“Everything that everyone is afraid of has already happened: The fragility of capitalism, which we don’t want to admit; the loss of the empire of the United States; and American exceptionalism. In fact, American exceptionalism is that we are exceptionally backward in about fifteen different categories, from education to infrastructure. But we’re in a stage of denial: we want to re-establish things as they used to be, to put the country back where it was.” — James Hillman
Most of the men I grew up with in Alabama and Georgia deny the veracity of climate change. They are unwilling to make the connection between their ownership (actually the bank’s) of SUVs and oversized pickup trucks and the super storms and massive floods that, now with alarming regularity, ravish the region. Read more
Lobby group speaks against public health care at AHIP* insurance forum
For those who understand that America is nothing but a formal democracy, the continuing scandal of US health care is no surprise. Still, the Obama team and the rest of the Democratic party leadership may have elevated the demagogic “soft approach” to containing the masses to an art form. Barack Obama, elected on a platform of “change—yes, we can” and other clever Madison Avenue mantras—has promised to fix (among other things) the American system of health delivery, but so far what we continue to see is just new variations of the old “bait & switch” approach to government, with more of the same bankrupt status quo hidden behind carefully cultivated smoke curtains.
Probably it would be delusional to expect something different at this point. Short of a mass political mobilization led by authentic reformers, not the centrist cabal we have just finished empowering, and without a large followership comprised of people capable of understanding the class nature of American society, no movement for real social change can make much headway in the United States, nor, for that matter, retain its political gains, least of all in a field such as health care, which packs a huge financial and strategic interest for the powers that be. Health care is therefore a litmus test for the democratic authenticity of the system; one that exposes in blinding clarity who calls the shots in America, and the answer is clear. For many decades now, completely unchallenged, the private health insurance and drug industries have literally kept an army of lobbyists and scores of key Congress members from both parties in their employ to do their bidding (although Republicans require little prodding), and even entire administrations (like the two Bushes’ and Reagan’s) have cheerfully served as pimps for the industry’s antisocial agenda. Rhetoric aside, Obama’s tenure is showing all the symptoms of the old disease.
Obama again disavows the single-payer (“Medicare-for-All”) option
Barack Obama is a lot smoother than his predecessors—smoother than “Slick Willie” some say, and that’s a tall bar—but fireworks notwithstanding, demagogy rules, and as pertains to health care reform you don’t need to be a political guru to see that the fix is in. The signs are all over on the Democrats’ side. Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-Montana), who, like all triangulating politicians doesn’t embrace a position without careful consultation with his accomplices, has declared in no uncertain terms that single-payer is out of the question. Why? State politics and personal preferences may account for some of the obtuseness—even malevolence— of that position, but it’s obvious Baucus is acting with Obama’s blessing. Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pretty much said the same. And Obama, sphinx-like till the last moment, has also declared that the single-payer option—by far the most sensible plan— is “off the table”.
No honest explanation has been given for this drastic and entirely arbitrary decision, except the same shopworn arguments trotted out time and again by the industry lobbyists and their Congressional shills. This time, however, the public is in a more combative mood, it now even includes segments of the business community, and the groups concerned with this issue are better organized and angrier. Michael Moore’s Sicko did wonders to ratchet up interest on this issue; it literally put the political and media class on the spot. Thus the denial of a fair discussion of single-payer, of even token representation at the table against a background of raised expectations, is sparking a deeper resistance, and the formation of a broad coalition that now includes a significant number of physicians and nurses, not exactly mere bystanders. The coalescing of such forces could not come a moment too soon. Barring a significant level of public agitation on this issue, Barack Obama isn’t likely to enact a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health plan. Instead, as the White House Web site promises, under the president’s proposed health plan, “if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes…” Sounds like Obama, all right.
Rally against health care industry representatives
“We believe the health insurance industry is trying to buy their way onto the table with health care reform,” said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog at a protest [May 15] against the American Health Insurance Plans’ 2009 Policy Forum. “We see this in two big points,” she went on to explain, “one which is a mandate that would require individuals to purchase private health insurance [the so-called Massachusetts model, a fiasco—Eds]… and secondly we know the insurance industry is trying to block any sort of public option for the American people. They don’t want the competition, so we’re here to call out the insurance industry for trying to buy Congress’ position.”
—Summary report prepared by Patrice Greanville
*What is AHIP?
We reproduce below the healthcare insurance lobby’s own statement of purpose. Noteworthy points and commentary are bolded and colored in bright blue.
America’s Health Insurance Plans is a national association representing nearly 1,300 members providing health benefits to more than 200 million Americans. AHIP and its predecessor organizations have advocated on behalf of health insurance plans for more than six decades.
AHIP’s principal purpose is to represent the interests of our members on legislative and regulatory issues at the federal and state levels, and with the media, consumers and employers. [Translation: Bribe politicians, fool consumers, and look out for the financial interest of our megacorporations.] We provide information and services, such as newsletters, publications, a magazine, and on-line services. [Read: We provide ample propaganda.] We conduct education, research, and quality assurance programs and engage in a host of other activities to assist our members. [We constantly research ways of marketing our bullshit.] All our programs are designed to serve our member organizations[Yea, first and foremost. Now you're talking truth] and to inform policy makers [Read: Bribe or twist the arm of policymakers] and the public about health care financing and delivery.
Our goal is to provide a unified voice for the healthcare financing industry, to expand access to high quality, cost effective health care to all Americans, and to ensure Americans’ financial security through robust insurance markets, product flexibility and innovation, and an abundance of consumer choice.
We present below a fine profile on Max Baucus, chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, penned by Ezra Klein, of The American Prospect.
The Sleeper of the Senate
As chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus could all but ensure the passage of a progressive social-policy agenda. Or he could be its biggest roadblock.
EZRA KLEIN | November 6, 2008
AT 3:45 P.M. ON THE FIRST DAY of the Democratic National Convention, Max Baucus, arguably the most consequential legislator in America, is not preparing for his big speech. In fact, he won’t be giving a speech. Nor is he holding court in one of the Pepsi Center’s sumptuously appointed luxury boxes. Rather, he’s a good 40-minute hike up Denver’s main drag, camped out in the back room of a dank little bar called City Grille (“Good Value. American Food. Great Place.”). His aides are folded into the booths, swirling the melting ice in their glasses. I’m in the bar for 10 minutes before I even know they’re there.
Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Staffers like to say that the committee is responsible for all the money the government raises and half of what it spends — and that’s not too far from the truth. It is the only Senate committee able to construct new funding streams, which gives it incredible authority over the country’s social-policy architecture. It has control over taxes and trade, Social Security and Medicare, health reform and unemployment benefits. Even a carbon-pricing bill would probably need its sign-off. “Everyone in Congress always worries they’ll end up on the Subcommittee for Acoustics and Ventilation,” jokes Sen. Ron Wyden, a Finance Committee member. “The Senate Finance Committee is the opposite. It’s the forum where the biggest financial decisions of our day come, and we have to figure [out] how to tackle them.”
For that reason, the leadership of the Finance Committee has traditionally produced legislative giants. Russell Long. Bob Dole. Bob Packwood. Lloyd Bentsen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. These men were darlings of the Sunday talk shows. They rivaled the power of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and they were tapped to fill presidential tickets. Max Baucus, however, is not a giant. He is a polite man with sensible silver glasses and a gentle handshake. He is roundabout in conversation, and punctuates his points by raising his eyebrows and smiling slightly, as if pleading with you to agree with him. He has served five terms as a senator from Montana, a state with one of the smallest populations in the union. Insofar as he has any national profile at all, it’s as a Democratic apostate. He partnered with Republican Chuck Grassley to craft President George W. Bush’s first tax cut and angered the Democratic leadership by refusing to consult them before the bill’s markup. He further infuriated his party by helping Republicans pass the Medicare prescription-drug bill even after they had locked the Democratic leadership out of conference committee. He voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill. For his sins, The Nation has branded him “K Street’s Favorite Democrat.” This magazine termed him “Bad Max.” The New Republic editorialized that he should be stripped of his chairmanship.
These are all facts about Baucus. But these are also facts: In 2005, when Bush seemed all but politically invincible, Harry Reid put Baucus in charge of the Democratic effort to block Social Security privatization. Baucus creamed Bush. Privatization never even came up for a vote. In July, the Senate was gridlocked over how to trim Medicare spending. Inaction would have triggered an automatic 10.6 percent pay cut to doctors and likely have caused many to stop treating Medicare patients, throwing the program into crisis. Democrats sought to slash reimbursements to private insurance companies that were charging 120 percent more per beneficiary than Medicare. The fix was blocked, in part by Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee and Baucus’ good friend. So Baucus cut Grassley out of the process, taking the bill directly to the floor and setting the stage for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s dramatic return to the Senate, where he cast the decisive vote.
This is the uncomfortable reality that will face the next administration. While most reformers have been obsessed with the policy details of the presidential campaign — health-care mandates or simple subsidies? tax cuts or credits? — much of the success of the next president’s agenda will, in truth, rely on the actions of one of the most experienced, inscrutable, and unpredictable politicians in the country. Over the next two years, Max Baucus could prove a progressive legislative giant. Or he could be Bad Max.
WHAT SO UNNERVES MOST OBSERVERS is that Baucus is not a creature they easily recognize. If he were a self-interested dealmaker like Alaska’s Ted Stevens or a raw opportunist like former Sen. John Breaux, dealing with him would involve nothing more than an assessment of his interests. If he were an impassioned crusader — even in the wrong direction — that would at least be a familiar archetype. But if Baucus is impassioned, he keeps it to himself. In this, he maps easily onto the culture of his committee, which is not traditionally friendly terrain for ideologues. Rather, it has housed many of the Senate’s most famous moderates and amassed a reputation as a bipartisan redoubt within an increasingly polarized Senate. “We were there to represent a national constituency,” recalls former Sen. Dave Durenberger, who served on Finance from 1978 to 1994. “The agenda was just too big, the jurisdiction too broad, and the agenda was too heavy for one party to carry.”
Baucus is, in many ways, a throwback to this lost era of bipartisan civility. Like Durenberger, he arrived on the Finance Committee in 1978, when it was chaired by the legendary Russell Long (when Republicans took control in 1981, Bob Dole, the new chair, quipped: “So who’s going to tell Russell Long?”), and served among moderate dealmakers like John Chaffee and Lloyd Bentsen. This bipartisan tradition is why, though the committee has not proved immune to the polarizing trends that have seized Congress, it remains a relatively functional institution.
But the committee’s bipartisanship is the result of more than simple high-mindedness. The reality is it cannot indulge gridlock. Elsewhere in the Senate, the battles are over new legislation. If bills are killed, the downside is that something doesn’t happen, and no one really notices. But the Finance Committee deals in mandatory money, expirations, and reauthorizations. These are bills that must be passed. If they fail, something stops happening — say, 35 million children get kicked off the State Children’s Health Insurance Program — and the voters cry out.
Moreover, on Finance, progress is often profitable. Elsewhere in Congress, there’s a certain political logic compelling the minority to obstruct legislative progress. Doing nothing is preferable to handing the other side an accomplishment. On Finance, however, the symbolic politics dissolve. When you’re responsible for raising massive revenues and passing necessary legislation, modifying the process is more attractive than grinding it to a halt. As one former Baucus staffer puts it, “In the health world, it’s often a good-versus-evil battle over the role of the government. The tax world is more like whoever’s at the table, we’ll make a deal and get you something.” That can mean wresting a small benefit for a home-state interest, or it can mean ensuring attention to a cherished issue.
That’s also what gives the finance chairman his power. Like other chairmen, he has the normal levers of committee control: He can schedule hearings, markups, and votes. He can write the first draft of legislation. But the breadth of the committee’s jurisdiction means it goes further than that. The chairman may pick a vote for the Medicare bill because the member is desperate to protect a priority in the tax bill. “Baucus is very good at that,” says one top former committee staffer, “at going to members and finding out what they need and what they want. He gets bombarded by members with pet issues. Every time he walks on the floor he comes back with 12 sticky notes. And he looks at that as a key way of putting legislation together. By the end, he has his staff assemble what everyone wants together on a single piece of paper so he can see it all.”
BUT MANAGING ALL THOSE STICKY NOTES, and preventing bills from getting bogged down in the deal-making, demands a lot from the chair. “The adjective that every chairman wants in front of their name is ‘tough,’ and it is rarely true,” says Lawrence O’Donnell, who served as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s chief of staff. Baucus is not known as tough. In fact, he’s generally been understood as scared — a senator paralyzed by an acute awareness of his own political mortality. Montana has voted for the Republican candidate in nine of the last 10 presidential elections. In 2000, Bush took the state by 25 points. For much of that time, Baucus was the only Democrat elected statewide. Survival was rarely assured, and so he has developed a political style suited to appeasing a skeptical electorate with a conservative bent.
His appetite for pork — and his skill at wresting it for his state — is so legendary that The Washington Post branded him a “High Plains grifter.” As one former Baucus staffer put it to me, “He’s like the city councilman for the state of Montana.” And, he’s well known for his tendency to break with the Democratic Party. In 2001, he was so instrumental in passing Bush’s tax cut that he stood behind the president at the bill-signing ceremony, a visual that featured prominently in his 2002 campaign ads. (In 2003, however, Baucus voted against the second round of tax cuts.) He voted to repeal the estate tax and earned a 70 percent approval rating from the Chamber of Commerce.
Also helpful is the fact that Baucus never enters an election underfunded. “One of the rewards I was told about before I selected the committee,” says Durenberger, “was someone said, ‘You have to run for re-election. This is the best place to raise money.’” Much of Baucus’ cash comes from the industries most affected by his committee’s legislation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, this cycle has seen Baucus raise almost $800,000 from securities and investment firms, $565,000 from the insurance industry, and $462,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. Ninety percent of his funds have come from out of state. In total, he’s raised more than $10 million. (Some of which has gone to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee; Baucus bragged to me that he had more than doubled the target contribution set by Sen. Chuck Schumer.)
Meanwhile, Montana itself is changing. Where Baucus was for two decades the only Democrat elected statewide, his Senate colleague Jon Tester and Gov. Brian Schweitzer were swept into office in the last two cycles and both are considered models of a new type of outspoken, politically confident Western Democrat. Where Republicans used to view Baucus as a vulnerable target, this year they couldn’t even find a credible opponent to challenge him. Instead, he will face 85-year-old attorney Bob Kelleher, a 16-time candidate who has sought office as a Republican, a Green, and a Democrat, and seeks to replace Congress with a parliamentary system, nationalize the oil and gas industries, and institute a single-payer health-care system. He has raised so little money that the Center for Responsive Politics doesn’t even have data on his war chest. This will be Baucus’ sixth campaign for the Senate, and it is his first in which he faces no real threat. And did I mention he has $10 million?
BAUCUS IS A FIFTH-GENERATION MONTANAN. His grandfather helped bring aviation to the state. His father owned a 125,000-acre ranch outside Helena. His desk features a plaque that reads “Montana Comes First.” But ask Baucus what pushed him into public service, and you find the answer half a world away. “I took some time off from college to hitchhike around the world,” he recalls. “I met interesting people, and I learned that there were challenges everywhere that showed the need for people of goodwill to go to work. So when I came home, I determined to try to do what I could to help address some of the challenges that we face, here in America.”
After finishing law school at Stanford, Baucus spent three years as a lawyer at the Securities and Exchange Commission. He moved back to Montana in 1971 to serve as the executive director of the state’s Constitutional Convention. The resulting charter was one of the most progressive in the nation, including, among other things, the right to “a clean and healthful environment” and a guarantee of educational equality. In 1972, he was elected to the Montana House of Representatives. In 1974, he won a close primary and election for the Unites States Congress by putting in the shoe leather: He walked 600 miles up and down the district, knocking on doors. By 1978, he was a U.S. senator. He was 36.
At the time, the progressive tradition in Montana politics was still a live force. But not long into the Reagan years, early in Baucus’ career, Montana began to look like just another right-wing Western state, in which Baucus’ tip-toe survival was the single exception. Now that Montana Democrats have roared back, Baucus is the sole figure who connects the earlier progressive era with that of Schweitzer and Tester. But in being of so many political periods, Baucus is not quite of any of them.
Rather, at this point, Baucus is of the Senate. With about 30 years of seniority, Baucus is one of the more experienced members of the chamber. But though he has many relationships, he has only a handful of friends. “Max was not an easy person to get real close to,” says Durenberger. “I remember we traveled to South America with [Sen. Lloyd] Bentsen for two weeks and Max had his nose in a Tolstoy book the whole time and then when we got off the plane he went jogging. He’s his own person.” (“It actually wasn’t Tolstoy,” says Baucus. “It was The Iliad.”)
Baucus does have one incredibly important relationship: his partnership with Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee’s ranking Republican. Even on a committee known for its bipartisanship, the relationship between Baucus and Grassley is surprisingly close. Observers talk often of their unofficial co-chairmanship, where each makes the other a central player no matter who actually holds the gavel. Many credit their closeness to a certain symmetry of temperament and self-conception. Both have a reputation for that slight shadow of insecurity and resentment that comes from not being the flashiest or most graceful or most eloquent guy in the room. Musing on their relationship, Baucus says, “We’re both from sugar states, you know, farm-ranch backgrounds. And sure, everyone’s got [an] ego in the Senate, but I tend to think we don’t wear our egos on our sleeve, like some others do. That makes it easier for us to work together.”
And they often do, frequently to powerful effect. Baucus and Grassley worked together on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization and expansion (like Baucus, Grassley has a tendency to break with his leadership, and he crafted the S-CHIP compromise against party opposition and his own president’s veto threat) and were able to construct a bill with hefty bipartisan support. They joined together to build Bush’s first tax cut and to craft the Senate version of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Their partnership creates a workable process in a committee that can’t afford gridlock. “Go back to the made-up subcommittee on the Committee on Acoustics and Ventilation,” says Wyden. “If the chair and the ranking member were not able to reach common ground then, in the broad sweep of Western civilization, not much would suffer. But on the Finance Committee, the issues are different, and a good relationship takes on special value.”
BUT BAUCUS’ HABIT OF COMING TO AGREEMENT with not only his committee’s ranking Republican but also the Republican Party has often led to sharp tensions with the Democratic Caucus. Baucus has always been moderate, but no more so than red-state senators like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas or Ben Nelson of Nebraska. When Baucus ascended to chair of the Finance Committee, however, his tendency to cut a deal with the Republicans rather than stand with the interests of the Democratic Party caused no small amount of controversy. In particular, Baucus found himself butting heads with Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who also served on the Finance Committee.
The key event was the 2003 Medicare vote. The original Senate bill had broad bipartisan support, including from such progressive luminaries as Ted Kennedy. But the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives was a demonstration of Tom DeLay’s ability to wield raw partisan power. The two chambers met in conference committee to come up with a final bill, but Republicans largely locked Democrats out of the process. Only Baucus and John Breaux — two Democrats known and mistrusted for their moderate tendencies — were allowed in. It was a slap in the face to the bipartisanship Baucus and Grassley had worked so hard to maintain. Bill Thomas, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, controlled the process, and he larded the legislation with health savings accounts, private insurers in Medicare, a prohibition barring the government from bargaining down drug prices, and much else on the conservative wish list.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate judged the situation a cruel farce and urged both Breaux and Baucus not to legitimize the process with their presence. As conservative congressional analyst Norm Ornstein said at the time, Democrats with any loyalty to their party would have said, “If you don’t let in Tom Daschle — our leader, elected by the Senate to be in the room — then we’re not going in the room.” But Baucus and Breaux participated, and the bill passed.
The aftermath of the fight was rough. Many in the Democratic Caucus felt betrayed by Baucus, and there was talk of stripping him of his position on the Finance Committee. Daschle mused publicly about the need to impose more party discipline. But others I spoke to sided with Baucus. Their argument went something like this: The resulting legislation may have been deeply flawed, but it was also the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society. It took government surpluses — most of which were being funneled toward tax cuts — and channeled $400 billion toward enshrining a permanent drug benefit into Medicare. Restricting government from bargaining down drug prices and boosting payments to the private insurers in Medicare Advantage were grave but correctable failings. (Indeed, Baucus managed to slash payments to Medicare Advantage earlier this year.) By contrast, there’s no promise that Democrats could have gotten the basic drug benefit later. Nor is there a promise that the absence of Breaux and Baucus would have killed the bill. And their participation in the negotiations did lead to some genuine concessions, namely the preservation of fairly generous subsidies for low-income seniors.
“Did I like the way that Bill Thomas conducted the conference committee?” asks Baucus. “Of course I didn’t. But John Breaux and I went into that lion’s den. We were fighting for a better result for widows and low-income Americans. And it’s hard to pass up $400 billion on the table for an entitlement expansion. Certainly, we wouldn’t have the same opportunity today with our current deficits. And now we have the 2003 law as a start on which to build.” The Medicare prescription-drug benefit is now a broadly popular bill, and though many Democrats speak of its reform, none speak of its repeal.
Meanwhile, the past few years have seen Baucus and the Democratic Caucus reknit their relationship. First, after Daschle was defeated in 2004, the mantle of leadership passed to Harry Reid. Where Daschle and Baucus had a tense relationship, Reid and Baucus have long been close. Both are reserved Western Democrats with a centrist streak. Baucus calls Reid an “excellent leader” and “one of my best friends.” Reid, for his part, is less hands-on than Daschle was and tends to delegate a fair amount of responsibility to his committee chairman. A prime example came in 2005, when Reid named Baucus the Democratic point man in the fight against Social Security privatization. Baucus turned in an unwavering performance. “It would’ve been easy at the onset to fudge that issue,” says one Democratic senator. “But Max went out and said we weren’t going to unravel the Social Security safety net in any shape or form.”
When I meet with Baucus at the City Grille in Denver, he is eager to emphasize this chapter in his story. “When Reid put me in charge of stopping the privatization of Social Security, man that was fun. That was the right thing to do,” he says. “I remember President Bush came to Great Falls, Montana, and I set up a meeting with seniors at the same time, just across town, just right in his face. I relished the opportunity just to beat down privatization flatly and squarely.” His message is clear: I can fight.
Unbidden, Baucus then launches into a retelling of his fight in July to block the 10.6 percent cut in Medicare physician reimbursement. Here too, the message is clear. “I walked away from Senator Grassley,” he says. “I tend to work with Senator Grassley. But there comes a time when you just gotta say, ‘Sorry.’ These things get watered down too much, it’s just not right, so I just broke with him on that and pushed through a Medicare bill that finally got 60 votes. We had to work hard to get those 60, because Grassley didn’t agree, but that was the right thing to do. So when Ted Kennedy walked on the floor to cast the 60th vote, that’s a moment I’ll always treasure.”
Later in the conversation, I mention to Baucus that some health reformers believe that the only way Democrats will ever pass health reform is to wall the process off from minority obstruction — in particular, from the filibuster. The way to do that would be to invoke the budget-reconciliation process, which allows legislation dealing primarily with the health of the federal coffers to be fast-tracked through 20 hours of debate and passed with a simple majority. The Clintons hoped to do this in 1994 but were blocked by Sen. Robert Byrd, the self-appointed guardian of the process. Bill Clinton has said that his gravest error in that battle was not recognizing what a blow he’d been dealt when he was denied access to reconciliation.
But there’s fair evidence that Byrd couldn’t stop reconciliation now. Moreover, Congress in the Bush years normalized the procedure, using it for everything from tax cuts to drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But reconciliation remains an aggressive tool for something as controversial as health-care reform. (It’s also an uncertain one: Republican opponents could use the rule that bears Byrd’s name to mount a parliamentary challenge.) So I ask Baucus whether he could imagine running health care through the budget-reconciliation process. “Yes, I can,” he says without hesitation. “The goal here is to get results. And not just results for the sake of results but principled results. And that means working with the other side where you get principled results and means maybe going to reconciliation to get principled results.”
NEXT YEAR, Baucus’ committee will have to accommodate a new president hungry for an early accomplishment. And Baucus is hoping to convince him to make it health reform. In June, Baucus assembled his whole committee in the Mumford Room of the James Madison Building for a daylong health-care conference called “Prepare for Launch.” The event began with Baucus standing before a projection screen that showed a space shuttle firing its way into orbit. “I think that video captures the essence of what we’re trying to do today,” said Baucus proudly. “Which is prepare for the launch of health reform.”
In this, he is proving the opposite of the finance chair who last presided over a major attempt at health reform: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who aggressively opposed Clinton’s health-care plan in 1994. Moynihan went as far as to appear on Meet the Press to accuse Clinton of using “fantasy numbers” and declare that “there is no health-care crisis.” By contrast, Baucus has spent the last year holding a series of hearings meant to convince his committee and the country that there is a health-care crisis. He’s staffed up his health-policy team, consulted with outside experts, and held individual meetings with his members. And if Barack Obama wins in November, Baucus, unlike Moynihan, is likely to enjoy a good relationship with the incoming administration. The Obama campaign’s chief of staff, Jim Messina, was hired out of Baucus’ office. “If you asked what would Baucus be doing this summer,” says one liberal health reformer who’s long been skeptical of Baucus’ commitment to the issue, “I could not have mapped out a better strategy for him to follow. He’s doing it.”
That assessment is widely shared. But some reformers remain skeptical about Baucus’ commitment to the issue. “The thing you have to understand about Max Baucus,” says one longtime observer, “is that he’s a good guy. His heart really is in the right place. But the worry is that if health reform fails, he’ll still be able to sleep at night.”
I relay the concern to Baucus. “In life,” he replies, “you try to be as effective as you possibly can be. Would I not sleep at night, having tried my hardest? I wouldn’t that first night, but for how many nights after that, I just don’t know.”
Later in our interview, Baucus returns to the question, concerned that he didn’t answer it fully. “Is it okay if we don’t reform health care? It’s not okay at all. But will I sleep at night?” And here, he laughs. “I mean, hell, I’m a pretty good sleeper.”
Then he sobers up. “It’s not okay, though.”
Ezra Klein is an expert reporter and observer of the healthcare imbroglio.
Sen. Max Baucus: Answer 10 Questions About Mandatory Purchase of Health Insurance Including Why the Public Was Excluded From Today’s Committee Meeting
WASHINGTON, May 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, in closed-door health care discussions today, must answer ten questions about how its plan to require all Americans to show proof of insurance or face tax penalties will provide affordable health care, said Consumer Watchdog.
In a letter to Senator Baucus sent today, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
“Americans should not be locked out of any discussion about health care reform, particularly one that will consider whether everyone should be required to buy health insurance policies without any limits on what insurers can charge. Mandatory purchases of private insurance policies without offering a public alternative to the private market is nothing other than a bailout for HMOs — whose greed, waste and indifference to our health have created the current mess.
“There’s no mention of cost-cutting in the Senate Finance Committee’s ‘policy options’ document being discussed in today’s closed meeting — no regulation of HMO premiums, no limits on how much consumers will have to pay out of their own pocket in co-pays or deductibles.”
Earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee circulated a “policy options” white paper to be discussed in today’s meeting, which excludes members of the media and public. The senate finance document makes the president’s promised “public option” to the private insurance market optional, and does not include cost controls.
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has received more campaign contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries than any other current Democratic member of the House or Senate; the third highest contributions of any member of Congress.
Consumer Watchdog posed the following 10 questions to Senator Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee, and members of Congress about the affordability of the mandatory purchase of insurance policies:
Senate rules appear to only allow committees to meet in closed session under very limited circumstances, including discussions concerning national defense and protection of trade secrets, none of which appear to apply to today’s meeting. What Senate rule justifies today’s closed-door committee meeting?
Why have you offered such deference to the top lobbyists of the insurance industry, which bears a large share of the responsibility for the current health care crisis, while locking consumers and consumer advocates out of the debate?
The only guaranteed provision in the “policy options” report is that every American would have to file proof of an insurance policy with their tax returns on April 15, 2013 or face tax penalties. How does threatening Americans with tax penalties lead to affordable health care?
If there are no limits on how much an insurance company can charge for the coverage that Americans will be required to buy, how can you promise that it will be affordable?
Your policy options do not adequately protect Americans against low-benefit, junk insurance that fails to provide access to necessary benefits and does not limit out-of-pocket expenses (co-pays and deductibles) when patients get sick. How does “owning” an insurance policy under these circumstances equal being able to get health care?
There are documented cases of insured people facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills. Without a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, how can you prevent this?
Your report says that, with few exceptions, hefty tax penalties will be levied against Americans that don’t either purchase coverage or get it through their job. Is it true that only Christian Scientists would avoid tax penalties without having to prove their income?
One of the options that the committee is considering is to not require any employers to chip in for health insurance. Why isn’t the committee considering an option where Americans would not be forced to buy coverage?
Your plan focuses on “wellness” services. But if patients face a $5000 deductible how will they pay for treatment for severe obesity, diabetes prevention, or even effective smoking cessation?
Your plan does not clearly protect state laws providing access to necessary health care services like aCalifornia woman’s right to visit an OB-GYN, a New Jersey child’s access to a Hepatitis B inoculation, aTennessee patient’s coverage for diabetes treatment, and other benefits including screenings for cervical and prostate cancers. Will states be allowed to require additional health benefits beyond those required under federal rules, or will federal rules pre-empt more expansive state benefits?
Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit and non-partisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, California. For more information, visit us on the web at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
Here’s Barack Obama speaking at the recent Summit of the Americas:
I think it’s important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States’ policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can’t blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere.
“Historic suspicions”? Yes, I imagine the International Court of Justice decision condemning the United States for its covert war against Nicaragua might have raised Nicaraguan suspicions of U.S. interference. And I guess the report of the UN’s Historical Clarification Commission for Guatemala, documenting U.S. backing of the genocidal forces the U.S. had installed in the 1954 coup, might have made the Guatemalans suspicious as well. And I suppose watching U.S. planes, helicopter gunships, and warships destroying the El Chorrillo neighborhood of Panama during the 1989 invasion might also have given the Panamians some suspicions about U.S. interference. [READ ON]
What Is Reality? What Is Illusion? Can We Still Distinguish Fact From Fiction?
BARACK OBAMA IS A BRAND. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.
What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.
Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.
“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”
Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.
While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.
Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.
Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”
An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks—these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.
In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.
In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.
Pseudo-events—dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers—however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.
A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.
The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”
The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.
Chris Hedges’ new book, “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon or at your local bookstore.
The Reagans on the road to the White House in 1980. The reign of one of the foulest demagogues and warmongers of the right was about to begin. Reagan’s hypocrisy knew no bounds and he could sell his poisonous snake oil better than most.
Harold Pinter to Obama. “The US has supported every right wing military dictatorship in the World since World War II”
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets! —Poem by Pablo Neruda
ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared on PBS’s Charlie Rose Show and was asked whether he thought Obama would be a good choice for president. Brzezinski paused for a minute, peered at Rose out of the corner of his eye, and answered, “Just think of the symbolism.” As soon as he said that, Brzezinski and Rose broke out into laughter as though they were sharing a private joke.
Brzezinski was right, of course. Obama was the perfect choice for president. Not because of his experience. He had none. He was a two year senator with a resume’ small enough to fit on the back of a matchbox. Still Obama had what Brzezinski and Co. were looking for, symbolism; the kind of symbolism that connected him to people around the world and made them feel like one of their own had finally clawed their way to the top. Even better, Obama was a charismatic populist who could fill stadiums with adoring fans and put a benign face on America’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. What more could Brzezinski hope for? After 8 years of dragging “Brand America” through the mud, the country would finally get the emergency facelift it needed and begin to restore its battered image as the world’s indispensable nation.
For leftists, Obama has been a total bust. He’s escalated the war in Afghanistan, increased the cross-border bombings of Pakistan, hemmed and hawed about prosecuting war crimes, refused to actively lobby House members to make it easier for workers to organize (EFCA), and surrounded himself with bank industry reps who’ve committed $12.8 trillion to sinking financial institutions with no assurance that the money would be repaid. Apart from a trifling bill on stem cells, Obama has done absolutely zero to confirm his bone fides as a liberal. The truth is, Obama is neither liberal nor conservative; he’s simply an inspiring orator and a skillful politician who has no strong convictions about anything. If he achieves greatness, it will be because he was thrust into a crisis he couldn’t avoid and reluctantly acted in the best interests of the American people. That possibility still exists, although it seems more unlikely by the day.
Foreign leaders are clearly relieved to see the last of George W. Bush, and they appear to be willing to give Obama every opportunity to mend fences and break with the past. But Obama has made little effort to reciprocate or show that he’s serious about real change. The emphasis seems to be more on public relations than policy; more on glitzy photo ops, grandiose speeches and gadding about from one capital to another, than ending the chronic US meddling and militarism. Where’s the beef or is it all just empty posturing?
No one’s ready to write-off Obama just yet, but he needs to show he’s the real-deal by taking steps to ratchet-down the war machine and reign in the corporate elites and bank vermin. But is it really possible for one man–however well-meaning–to change the course of a nation by standing up the gaggle of racketeers who pull the strings from behind the curtain? Keep in mind, America’s history of violent interventions, unprovoked wars, color-coded revolutions and coup d’ etats has a long pedigree that stretches from Bunker Hill to Baghdad. That river of blood did not begin with George Bush and it won’t end with Barack Obama. Every generation has produced its own litany of crimes, from Wounded Knee to Nagasaki to My Lai to Falluja. In Harold Pinter’s Nobel acceptance speech, the playwright invokes one such incident which epitomizes the pattern of hostility which has been repeated over and over again wherever the Washington mandarins detect opposition to their iron-fisted rule.
“The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.
The Sandinistas weren’t perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilized. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighboring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.
I spoke earlier about ‘a tapestry of lies’ which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.
But this ‘policy’ was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it.”
Pinter’s speech is a somber indictment of US foreign policy; a policy which is now cloaked behind the rock-star facade of Barack Obama. Nothing has changed and, perhaps, nothing will change. The same barbarous campaign that thrived under Bush has been passed along to Obama intact. Wherever there is resistance to US ambitions; there lies the enemy. Whether it’s Marxists in Bogota, nationalists in Kosovo, Bolivarians in Caracas, Shia militias in Beirut, Islamic moderates in Mogadishu or Quakers in Toledo. They’re all enemies, every one of them, and they need to be dealt with.
Obama is no fool; he knows he’s being used. He knows he wasn’t chosen for his enlightened views on health care and stem cells. He was picked because the men in charge needed a new poster boy to hide behind while they carry out their illicit activities. Obama is not so much of a Commander in chief as he is master illusionist, diverting attention from the stealth war that goes on relentlessly with or without his consent. Here’s Pinter again:
“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis…It’s a scintillating stratagem.”
Consider how the news was shaped to make it look like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were carried out for altruistic reasons. Thus, the war in Afghanistan became “Operation Enduring Freedom”, stressing the selfless generosity of bombing a country into oblivion and reinstating the thuggish warlords to power. The same strategy was used for the invasion of Iraq which was celebrated as “liberation from a brutal dictator.” Liberation which cost the lives of over 1 million Iraqis and the displacement of 4 million more. Still, no one in the UN or so called international community has pressed for removing the US from the Security Council or prosecuting its leaders for war crimes. It’s a testimony to the success of the US media in upholding the “tapestry of lies” of which Pinter speaks. Under Obama, the charade has only gotten worse. The coverage of the war has stopped entirely. War? What war? What matters now is Obama’s cheery banter with Jay Leno, or Michelle’s well-proportioned arms or Malia’s adorable Portuguese Waterdog. America is whole again. Let the killing resume.
Pinter: ”What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what’s called the ‘international community’. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be ‘the leader of the free world’. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man’s land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticize our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You’re either with us or against us.”
Obama doesn’t need to solve the world’s problems. He doesn’t have to reverse global warming or slow peak oil, cure AIDS or end world hunger. All he needs to do is meet the minimal requirement of his job as president, which is to deliver justice to his people. That’s why the prosecution of Bush for war crimes is more important than any other issue on the docket. Justice precedes everything; it’s the thread that keeps the social fabric stitched together. Justice for the victims who were killed in their homes with their families while they were sleeping or eating dinner. Justice for the people who were bombed in wedding parties or going to work or at the mosque praying to God. That’s what people want from Obama. Justice, nothing more. The Reverend Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” It’s up to Obama follow that arc and take at least one step on the path of legitimacy, accountability and justice.
Pinter: ”How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.”
It’s highly unlikely that a black man with a background in community organizing really believes that expanding the war in Afghanistan is the right thing to do. Nor is it likely that he supports wiretapping, the crackdown on immigrants, penalizing sellers of medical marijuana, trillion dollar bank bailouts or “enhanced” interrogation. He is merely reading from the script that he has been given. But as the economic crisis deepens and the country becomes more radicalized and politically unstable, that script will have to be tossed aside. Obama will have plenty of opportunities to shrug off his handlers and show what he’s really made of. Perhaps he is great man after all.
Pinter: ”When we look into a mirror, we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimeter and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.”
Go ahead, Barack. Smash the mirror.
Mike Whitney’s scathing analyses of the plutocratic status quo are widely distributed on the web.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).
THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC IGNORANCE on the topic of the U.S. and world monetary system is astonishing. This is part of the plan, of course, because the monetary elite control not only the financial system but also the news media, the publishing industry, and the educational system. The blueprint for control was put together over a century ago by Cecil Rhodes and his friends, including British financier Nathan Rothschild, as documented by Professor Carroll Quigley.
During the 20th Century the power shifted to the U.S., with the Rockefellers playing the dominant role as they continue to do today. It is no accident that J.P. Morgan Chase—the Rockefeller family bank—dominates the U.S. derivatives market; nor that Exxon-Mobil, the Rockefellers’ oil company, is the most profitable corporation in history.
The basic plan was to place all of mankind in a state of permanent mental and emotional siege so that in the end we would trade all our liberties to the controllers in return for protection; even freedom of thought would be traded for physical safety. That plan is well advanced. The sheeple have been prepared for the final shearing.
Meanwhile, every attempt at real reform has been strangled in the cradle. Past voices for monetary sanity like those of Congressmen Louis McFadden and Jerry Voorhis were silenced. Starting in the 1970s, functionaries like Kissinger, Brzezinski, and Volcker carried out David Rockefeller’s plan to outsource manufacturing to China and eliminate the U.S. as the world’s greatest industrial democracy, replacing it with a financier oligarchy.
During the 2008 election campaign, Ron Paul called for the end of the Federal Reserve, the bastion of financier control, but no one effectively organized the millions of people who responded to his call or had a viable plan to put in place. Barack Obama obviously works mainly for the financiers, as did Bill Clinton before him. The job of the Democrats is to keep the sheeple quiet by now and then implementing some “reforms”; the Republicans were a more blatant gang of looters.
With the financial crash of 2008-2009, the noose is tightening everywhere in the world. The International Monetary Fund is announcing, “The current global recession is likely to be ‘unusually long and severe, and the recovery sluggish.’” (BBC News, “IMF Sees Long and Severe Slowdown,” April 16, 2009.) In reality, as the IMF knows, it would be possible to put every nation in the world on the road to recovery by allowing them to prime the economic pump through sovereign control of their own monetary systems, with freedom to utilize their own natural resources.
The IMF announcement is in fact the start of a worldwide program of genocide similar to what was done to Russia in the 1990s, with crushing poverty, slashing of incomes, reduction of benefits for the poor and elderly, rising levels of disease and malnutrition, and reduction of life expectancy. We in the West will view the carnage with alarm from our own stripped-down economies but remain docile out of fear the same will be done to us.
Awareness of the hideous evil of the financiers’ plans to destroy the soul of humanity is growing. This is being accomplished through the internet and the work of a number of writers who understand what is at stake. I doubt this channel of expression will be available indefinitely. Already alternative websites are being isolated and marginalized. But the fight must be waged.
The one organization that has a program which is comprehensive and free from outside influence is the American Monetary Institute, which has drafted the American Monetary Act. If the Act is introduced in Congress, it will be imperative for it to be recognized and supported as the one chance to save our nation from the dark night that is threatening. But even progressive writers shrink from taking on the Monetary Power, with many of them putting forth the absurdity that all we need to do is reform the banking system.
The American Monetary Act has been in process since 2003. It may be found on the AMI website at: http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf. AMI will conduct a presentation on the Act on Capitol Hill, April 23, 2009, in Room 304 of the Cannon House Office Building. Presentations will take place at 10:00 AM and at 2:00 PM.
At the same time, groups of relatively conscious people can come together on their own to create refuges of sanity until the danger passes–over a period of years, decades, or even generations. And, to look at it from a spiritual perspective, we can hope that the Higher Powers who observe humanity’s destiny refuse to allow our particular experiment in consciousness to be obliterated.
Destruction of human consciousness is the real goal of the financiers and their minions. It is lies above all that do this. The financiers’ power is the biggest lie of all.
Richard C. Cook is a retired federal analyst who writes today on economic, political, and spiritual matters. His books and videos are available through his website at www.richardccook.com. He recently released his six-part video series: Credit as a Public Utility: the Solution to the Economic Crisis.
*The phrase “permanent siege” is from Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Against the Day.” Set at the end of the 19th Century, the novel describes the dynamics and strategy of the future totalitarian regimes of the approaching 20th century–i.e., a state of “permanent siege.”
Obama’s repated instances of political cowardice and opportunism constitute a serious betrayal of his campaign promises and a huge disservice to the actual security of American citizens.
Obama and the Democrats have shown little desire to toss out the Patriot Act. This is to be expected from a party whose leadership is almost entirely beholden to the the international plutocracy.
Those who hoped that the change promised by candidate Barack Obama would include repeal of the various acts that have stripped Americans of their constitutional rights should be disappointed. Benjamin Franklin supposedly wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The citation is likely apocryphal, at least in terms of its attribution to Franklin, but it is useful shorthand for the unfortunate abandonment of many of the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as a consequence of 9/11. The trauma of 9/11 created an opportunity for those seeking to centralize executive power, an objective of recent presidents from both political parties. Many Americans initially accepted that there had to be some abridgment of fundamental liberties while fighting a multi-faceted and unconventional war against terrorism, but few realize just how much the constitutional rights that all citizens take for granted have been eroded. History also teaches us that once a right is suspended, in all likelihood it is gone forever.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 might well be described as one of history’s more spectacular euphemisms employed to gut a constitution, somewhat akin to Hitler’s “emergency act” in the wake of the Reichstag fire of 1933. It is better known as PATRIOT Act I. PATRIOT Act I became law six weeks after the fall of the Twin Towers and was followed by PATRIOT Act II in 2006. The two laws together diminish constitutional guarantees of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and prohibition of the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been discarded or abridged in the rush to make it easier to investigate, torture, and jail both foreigners and American citizens. The PATRIOT Act also incorporates the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of Oct. 17, 2001, which permits the freezing of assets and investigation of individuals suspected of being financial supporters of terrorism. “Suspected” is the key word, as there is no oversight or appeal in the process.
The Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA) followed the PATRIOT Acts, creating military tribunals for the trying of “unlawful enemy combatants,” including American citizens. Unlike a civil or criminal court, the accused needs only a two-thirds vote by the commission members present to be convicted. The act permits the indefinite jailing of suspects in a military prison without being charged with a crime or given access to a lawyer. The government is not required to produce any normally admissible evidence at a commission hearing and can rely on hearsay or even information obtained overseas during torture to make its case. Detainees do not have access to any classified information used against them and cannot cross-examine or even know the identity of witnesses. The MCA suspends habeas corpus for anyone charged and forbids the application of the Geneva Conventions to mitigate conditions of confinement or to challenge the judicial process or verdict. The Geneva Conventions also cannot be invoked if the accused subsequently claims he was tortured or otherwise abused, protecting overly zealous interrogators from later charges of “war crimes.” The act was also designed to cover all cases that were pending, meaning that it was retroactive.
An executive order issued on July 17, 2007, which is still in effect, authorized the president to seize the property of anyone who “threatens stabilization efforts in Iraq.” As the administration’s own Justice Department decides what constitutes “threatening stabilization efforts,” the order can be used to go after any critic of the government. Most disturbing, the order does not permit a challenge to the information the seizure is based on, and it also permits the confiscation of the property of anyone who comes to the assistance of the suspected de-stabilizer.
The threat to civil liberties is real. Under the authority of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI requested more than 30,000 national security letters in 2007, and the number was surely higher in 2008. The letters enable the FBI to look at anyone’s personal information without any judicial oversight or showing of cause. Anyone who is presented with a letter and compelled to cooperate to provide information on a suspect cannot reveal that the letter has been received. Are there 30,000 terrorists roaming the United States? If there were, the country would surely be a bombed-out ruin by now. The government is instead using the security letters and the other tools provided by the PATRIOT Act legislation to look at people who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, because it is convenient to be able to do so without the bother of having to go to a judge for a search warrant.
Sen. Barack Obama opposed the MCA and voted against it. He was not in the Senate when the first PATRIOT Act was passed, but he criticized the second version for its abuse of civil liberties before voting for an amended version. Candidate Obama ran on his record of opposition to the various pieces of legislation, noting consistently that they had authorized the abuse of authority by law enforcement and had abridged the rights of every American. Unfortunately, President Obama appears to have forgotten the principled positions he took as a senator and presidential candidate. After his inauguration, he moved quickly to publicly ban the CIA’s use of torture, a meaningless gesture in that the Agency had already abandoned the practice, but it now appears that he will do nothing to revoke Bush-era legislation like the MCA that he once strongly criticized. There is every indication that he will also endorse renewal of the PATRIOT Act when it expires at the end of the year, afraid that if he does not do so and there is a terrorist attack he will pay a significant political price. The Obama administration has also been silent about the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretaps and has invoked the “state-secrets privilege” in connection with a lawsuit by the Islamic charity al-Haramain in an apparent bid to prevent disclosure of the warrantless wiretap procedure.
President Obama is not just contradicting his progressive campaign promises and betraying many of the people who voted for him. As a lawyer, he surely understands that protecting the government’s questionable legal “rights” to monitor citizens completely subverts the rule of law, because it guarantees that there will be no accountability. Currently, judges who rule on the state-secrets issue are not themselves allowed to see the alleged classified information, meaning that there is absolutely no transparency to the process in which the government is asserting an extralegal privilege that is surely unconstitutional.
If the Obama administration is beginning to sound like the Bush White House, it should. To be sure, the new president is relying on the advice of many Bush administration holdovers like FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller asserts, without providing any evidence, that the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act have been effective in preventing terrorism, just as Bush-era intelligence chiefs claimed that torture and extraordinary rendition were essential to meet the terrorist threat. All such claims should be viewed with extreme skepticism, particularly as they are rarely backed up by any evidence. The government also often lies when it wants to make a case for some illegal action. Claims made in 2008 that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida produced a flood of information that frustrated terrorist plots are now revealed to have been false. Zubaida confused his interrogators and sent them off on wild goose chases with information that was either deliberately deceptive or flat-out wrong. In reality, the government cannot cite a single instance where the use of draconian new legislation or illegal procedures like torture has either prevented a terrorist incident or led to the arrest of anyone who was ready, willing, and able to carry out a violent act.
Obama would have been wiser to ignore the experts and sit back and consider the broader picture. Does the creation of a monstrous Department of Homeland Security supported by a bloated defense and intelligence establishment really make sense in light of the threat that the U.S. actually faces? How did we arrive at a 400,000-name no-fly list and an NSA that has conducted hundreds of millions of interceptions of telephone calls without any oversight? That a small group of terrorists holed up in an isolated and backward part of the world got lucky against an unsuspecting America on 9/11 is clear, but the odds of them repeating that spectacular success are minimal. More than seven years later, the actual vulnerability of international terrorism should be completely clear and the government should be telling the people the good news, that al-Qaeda is on its last legs and that the other Salafist terrorist groups that have a similar philosophy have been hounded and contained all around the world. There has been no successful terrorist action within the United States, and the appeal of jihadist terrorism is on the wane everywhere else. Its moment has passed.
In spite of the reduced threat, under Obama the business of fighting terrorism goes on with a change in the rhetoric but not in the policy, buttressed by an enlarged military budget to spread the cheer to Afghanistan and increased spending on intelligence. And there is no sign that the liberties that Americans have bartered away are about to be returned. Having an amorphous foreign threat hanging around is always good politics, as it can be used to divert attention from more serious problems at home. Having the mechanisms at hand to investigate an American citizen can also be useful when the critics become too loud. Those who feared that George W. Bush would give his successors unconstitutional tools that they would be reluctant to relinquish have apparently been vindicated.
Philip Giraldiis a former officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. His work has appeared at The American Conservative, Asia Times, Antiwar.com and numerous other periodicals and websites.
"OUTSTANDING""Delves deep into the hidden history of false flag terrorism in Europe, with heroes who turnofficial history upside down...
tough..gripping...an education"— —Cyrano's Journal Today—The new classic inpolitical espionage thrillers
Other contemporary novelists, such as le Carré and Ludlum, have skirted around the issues. So far, only Stewart has had the courage to nail the lies directly. The encirclement of Russia (and, to an extent, also India and China, seen by America as threats to its global hegemony) and the surreptitious expansion of American military and economic power worldwide in defence of an obviously corrupt and failing global capitalism ...through its multitude of ‘Lily Pad’ bases – is the major, as yet insufficiently told, story of our time.—P. Carline, from the ForewordBUY IT TODAY!PRINT & ELECTRONIC EDITIONS