foreclosure).  Bob asks where is the sense of outrage and I think that part of it is that we are scared to lose what little we have.  But I also think that there is a sense of shame that causes us to clam up.  Not shame for the country, but shame that we did actually take advantage. 

Occasionally we did refi that mortgage to buy that new car or max out the credit cards for that vacation.  We didn't mean to, but everybody was doing it and prices of everything just kept rising, but wages just didn't seem to keep up.  So we sometimes dipped into the house equity (after all we did it once in the 90's and everything seemed fine), or pulled out the credit cards- we started relying on it even though we knew it was wrong. I think this is a reason why a lot of Americans don't feel they can say anything, or are too scared to rock the boat.  It is because we are deep in debt and just praying it will go away. 

If we make a lot of noise then soon you will ask us our personal situation and yes, we know, we made mistakes.   Not only do we have that house to pay for- but also that occasional luxury we couldn't quite afford and always knew that their would be a payback- and now it has come. So we shut our mouths.

But there is another aspect of our shift into an indebited society that is retarding the development of social movements.   This is one where the victims didn't get to enjoy much of the 'party'.   Times have advanced in the forty ought years since Berne published and today debt is much more widespread.  And thanks to the miracles of financial innovation we also have debt instruments like 7 year auto loans, credit cards given to you for your 18th birthday, and most pernicious to democratic society: Student Loans. 

In human society it is usually the youth that are the agents of change.   With their invincibility complexes and zealous idealism kids like 20 year old Andrew Goodman are willing to go out and try to make a difference in the world.  These are the ground soldiers who do the grunt work and provide the energy to social movements that Bob Herbert pines for.  But today, like those New Guinea husbands strangled by the guilt strings of the dowry, we trap those kids in deep in debt, usually well before they are fully developed enough to rent a car.

The average undergraduate student graduates with nearly 23,000 in student loan debt, graduate students 45,000 (bonus debt: half of all undergrads have 4 or more credit cards!- with an average debt of $3,173).  Don't even ask about our doctors or lawyers-suffice to say that they aren't going to be volunteering much.  And taking that public service job is akin to the priesthood lifetime vow of poverty.  

Jeffrey Willams recently put forth a provocative article in Dissent Magazine, Student Loan and the spirt of indenture.  In it he examines student loans as a new form of indentured servitude.  Both targeted the upward mobility desires of the working class, both had large middleman industries that developed that profited immensely for little risk (or in today's case- No Risk!!), both are for set lengths of term, and most significantly both are debt secured not by property but by personhood- with NO LEGAL RECOURSE (unlike all other debt- you can not bankrupt from student loans).  

College student-loan debt has revived the spirit of indenture for a sizable proportion of contemporary Americans. It is not a minor threshold that young people entering adult society and work, or those returning to college seeking enhanced credentials, might pass through easily. Because of its unprecedented and escalating amounts, it is a major constraint that looms over the lives of those so contracted, binding individuals for a significant part of their future work lives. Although it has more varied application, less direct effects, and less severe conditions than colonial indenture did (some have less and some greater debt, some attain better incomes) and it does not bind one to a particular job, student debt permeates everyday experience with concern over the monthly chit and encumbers job and life choices.

But that is the cost of getting ahead if you are middle class here in America, so shut your mouth.  You signed on that line.  Take responsibility for your actions, and whatever you do don't yell at your betters- you need them to give you a job.  

And your parents- well they deserved it.  They shouldn't have borrowed that money either.  Sure they felt guilty that they wanted to provide you with more then they could afford but now its payback time.   Maybe they started that business that couldn't make it, or god forbid tried to flip a house at the end of the bubble.

Here are some more Credit Card stats (there are lots more on this site).

At the end of 2008, Americans' credit card debt reached $972.73 billion. The average outstanding credit card debt for households was $10,679 at the end of 2008.

The average credit card indebted young adult household now spends nearly 24 percent of its income on debt payments.

And small businesses (which comprise 70% of US jobs).

44 percent of small-business owners identified credit cards as a source of financing that their company had used in the previous 12 months --- more than any other source of financing, including business earnings

So America shuts up, because we know- its our fault.

(Update- I corrected the spelling of Andrew Goodman (not Goldman)

From the Nytimes:

The Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives... The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, theAmerican International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

Hey look Obama finally decided to throw the raving populists a bone.  Okay, so Citigroup and BofA are insolvent publicly owned banks, and GM and Chrysler are essentially government jobs programs for our former industrial heartland, but at least AIG is nominally gratefying:

At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.

But what about the two companies that 'innovated' the very products that brought the world's economy to its knees?  You know the ones that knowingly gamed AIG?  


The ones that most benefited from the bailout and continue to make massive profits borrowing money from the fed at 0% and then giving it back to us at 3% to 4%.  They needed our cash too and now with their amazing risk skills they are taking candy from a baby and rubbing our faces in it. And who knows what the secret hedge fund bastards have been doing with their insane wealth to play the win-win no 'moral hazard' game that TARP and the Fed's printing press at the discount window has created (its a secret-shhh, just like derivatives need to be).


Thanks to Giethner and Summers and the revolving door for wall street elites, those companies are protected.  And so far it doesn't look like their will be any new Pecora commission with real investigations, much less trials, or jail time.   Nope its looking like we are going to get the head's of a few second rate schmucks and some watered down show regulations while taxpayers keep getting hosed (but thanks to lack of media coverage they seem to like it).  Hell even our TPM resident republican and former hedge fund trader mcbill is pissed.


Any company that took TARP funds should forfeit dividends and bonuses.  Period.  I don't really care that those contracts are already written and the cool kids already won, that money was not theirs. I don't care how hard they worked it over they already broke the whole fucking system.  But instead of Justice Obama and company are going to kick those second rate losers that were dumb enough to go into the car business or not pretty enough to get hired at Goldman or JP.   


For those keeping track we have so far given away 573 billion in the TARP bailout.  Thats right BILLION in 2009 dollars.  (check out http://bailout.propublica.org/  Propublica is doing great work tracking this).  And don't forget that there is the Fed's magic balance sheet which has quietly given the banks trillions, with no easy way to unwind.   But the MSM is bored and doesn't really understand how all that stuff works anyway so they are worried about 1 trillion a decade from now from Health care reform.  Great work guys! and I know it is way to much to ask you to investigate the impact of suspending 'mark to market' on balance sheets.  But then you might learn something very scary.  We can't have that, I mean, its almost Halloween.


All this money came from our taxes, now and future.  Instead of Jobs, or Health Care, or even basic infrastructure, we have madly subsidized the richest among us.  While right now we are destroying both the credit worthiness and employability of tens of millions.  Maybe journalists will start paying attention when their jobs are all gone.


You're welcome Wall Street. You deserve it.  For Like W before you are continuing the fine tradition of proving that in America Chutzpah is worth more then, well, everything else.  

I have a confession to make:  I love Lewis Lapham.   Yes he is often lampooned, (in particular Slate loves to mock his predictable pretentiousness) but I don't care.   I don't mind his occasional over the top metaphor or searing indignation at the idiocy of it all: why haven't we learned this yet?   Sure I often get angry too, but mostly I find his writings comforting-I like being reminded that there is a long view.  I simply love history.  That the same tiresome games of war and hubris are constantly replayed is certainly distressing, but it seems to me that the overall trend is clear- we are getting better.  We do slowly learn even if every two steps forward are often accompanied by a huge step backwards.

So When Mr. Lapham left his perch as editor of Harper's and started Lapham's Quarterly, I signed up immediately.  Each quarterly devoted to a particular topic and includes a series of disparate historical pieces from throughout the world (and time) around that theme.  The outrageously priced magazines are also beatiful, lushly printed on a heavy stock with a clean layout punctuated with tasteful maps and art.  Often I admit I don't get a chance to read them all but I skim them and give a good effort (between books, friends, TPM cafe!, and working- well time is short).  Maybe I am just an naive armchair wannabe, but I am fine with that.  The world is more intersting, and more hopeful.

Last night I read this piece and for some reason I found it quite moving.  From This quarter's issue:  Elizabeth Backwell Gains Admission.  (I have chosen not to blockquote it for ease of reading)

While making applications to the different medical colleges of Philadelphia for admission as a regular student, I enlisted the services of my friends in the search for an alma mater. The interviews with the various professors, though disappointing, were often amusing.

May 27
Called on Dr. Jackson (one of the oldest professors in Philadelphia), a small, bright-faced, gray-haired man, who looked up from his newspaper and saluted me with, "Well, what is it? What do you want?" I told him I wanted to study medicine. He began to laugh, and asked me why. Then I detailed my plans. He became interested, said he would not give me an answer then--that there were great difficulties, but he did not know that they were insurmountable; he would let me know on Monday. I came home with a lighter heart, though I can hardly say hope. On Monday, Dr. Jackson said he had done his best for me, but the professors were all opposed to my entrance. Dr. Horner advised me to try the Filbert Street and Franklin schools. A professor of Jefferson College thought it would be impossible to study there and advised the New England schools.

June 2
Felt gloomy as thunder, trudging round to Dr. Darrach. He is the most noncommittal man I ever saw. I harangued him, and he sat a full five minutes without a word. I asked at last if he could give me any encouragement.

"The subject is a novel one, madam, I have nothing to say either for or against it; you have awakened trains of thought upon which my mind is taking action, but I cannot express my opinion to you either one way or another."

"Your opinion, I fear, is unfavorable."

"I did not say so. I beg you, madam, distinctly to understand that I express no opinion one way or another; the way in which my mind acts in this matter I do not feel at liberty to unfold."

"Shall I call on the other professors of your college?"

"I cannot take the responsibility of advising you to pursue such a course."

"Can you not grant me admittance to your lectures, as you do not feel unfavorable to my scheme?"

"I have said no such thing; whether favorable or unfavorable, I have not expressed any opinion, and I beg leave to state clearly that the operation of my mind in regard to this matter I do not feel at liberty to unfold." I got up in despair, leaving his mind to take action on the subject at his leisure.

The fear of successful rivalry which at that time often existed in the medical mind was expressed by the dean of one of the smaller schools, who frankly replied to the application, "You cannot expect us to furnish you with a stick to break our heads with," so revolutionary seemed the attempt of a woman to leave a subordinate position and seek to obtain a complete medical education. A similarly mistaken notion of the rapid practical success which would attend a lady doctor was shown later by one of the professors of my medical college, who was desirous of entering into partnership with me on condition of sharing profits over five thousand dollars on my first year's practice.

During these fruitless efforts my kindly Quaker adviser, whose private lectures I attended, said to me, "Elizabeth, it is of no use trying. You cannot gain admission to these schools. You must go to Paris and don masculine attire to gain the necessary knowledge." Curiously enough, this suggestion of disguise made by good Dr. Warrington was also given to me by Dr. Pankhurst, the professor of surgery in the largest college in Philadelphia. He thoroughly approved of a woman's gaining complete medical knowledge, told me that although my public entrance into the classes was out of the question, if I would assume masculine attire and enter the college, he could entirely rely on two or three of his students to whom he should communicate my disguise, who would watch the class and give me timely notice to withdraw should my disguise be suspected.

But neither the advice to go to Paris nor the suggestion of disguise tempted me for a moment. It was to my mind a moral crusade on which I had entered, a course of justice and common sense, and it must be pursued in the light of day, and with public sanction, in order to accomplish its end.

The following letter to Mrs. Willard of Troy, the well-known educationalist, describes the difficulties through which the young student had to walk warily:

Philadelphia, May 24.
I cannot refrain from expressing my obligations to you for directing me to the excellent Dr. Warrington. He has allowed me to visit his patients, attend his lectures, and make use of his library, and has spoken to more than one medical friend concerning my wishes; but with deep regret I am obliged to say that all the information hitherto obtained serves to show me the impossibility of accomplishing my purpose in America. I find myself rigidly excluded from the regular college routine, and there is no thorough course of lectures that can supply its place. The general sentiment of the physicians is strongly opposed to a woman's intruding herself into the profession; consequently, it would be perhaps impossible to obtain private instruction, but if that were possible, the enormous expense would render it impracticable, and where the feelings of the profession are strongly enlisted against such a scheme, the museums, libraries, hospitals, and all similar aids would be closed against me. In view of these and numerous other difficulties, Dr. Warrington is discouraged and joins with his medical brethren in advising me to give up the scheme. But a strong idea, long-cherished till it has taken deep root in the soul and become an all-absorbing duty, cannot thus be laid aside. I must accomplish my end. I consider it the noblest and most useful path that I can tread, and, if one country rejects me, I will go to another.

Through Dr. Warrington and other sources, I am informed that my plan can be carried out in Paris, though the free government lectures delivered by the faculty are confined to men, and a diploma is strictly denied to a woman--even when (as in one instance, it is said) she has gone through the course in male attire. Yet every year, thorough courses of lectures are delivered by able physicians on every branch of medical knowledge, to which I should be admitted without hesitation and treated with becoming respect. The true place for study, then, seems open to me; but here again some friendly physicians raise stronger objections than ever. "You, a young, unmarried lady," they say, "go to Paris, that city of fearful immorality, where every feeling will be outraged and insult attend you at every step--where vice is the natural atmosphere, and no young man can breathe it without being contaminated! Impossible. You are lost if you go!"

After a short, refreshing trip with my family to the seaside, the search was again renewed in Philadelphia. But applications made for admission to the medical schools both of Philadelphia and of New York were met with similarly unsuccessful results.

I therefore obtained a complete list of all the smaller schools of the northern states, "country schools," as they were called. I examined their prospectuses and quite at a venture sent in applications for admission to twelve of the most promising institutions, where full courses of instruction were given under able professors. The result was awaited with much anxiety, as the time for the commencement of the winter sessions was rapidly approaching. No answer came for some time. At last, to my immense relief (though not surprise, for failure never seemed possible), I received the following letter from the medical department of a small university town in the western part of the state of New York:

Geneva, October 20.

To Elizabeth Blackwell,

I am instructed by the faculty of the medical department of Geneva University to acknowledge receipt of yours of application. A quorum of the faculty assembled last evening for the first time during the session, and it was thought important to submit your proposal to the class (of students), who have had a meeting this day and acted entirely on their own behalf, without any interference on the part of the faculty. I send you the result of their deliberations--and need only add that there are no fears but that you can, by judicious management, not only disarm criticism, but elevate yourself without detracting in the least from the dignity of the profession.

Wishing you success in your undertaking, which some may deem bold in the present state of society, I subscribe myself,

Yours respectfully,

Charles A. Lee, Dean of the Faculty

This letter enclosed the following unique and manly letter, which I afterward copied on parchment, and esteem one of my most valued possessions:

At a meeting of the entire medical class of Geneva Medical College, held this day, October 20, 1847, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:

1. Resolved--That one of the radical principles of a republican government is the universal education of both sexes; that to every branch of scientific education the door should be open equally to all; that the application of Elizabeth Blackwell to become a member of our class meets our entire approbation; and in extending our unanimous invitation, we pledge ourselves that no conduct of ours shall cause her to regret her attendance at this institution.

2. Resolved--That a copy of these proceedings be signed by the chairman and transmitted to Elizabeth Blackwell.

--T. J. Stration, Chairman

With an immense sigh of relief and aspiration of profound gratitude to Providence, I instantly accepted the invitation, and prepared for the journey to western New York.

Leaving Philadelphia on November 4, I hastened through New York, traveled all night, and reached the little town of Geneva at 11 P.M. on November 6.

The next day, after a refreshing sleep, I sallied forth for an interview with the dean of the college, enjoying the view of the beautiful lake on which Geneva is situated, notwithstanding the cold, drizzling, windy day. After an interview with the authorities of the college I was duly inscribed on the list as student No. 130 in the medical department of the Geneva University.

Score one for United HealthCare and overpaid human resource chiefs.  Today my Senator, Ron Wyden threw full blown temper tantrum.  From the Oregonian:

"We have stripped this bill of choice and competition," Wyden told the Senate Finance Committee, minutes before withdrawing his amendment. He essentially conceded defeat on a measure he said was necessary to salvage a flawed bill.

"This amendment is an attempt to inject real reform in the bill," he said."Where in this bill does it give choice? I can't find it in this bill, colleagues."

So what happened last night?  What was the amendment?  Erza Klein:

The Senate Finance Committee finished its markup last night. Pretty much, anyway. It adopted a couple of important amendments, including one from Olympia Snowe cutting the penalties for the individual mandate to less than $800 per person. But the drama came late in the evening. About one in the morning, Wyden's Free Choice Act came before the committee. But it never came up for a vote.

Instead, Max Baucus effectively ruled it out of order. The reason? It didn't have a full CBO score. This came as a surprise to Wyden and his team, who'd gotten the amendment scored by the CBO, and had been in endless negotiations with Baucus, the White House, employers, and labor over the past week. If the score was in fact partial, as Baucus and Conrad claimed, you'd think someone might have mentioned it. No one did.

But suddenly, in the wee hours of Friday morning, the chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees were explaining that the amendment lacked a valid score. ANde an amendment without a valid score is "out of order." Wyden was left with little choice but to withdraw the amendment. It was not deliberative democracy at its finest. But it served its purpose: it killed the amendment.

Corporate lacky Max Baccus totally fucked Wyden through an in your face lie.   

Now throughout this healthcare 'insurance reform' debate, I have been quite hard on Senator Ron Wyden, who is pretty much the stereotypical democratic pussy (Even Baccus knows he's a pussy).  I am someone who believes our existing system is broken and needs a hatchet taken to it (while the corporate dems are convinced a scalpel and a few more $$$ will suffice). I want a single payer, or at the very least an vast expansion of Medicare.  I understand that this would mean a lot of hospitals, insurers, and other inefficient redundancies in our system would be put out of business, and frankly, I am fine with that (16% of GDP is insane, lets get it down to 10% and spend the money elsewhere). 

Wyden has been less then fulsome in his support of a public option and his various health care maneuverings and pronouncements have been, well, confusing.  I have left a couple of mean messages asking him to strongly support a public option and his lackluster support.  However after reading up on his Free Choice Act, I came to agree that if we are going to have a multiple insurance system then this is a needed policy change. Klein again:

If the Free Choice Act had passed, politicians could have made a very simple argument to the insured: When this bill becomes law, you will have insurance choices just like those enjoyed by a member of Congress or a government employee. You will have a variety of insurers competing for your business and the opportunity to keep the same insurance even as you change jobs, or fall unemployed, or open your own business. You don't have to take advantage of this if you don't want to. You can stick with what your employer offers. But if you do want the choice, you can have it. It's here for you. That's what reform means, for everyone: choices, competition and continuity.

So for the 175 million Americans who have to take whatever insurance their boss offers Wyden was trying  to introduce a measure that would allow them to choose.  This would break the medieval tie of employee to corporate job and free individuals to have control of their own healthcare.  If we are going to stick with the stupid insurance system we have then this seems like a great idea to me.   It would both free businesses to stop wasting resources on health care decisions and free workers to work the market.  

The fact that businesses were against is another classic case of American Business shooting itself in the foot.  From an economic point of view it really doesn't make any sense that businesses are in the health care business of their employees.  They should be dedicating their resources to their business.  Matt Miller in the Wall Street journal:

Mr. Wyden's proposal, the coalition asserts, would "fundamentally frustrate employers' attempts to administer integrated health improvement strategies." As a factual matter, this is incorrect. But why should "health improvement strategies" be the job of American businesses? Sounds more like a job for American doctors, in conjunction with their patients.

The status quo crowd also writes that Mr. Wyden's measure "would likely harm employer-employee relations because most employees have a longstanding expectation that their employer will be their primary source for health coverage." But employees already chafe at the shrinking coverage now available on the job. And who wouldn't want more options?

It's clear to anyone who looks that the edifice of employer-based coverage is crumbling. A recent survey sponsored by the Committee for Economic Development, a business-led think tank, showed that 62% of senior executives think the system is unsustainable. While the under-65 population has grown by 25 million since 1999, the number of people who get health care from their employers has declined. Numerous CEOs have told me privately that they'd just as soon get out of the benefits business altogether, which makes one wonder who the National Benefits Coalition really represents

And lets not even get into global competitiveness.

Classic American Business AND Labor Stupidity:  If its the government, unless its a handout we are against it.  Don't mess with the status quo, even if its killing us.

Update- Made some editing changes.  Sorry I need to get better about reading before posting. 

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...
-commonly, but mistakenly attributed to Voltaire

I want to start out by admitting I am loathe to write this post, for I don't know fully where it will lead, or even how I truly feel.  However this story has been on my mind a lot lately and since I have posted it as a comment in two previous blogs (Desi's first Van Jones rant, and then Rooties inflammatory Iraqi public option).  After South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson's outrageous outburst, I feel that I should just write it as a stand alone post and throw it out there. 

Let me confess that this story is not fully mine, and in fact, I am not the 'Joe Wilson' character at all.  However it deeply affected me and will always cause me to think twice about political debate, and the rules of civil decorum.  This is a personal story of a 'debate' on the Iraq war that I attended in spring 2005 between Howard Dean and Richard Perle in Portland, Or.   This was shortly after the devastating nailbaiter decided by Diebold machines in Southern Ohio, and I had (have) not fully recovered.  Howard Dean had been recently named the head of DNC and there was some controversy before the debate as he wanted his comments to be off the record (which didn't happen).

It was held in a large auditorium with tickets sold ahead of time.  The crowd was predominately middle class professionals with a sprinkling of students and of course some political diehards.  The debate was ostensibly about how policies in Iraq and it proceeded with the usual talking points that we all knew intimately in the year after the 2004 election. However it quickly devolved back to origins.  You know Dean making the strong left case that containment should have been the answer and that we only created more problems by going in.  Stirred up the hornets nest, but now the goal was to get out as quickly as possible.  Meanwhile Richard Perle just kept returning to the paramount threat that Saddam and WMD's meant to us and how we "had no idea what he had and that it was too important.... I set there in my sit and stewed in absolute anger.

I mean it was utter nonsense. WE had bombed the shit out of the country less then a decade ago, we investigated all the weapons facilities for most of those intervening years, we had spy satellites on every inch 24/7, we patrolled 2/3ds of it with "no fly zones" we blockaded Basra and confiscated the oil ships the smuggled every few weeks, and just for good measure we had been bombing suspect targets every month or so throughout that decade. Which was rarely ever reported in the US.   We had everything locked up. And here he was saying that we didn't have any of this knowledge. that the risk was too great. I was incredulous.

And then it happened. A 20 something student ripped off his shoes and threw them at Perle and started shouting "Liar. Liar. Liar". This lasted about 30 seconds and then he was muscled to the ground and dragged out (this was well before the famous Iraqi shoe thrower).  He was dragged out the doors but for the next 3 minutes we could still hear the muffled kid shouting liar. Perle gave a smirking laugh and then rolled his eyes.  Dean said nothing. Then the debate carried on as if nothing happened.

The crowd set there, mildly uncomfortable with nervous apprehension, later broken by a lame throwaway laugh a few minutes later by Dean.

I was so angry. The kid was right and a million are now dead.

But I sat there too.

Yesterday's outburst brought this story that has been on my mind into new light.  A breach of civil conduct, never before has the sitting president been so disrespected.  All because some white southerner is worried that maybe somewhere a poor brown person might get some medical help on his dime.  Wow.  How fucked is that?

But then that his what he cares about, and I find myself in shock and leaning towards Oleeb's excellent post demanding resignation.  But I think about that story and that moment and I pause.  

What if I were in the audience for any of these:.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Would I politely applaud?

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq".- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

Really?  So our military can't contain, but can easily conquer and occupy? And what the fuck is a terrorist state anyway? 

Would I protest?

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there". - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Would I scribe his words without question and broadcast them loudly accross the land?

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent.... The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

Really from Niger you say?  Joe Wilson you just got back what sayth you? 

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

Would I consider my shoe?

There are hundreds more.  All lies. Blatant outright lies:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But my point is not to rehash this battle.  They won it.  They lied and they have gotten away with everything and the strategic battlefield has irrevocably changed for the worse.  Iraq is becoming a colony of Iran.  I can't help but wonder how long that lasts.  Over one million dead, millions 'displaced' or forever maimed.

My question is would my protestations really be different from Joe Wilson's.  I say they are. 

I don't have the exact reasons, my philosophy days are too far behind me.  But there are orders of moral magnitude that make this a different case.  People will die or have died. That matters.  Alot.

This is why I consider equivalency of the teabaggers with the protests of Iraq to be foolish.  Why I think comparing the Birthers to the Truthers is lunacy.  Sure the Truthers might be distasteful, but we still don't know what happened that caused 3400 deaths.  Obama is from kenya- so what it doesn't kill anybody.

1,339,771 DEAD , and all Joe Wilson cares about is less taxes.
 
I would shout "You lie".  I wish more had.


 

Its a holiday weekend and here in my hometown of little Beirut we are currently enjoying our awesome annual Time Based Art festival.  Last night I went to an amazing performance of 10 tiny dances and it inspired me to lighten the cafe up a little with a few time-based art examples that I have come across in the last few months (well videos really).  

I know this might not be the standard issue political cafe post, but I like my TPM varied and interesting, and well occasionally even uplifting.  It's a cafe after all.   So consider this post some of the rotating art on the walls (you know next to the Yoga sign up sheets).

First up, a beautiful rendition of evolution.  From the artist's (Owen Gatley and Luke Jinks description:

A short animation loosely based on the scientific recording of life's great species. And how this has given us clues that piece together, for us to discover the secrets of the evolution and diversity of life on Earth.