The Party of Big Business and Big Money

A few weeks ago, while at my local library, I saw a discussion group assembling for their monthly meeting. One of the leaders of the group, recognizing me from another discussion group that I have attended, invited me to participate.  Often, these discussions can be mind-numbing philosophical ones.  But when she said the discussion would be about healthcare, I just couldn’t resist.  And knowing that many in my area are of a conservative persuasion, I thought it would be interesting to hear things from their perspective.  And I must say that I wasn’t disappointed.

 

So the moderator asked an open-ended question to get things started.  How is healthcare working in America?  An elderly 80-something woman said that her healthcare was just fine, thank you and that healthcare works just fine as long as the government isn’t involved.  I gently reminded her that her insurance comes from Medicare which is a government program.  Nonplussed, she said that the government didn’t give her that insurance; she paid for it.  Not wanting to rock the boat, especially as a first time invited guest, I backed off.

 

But wanting to make a point, I then argued that if Medicare, while not perfect, if it seems to work for our oldest population in the worst health, couldn’t it work at least as well if we included all of the younger, healthier people in the risk pool?  This predictably got lots of grumbling from many about what they see as the “government takeover of healthcare” by the dreaded Obamacare.

 

Then to try and drive my point home, I said that the overhead for Medicare is at about 3% which is far lower that the overhead for private insurance companies that can be around 15 or 20%.  This was too much for them to hear and they let me have it with both barrels.  What I said couldn’t possibly be true because in their minds government is always more wasteful and less efficient than private companies.  With the majority there strongly believing this, it was difficult to argue further.  I just wish that I had an Internet article like this one or this one at my disposal to try and support this vital point I was trying to make.

 

Once the group got really riled up, they started talking about how they don’t want government to make them pay for somebody else’s insurance.  And then another person sitting across from me said he didn’t want to pay for food stamps so others could use them to buy filet mignon and lobster.  What I wanted to say was that while someone could indeed buy these with food stamps, their monthly allotment for food would run out well before when it would be due to be replenished.  But clearly, this was about emotion and not logic.  More specifically, it was about their emotional frenzy against just about anything the government does.

 

There’s a lot of government hating out there – which would make sense if we had a dictatorship we didn’t elect in control of us.  But as much as we may not like some of those who lead us, they did have to legitimately win an election to get where they are.  Doesn’t that count for something?

 

Big government is taking away our freedom, they say.  If government can’t be cut down enough to suit some, shut it down.  And then there is the wish of conservative anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist who has stated that he wants to see the government so small that we can "drown it in the bathtub".  So what’s really feeding all of this relentless anti-government sentiment?  I think I know.  Let me explain.

 

While we all know that a government that is too strong is bad because it is repressive to its citizens, it is less intuitive that a government that is too weak is just as bad but for a different reason.  

 

A civilized society needs not only rules and regulations, but also somebody to enforce them.  And that’s government.  Among many other needs we have, we need to know that the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink is safe.  We need to know that our workplaces are safe and free of exploitation.  We want to be assured that people or businesses who make money from us do it without ripping us off through unfair or deceptive practices.

 

When government power is weakened too much, it creates a power vacuum.  One that is gladly filled by corporate and moneyed interests. To use the examples above, it is a political environment where companies don’t have to worry so much about pollution, or whether their workplaces are dangerous or their employees are being exploited or whether they can get away with the abuses like those in the financial sector that largely brought on the financial crash of 2008.

 

So when we see that a weakened government means more wealth and power for big business and big money, maybe there is indeed a hidden agenda behind all of the anti-government rhetoric.  But nobody can get far by saying that their agenda is to make more money, pay less taxes, have less regulation – and then use the additional money they make to buy even more power through lobbying and campaign contributions.  So they have to argue that it’s all about freedom from big government.  And for those in the Tea Party and likeminded people who already have an inherent dislike of government, this is an easy sell.

 

While it can be argued that these people simply want smaller government, their actions are rife with hypocrisy.  When it comes to food stamps to help the hungry, unemployment benefits to help the jobless, or health insurance to help those without access to healthcare, that’s too much big government and has to end!  But when it comes to more government handouts to the wealthy and to already highly profitable corporations, they make much less of a fuss.  Perhaps it’s as simple as not wanting to bite the hand that is feeding (or in this case financing) them. Having said this, the marriage between the Tea Party and corporate America has not always been a smooth one.  Shutting down the government or even the threat of it was not at all appreciated by the business community.

 

So the result of all of this has been an economy that in the last decade or so has been dreary for many of us in the middle and lower classes while meanwhile, large corporations and the wealthy have prospered handsomely.  And with the economy still hurting many people, it is easy for those on the right to say that we need a Republican president since the one we have now hasn’t been able to do much – ignoring the fact that much of his ineffectiveness has been due to the obstructionism by Republicans in Congress, all under the pretense of promoting small government.

 

While many political observers question whether a Republican will be able to carry a presidential election anytime soon considering the growing minority population, the party will still exert a significant amount of power in Congress and in many state governments.  With many congressional districts gerrymandered so that most Republicans are in safe districts, they are expected to remain in control of the House after the 2014 midterm elections.  And with many Democratic seats up for election in so-called “red states” which are often known for their strong anti-government sentiments, Republicans have a decent chance of gaining a Senate majority, too.

 

It was liberal commentator and comedian Bill Maher who said that he can understand why rich people vote Republican since that is whose interests they look out for.  It’s the others who aren’t rich and vote Republican that are more difficult to understand.  In my view, what is saddest is that many of the middle class and poor who have endured the most economic struggles in these down times will enthusiastically continue to vote Republican because they still believe fighting what they see as “big government” or “socialism” is the way to improve their lot in life – while those pulling the strings behind the scenes will continue to be laughing – all the way to the bank! 

Time to End the War on Drugs

Each January, governors of our states give an annual address usually labeled as a “State of the State” address which is patterned after the presidential State of the Union address.  These usually include a laundry list of issues that are nicely packaged to appease as many interests as possible.  Virtually all of these are quite forgettable.

 

But this January, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin in a cry for help to get as much attention as possible, broke the mold by devoting his entire annual speech to a single issue – the growing heroin crisis in his state.

“In every corner of our state, heroin and opiate drug addiction threatens us,” he said. He said he wanted to reframe the public debate to encourage officials to respond to addiction as a chronic disease, with treatment and support, rather than with only punishment and incarceration.

Every week, he said, more than $2 million worth of heroin and other opiates are trafficked into Vermont. And nearly 80 percent of inmates in the state are jailed on drug-related charges.

The governor made a plea for more money for treatment programs, noting that incarcerating a person for a week costs the state $1,120, while a week of treatment at a state-financed center costs $123. He asked for money to expand treatment centers, where more than 500 addicts are on waiting lists.

And make no mistake – this is a growing problem that is affecting not just the urban poor but those at all economic levels including suburban and rural people.  Unfortunately, it took the death by heroin overdose of celebrated actor Philip Seymour Hoffman to bring this vital issue to the attention of the average American.

Certainly, this is a complex problem that eludes simple solutions.  But like for any problem, we can often make some headway by simply examining what works – and do more of it.  But just as importantly, we need to also see what is not working – and do less of that.

This is certainly unassailable logic.  But in my view, the biggest obstacle to making progress toward better solutions is that this problem is viewed by too many through a puritanical lens – the view that people who use drugs are immoral and should be punished by throwing them in jail.  This is the logic behind the so-called War on Drugs which is based on a belief that we can solve the drug crisis by incarcerating enough users and dealers.  But even many of the people who actively participated in this war have finally confessed that the war has been a failure that has resulted in the US having the world's highest incarceration rate (largely from drug offenses) with not much else to show for it except for the emergence of the for-profit prison industry which spends significant amounts of  money lobbying for policies that increase incarceration rates.

By 2010, drug offenders in federal prison had increased to 500,000 per year, up from 41,000 in 1985. Drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners. The result, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans.

Perhaps we should realize that treating this as the governor suggested as a public health crisis to be treated by medical personnel instead of as a moral/criminal issue to be addressed by law enforcement may well be a step in the right direction.  I urge the reader to read one of my previous postings, Can We Talk About Legalizing Drugs? for some of my thoughts on the matter.

I fully realize that legalizing drugs is a total non-starter for many people since this is perceived to convey public approval.  With marijuana now legalized in some areas with the approval of many, it is not hard to understand this view.  But legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) drugs can simply be an admission that this problem can better be solved by medical professionals as opposed to law enforcement which does not imply approval at all but is just a more effective means to address the problem and mitigate the damage it causes.  And in fact, our law enforcement efforts have tended to breed a host of unforeseen consequences more than effectively address the problem.

For example, there had been a steady rise in addiction to prescription pain killers, either starting from using these drugs for legitimate treatment of pain or perhaps another way to get high. However, instead of focusing efforts on rehabilitation to treat these addictions, the solution was to cut off these drugs and make them as difficult and expensive to obtain as possible with the presumption that addicts will then stop using these drugs.  But then heroin was discovered as a cheaper and more available source to satisfy these people’s addictions.  So now we have people who used to be prescription pain killer addicts now becoming heroin addicts.  Being a heroin addict now brings a whole lot of additional risks because there is no way to know for sure what is in that bag of heroin obtained from a dealer.  Earlier this year in the Pittsburgh area, there were about 23 deaths discovered of addicts buying heroin that unbeknownst to them was laced with fentanyl which greatly increased its opiate strength likely causing the fatal overdoses.  And then there is the added problem of spreading diseases by those sharing needles.  Clearly, this was a serious problem that was only made worse.

Recently, a task force in Southwestern Pennsylvania was assembled to make recommendations on how to address the heroin addiction crisis.  This was the most interesting one:

Cheryl Andrews, executive director of the Washington Drug and Alcohol Commission, along with several other panelists, lobbied for the passage of “Good Samaritan legislation” statewide. The legislation is designed to protect witnesses of an overdose who call 911. 

"There are people shooting dope who will literally let someone die so they won’t get prosecuted for using,” Ms. Andrews said.

This at least acknowledges that the fear of incarceration hampers efforts to help others in need of medical help to perhaps even save their lives.  By the way, this even includes doctors.  Read on. 

So what does work? One of the most promising drug treatments for heroin addiction is the use of suboxone which not only replaces the need for heroin but also has an opiate inhibitor that inhibits the high from taking heroin while on this drug.  This is an example of what is called opiate replacement therapy.

The track record of opiate replacement therapy, while not perfect, has permitted hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions more worldwide) to achieve a reduction in the number and severity of relapses to illicit opiate use and associated costs to society in terms of criminal activity (burglary, theft, robbery, muggings) necessary to obtain money for drugs which ultimately wind up financing the vast, globally connected drug cartels. Additionally, opioid replacement therapy reduces the risk of contracting Hepatitis C and HIV among other communicable diseases.

While this certainly looks like a step in the right direction, for a long time doctors not part of rehabilitation centers were forbidden to treat addicts with drugs like this under threat of imprisonment.  These federal laws have been loosened a little but only a very small number of approved doctors have authorization to administer drugs like these because well, they too are illegal!

The drug enforcement community is now celebrating the recent capture in Mexico of Joaquín Guzmán who many considered to be the world’s number one drug kingpin.

Mr. Guzmán’s Sinaloa Cartel is considered the largest and most powerful trafficking organization in the world, with a reach as far as Europe and Asia, and has been a main combatant in a spasm of violence that has left tens of thousands dead in Mexico. 

But while they are celebrating, nobody is delusional enough to think that this signals any long lasting victory in the War on Drugs.  This is not like World War II when after we got Germany and Japan to surrender, the war was over.  As long as there is a lucrative market for drugs we deem to be illegal, there will be a never ending parade of new drug kingpins to carry on.

It remains to be seen if the arrest will interrupt Mexico’s thriving drug trade. The capture or killing of a drug lord sometimes unleashes more violence as internal feuds break out and rivals attack. And given the efficiency of the Sinaloa Cartel, it is possible the group will manage a smooth transition to a new leader and continue with business as usual.

Perhaps the biggest toll of all extracted by the War on Drugs has been on the many people who have been arrested for little more that possession and now have that on their permanent record.  It’s hard enough to find a job nowadays in any event.  But with many if not most prospective employers relying on background checks, having an arrest on one’s record can ruin any hopes for a productive career.  It was Barack Obama who wrote that in his younger years, he partook in marijuana along with some other illegal drugs.  Of course, his career went on to bigger and better things.  But if he had had the misfortune of being arrested for taking those drugs like so many others, do you think we would have ever heard of him after that?  I think not!

Losing the War on Poverty

This January marked the 50^th anniversary of the War on Poverty started by President Lyndon Baines Johnson.  Of course this had led to discussions among pundits and politicians as to whether this program really did much to eliminate poverty.  There are those who say that we had poverty back then and we still do now – perhaps even more.  So does this mean that its critics were right in that this was just another well-meaning government program that failed because it is just another thing that government just doesn’t do well? 

It’s hard to make such a generalization because life in the United States back in 1964 was so much different than it is now. 

It cannot be denied that the best way to stay out of poverty is a steady job that pays a living wage.  Back then at least for most of us, opportunities for these were ample if not abundant.  There was a choice of perhaps a manufacturing job for those who preferred a job working with their hands and for those who went to college, an opportunity to perhaps reach for the upper classes.  But while the college graduate could command a better salary, the blue collar workers were by and large also members of the middle class.  Do a good job and keep your nose clean and you could expect to not only make a living wage (often because of a union to negotiate on your behalf) but also have secure employment until you retire and get your company pension. 

Poverty existed, but much of it was suffered by minorities who didn’t get the same educational and job opportunities as others (remember it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that actually allowed blacks to share the same public facilities with whites where there was segregation). Ample job opportunities existed – it was just that some were shut out of them.  The only way to address this was for the government to get involved to try and promote equal opportunity for everybody to enter the middle class.  But regrettably, minority unemployment is still significantly higher than for others. 

The above scenario of 1964 has changed radically since then.  Blue collar manufacturing jobs have disappeared offshore to be replaced by low-paying service jobs.  While some have returned, many of them do not pay a living wage, especially with unions being stripped of much of their negotiating power.  Investing in a college degree nowadays is just as likely to result in a large college loan to pay off with no real professional job prospects. The dream of working for one company for life is now a fantasy with workers being dumped on a whim. And company pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur. 

So while poverty can have a number of different social causes, it is my view that the main driver of poverty today in the US is the severe and persisting lack of jobs that pay a living wage.   

At the present time, there are still about 3 job seekers for every job opening in the US as detailed in this link.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data released this morning [11/22/2013] by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that there were 3.9 million job openings for 11.3 million job seekers in September—meaning that for every job opening there were 2.9 people looking for work.  

While the job seekers ratio has been decreasing from a high of 6.7-to-1 during the Great Recession, today’s ratio of 2.9-to-1 matches the highest the ratio ever got in the early 2000s downturn In a labor market with strong job opportunities, the ratio would be close to 1-to-1, as it was in December 2000.

The JOLTS data are also a reminder that the current elevated unemployment rate has little to do with a skills shortage or mismatch, as unemployed workers dramatically outnumber job openings in all industries.

“In no industry does the number of job openings even come close to the number of people looking for work,” writes Gould. “This demonstrates that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers—not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings.”

When the problem of long term unemployment and its possible leading into poverty is viewed this way, a lot of the prevailing “wisdom” on the subject turns out to be little more than hot air.  e.g. If we cut unemployment benefits, everybody will then go out and get a job.  If we can only retrain workers, they can then all get jobs.  If we could only reinvent ourselves, we can all get jobs. blah, blah , blah.  Moreover, the article points out that a decline in the number of job seekers because of people giving up in this weak labor market makes even these statistics look better than they actually are.  

In addition, there are conservative commentators such as David Brooks who for example in this op-ed column decry that the main cause of poverty and low social mobility is the fraying of the social fabric in America.  Surely there is something to this.  But few things can fray the social fabric of society better than poverty.  I believe the argument that poverty being a driver of much of our social dysfunction is a more persuasive one. 

Of course, one of the inevitable results of a lack of jobs is the unrelenting downward pressure on wages. So even if one can find a job, it is no guarantee that it will pay enough to avoid poverty.  The concept of a living wage for the so-called working poor is one that has been discussed by some.  The reader is invited to check out one of my previous postings A Living Wage for Americans for my thoughts on the subject.  

But for now, the pertinent question for Americans to answer is whether someone who works a 40 hour workweek deserves to live above the poverty line.  Sadly, there are all too many who believe the answer is not necessarily.  The argument goes that someone who does what is considered unskilled labor doesn’t deserve to be paid a living wage.  If they want a living wage, so the argument goes, they should go to school or get the training to acquire the skills to demand a larger paycheck.  This argument made perfect sense when there were an adequate number of jobs to be had, but makes less sense when there are job shortages in just about every field as noted above. 

But even if these people were able to move up to a better job in this scenario, what about the jobs they left behind?  Somebody still has to do these jobs!  For whatever the skills are of the management of say, a fast food restaurant to deserve their higher pay, without the so-called unskilled labor provided by the burger flippers, the counter workers, and even the people who clean the rest rooms, the company would be unable to make a dime!  When viewed in this light, don’t these workers at least deserve the dignity of a wage that takes them out of poverty? 

There is no question that poverty is becoming an ever increasing problem in the US, even with the economy said to be recovering.  We have increasing numbers of people needing food stamps to live on and many of the food banks are having trouble keeping up with the demand of hungry people. What is even more disturbing is that there are those in the middle class who are only a lost job, a divorce, or a healthcare catastrophe from falling into the depths of poverty themselves.  And although poverty has traditionally been associated with urban and rural dwellers, poverty rates are now surging in America's suburbs.

For example, poverty is up by almost 16 percent in the suburbs of Pittsburgh.  Up more than 27 percent in the suburbs of Providence.  Nearly 79 percent outside Seattle.  And in the suburbs of Austin, Texas, the number of poor has swelled almost 143 percent.  More poor people now live in America’s suburbs than in cities or in rural areas.

But America with its culture of individualism all too often pays lip service to those in need.  Instead of an attitude that we are all in this together, there is the attitude that you are on your own.  How else can one explain that there are so many who are not only against a living wage for the working poor but even a paltry raise in the minimum wage?  Or the campaign by some to cut safety net benefits like food stamps. 

But surely we can take care of the needs of our veterans who served honorably in Afghanistan and Iraq and to make sure that they can return to this country and successfully integrate into the workforce. Right? But for all of the times we say that we “salute their service”, news like this says all too often that we are giving them little more than the one-finger salute.  

It is the shame of America. The Department of Veteran Affairs reports that 48,000 veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 are either homeless or in a special program to keep them off the streets.

We are the richest country on Earth that has the resources to eventually win the war on poverty – or at the very least, win some major battles against it.  Our economy generates an incredible amount of wealth – but little or none of it goes to those at the bottom who need it the most.  As long as our economy is unable to produce enough jobs that pay a living wage for everybody who wants to work, we will continue to lose the War on Poverty.  A prosperous economy for all simply cannot exist when there is stubbornly high unemployment.  Past experience has shown that government spending to stimulate the economy for things like needed infrastructure improvements have been much more successful in creating jobs than austerity measures that have resulted in Great Depression levels of unemployment in parts of Europe.

 

President Obama in his recent State of the Union address did note the need for infrastructure spending and also noted that nobody should work a 40 hour week and live in poverty.  So he then advocated a minimum wage increase to $10.10 per hour.  What is disheartening is that he is unlikely to get any support whatsoever for this from Republicans.  And even if he did, $10.10 per hour is hardly enough to raise anyone out of poverty.

 

An adequate number of jobs that pay a living wage is the only way to have a fighting chance to truly win the War Against Poverty nowadays. We have the means to do it.  All we need is enough people to really care!

Will the Affordable Care Act Really Be Affordable?

With a name like the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) it is obvious that the intent of the law is to make healthcare affordable to as many Americans as possible, especially those who up to now because of preexisting conditions have found health insurance to be unaffordable or simply unavailable at any price.

 

But how well will it accomplish this aim? Right now, it is too early to say because most of the attention has been on getting the website fixed so people can actually shop for and buy insurance and not yet so much on how much the policies will cost.

 

There have been some reports of ‘sticker shock’ where the premium costs are at higher rates than expected (even with the government subsidy) and in some cases, what people were paying before for policies they already had. 

 

But the problem with comparing insurance policies simply based on the premiums is that the coverage, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs may not be the same.  Put another way, it is easy for an insurance company to make the price of a policy more attractive by cutting out some of the benefits.  To try and prevent this ‘race to the bottom’ by insurers competing on price by stripping down benefits, the ACA has a level of benefits that all of the policies must adhere to so that the prospective customer can more easily compare ‘apples to apples’.  In some cases, the ACA policies offered cost more because they provide coverage that preexisting policies did not.  Because of this, it was a big mistake for President Obama to tell everybody that if they liked their policy, they could keep it. And his approval ratings have taken a hit because of this.

 

In other countries with universal health care like Canada and the United Kingdom, co-pays and out of pocket costs are at a minimum which keeps healthcare in these places truly affordable.  But a look at the Heathcare.gov website gives an array of choices for each policy labeled Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum which corresponds to roughly how much of the medical expenses will be covered at 60%, 70%, 80% and 90% respectively.  Presumably, someone who expects to use lots of medical care will pay the higher rate for more coverage with others opting for the lower rate.

 

Even with annual caps, this can lead to some very hefty out-of-pocket costs to the consumer once the insurer has paid their part of the bill as shown in this link.

 

And as shown in this link, the government subsidies for coverage can fall off very sharply once somebody’s income reaches a certain level which can place some in a very difficult position to afford insurance.

 

And while insurers are no longer permitted to charge differently by gender, they can charge older people more which can make the insurance more difficult to afford for those in their 50s and 60s getting close to the Medicare retirement age of 65.  And there are those who want to raise the Medicare retirement age!

 

In addition, some areas of the country have plenty of competition for the insurance buyer which is good for them.  But other areas have few competitors which makes for more limited (and expensive) choices.  And with health insurance companies still having exemptions from anti-trust laws, it is unclear how this will adversely affect pricing over the long run, especially if not enough healthy people enroll to spread the risk among the other policyholders.

 

To take care of those who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but don’t make enough to afford insurance on the open market even with a subsidy, the ACA proposed to expand Medicaid to cover these people.  But as part of the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, states have the choice whether to opt-in and accept the government funds to expand Medicaid in their states.  Unfortunately, many (but not all) states run by Republican governors have refused this help for their people who need it the most based on ideological grounds.

 

All of this is not to bash Obamacare and say that it has to be repealed as so many Republicans are demanding. Indeed, there are many people who now have vital access to health insurance who simply didn’t have it available to them before.  It just means that when a system like this which keeps the private for-profit insurance companies in the loop unlike single-payer systems (like Medicare here in the US) which replace them, there are going to be lots of unforeseen consequences that will have to be worked out and fixed for things to run properly.   The system that has been used in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Romneycare) is pretty much identical to Obamacare.  And while it too had its rocky start, it seems to have worked just fine with about 92% of its residents having health insurance.  As long as Obama is president, Obamacare isn’t going away! Rational members of the Republican Party whether they like Obamacare or not, know this. If someday we can get both sides to finally agree that Obamacare is here to stay and to work on fixing what’s wrong with it instead of non-productive rhetoric arguing for its abolition (a big if)...maybe there is hope for a healthcare system that works for all Americans!

Elizabeth Warren for President?

I believe it was the day after President Obama’s reelection victory last year when the pundits started to speculate on who was going to run for president in 2016, especially with no incumbent in the mix.  Many people, including me objected to this.  After all, the guy just won a new 4 year term; let’s talk about what he hopes to accomplish now instead of dwelling on the distant future and making him into a lame duck already. 

 

Of course, since then the speculation has only continued.  On the Democratic side, we have the ‘inevitable’ nomination of Hillary Clinton if she decides to run (which was also inevitable back in 2008, but a young Senator Barack Obama didn’t get the memo).  On the Republican side, will they nominate someone from the Tea Party like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul? Or will they nominate somebody is who viewed as being a more moderate conservative like Chris Christie?  

 

So once again for liberals, it looks like a choice between another Democratic centrist and someone likely to be from the far right which is what the Republican primary battles seem to be turning out.  Will liberals ever get one of their own to choose from?  With the speculation over the increasingly popular Senator Elizabeth Warren perhaps running for president, especially if Hillary chooses not to run, liberals like me cannot keep from being swept into the same speculation over 2016 that I have criticized.  So if the reader will indulge me...  

 

Elizabeth Warren who was a Harvard Law School professor became well known for her government work not only to liberals, but also to corporate America and Wall Street for her outspoken criticism of how they did business.  President Obama named her to help put together the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in a logical next step, he nominated her to be the first Director of the agency.  Needless to say, the Republicans in general and Wall Street in particular wanted no part of this and with a promise of a Senate filibuster that would make her confirmation unlikely, Warren’s nomination was reluctantly withdrawn.  

 

In hindsight, maybe the Republicans wish they could have that choice back because her next move which resulted in a successful run for the US Senate in Massachusetts has resulted in her being even more of a thorn in the side of Wall Street with her appointment to be part of the Senate Banking Committee.  There is already a considerable collection of online videos of her tormenting Wall Street executives and even the Treasury Department as in this video during congressional hearings asking the tough (but pertinent) questions many of her colleagues didn’t seem to have the stomach to ask. 

 

But when she ran against the incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown, many wondered if she had a chance to even be competitive, let alone win against an opponent who was being heavily bankrolled by Wall Street.  But an amazing thing happened in that she actually received a significant amount of campaign donations even from voters outside of Massachusetts, hoping that this populist candidate could beat the odds.  And she did, winning rather comfortably.

 

Senator Warren has been an outspoken advocate for liberal causes, most notably focusing on the harm from our extreme wealth and wage disparity along with the resulting money that those in the top 1% have used to buy favor with politicians of both parties. 

 

You would think that running on such a populist platform would be a natural for an ambitious politician.  But just as Kermit the Frog lamented that It's Not Easy Being Green, nowadays it’s not easy being a liberal either.  Conservatives having control of the White House for most of the last 30 years have seemingly captured much of the political narrative in the US.  Especially with their domination of talk radio along with the success of Fox News, they have sold the notion that America is mainly a conservative nation, which ignores President Obama’s back to back victories.  But just as importantly, whatever one may think of conservatives, they are proud as hell to call themselves conservatives.  And furthermore, there is seemingly no such thing in most of their minds as being too conservative.  A number of politicians with solid conservative credentials have been defeated in Republican primaries by hard-right Tea party activists for in their minds not being conservative enough.  Others are fearful of being ‘primaried’ when it is their turn to run for reelection. Even as someone who once ran as a moderate Republican for governor of a solidly liberal Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had to re-label himself as a "severely conservative" governor during his presidential campaign try and convince the conservative base that he was one of them. 

 

On the other side, the term ‘liberal’ has become a pejorative word – even most liberals will no longer use the word but instead prefer to be known as ‘progressives’.  If conservatives want to paint an opponent as being unworthy to vote for, all they feel they need to do is to paint him or her as a ‘liberal’ and that will do the job (after adding in the word ‘socialist’ for good measure).  With the resounding defeats of liberals George McGovern and Walter Mondale in past presidential elections, the formula for most Democratic presidential candidates nowadays is to say enough to appeal to the liberal base but also at the same time not come across as being too liberal.  The result has been Democratic presidents in the form of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who on economic issues are centrist at best and maybe even center-right on some issues.   

 

Bill Clinton brought us more financial deregulation, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which had put a firewall between the banking and investment parts of financial institutions.  Many feel that if this firewall was still in place, the financial debacle of 2008 which is still inflicting great harm on our economy may not have happened.  And Barack Obama has relied on many of the same members of the Clinton team who were behind all of the financial deregulation. 

 

The frustration of those on the liberal side comes from when a centrist has to negotiate with those on the far right, the compromise has to land somewhere on the right.  For example, with our need to create jobs to address our stubborn unemployment problem, the battle should be between the idea of more government spending to try and stimulate the economy (the liberal/Keynesian approach) or going with spending cuts (the conservative/austerity approach) to try and balance the budget.  Instead, we have an attempt at compromise in which the only detail to work out is how much and where spending cuts are going to be.  Some compromise!  The fear among liberal economists like Paul Krugman is that without some sort of fiscal policy in the way of a government stimulus to create jobs, we are going to be stuck in this unemployment rut for a long time to come. 

 

And as for Hillary, although most of the Democratic campaign money seems to lining up behind her if she runs, it is tough for liberals to get a warm and fuzzy feeling for someone who as a senator from New York was (perhaps understandably) supportive of Wall Street interests. 

 

A recent article from The New Republic, Hillary's Worst Nightmare? provides lots of red meat for liberals to chew on.  While acknowledging that Hillary is again considered to be the “inevitable” Democratic nominee if she decides to run, they write that Elizabeth Warren’s liberal populist message may prove to give Hillary more of a battle than many would expect or at the very least, would nudge Hillary a little more to the left.  And just to prove that liberal populism is not totally extinct, there is the recent mayoral race in New York City won in a landslide by unabashed liberal Bill de Blasio.  

 

OK, back to reality.  Elizabeth Warren and her staffers have repeatedly said that she is not running for president.  Of course this is speculation, but I think this is more a case of not wanting to run against Hillary rather than just not being interested in the presidency.  While she may well make it a spirited battle, Warren is a political neophyte having never held political office before her run for the Senate.  In addition, her inexperience in foreign affairs compared to someone who was recently the Secretary of State would be ruthlessly exploited in a political campaign. 

 

But if Hillary decides not to run, all bets are off!  Warren, who will be 67 years old in 2016 may decide that it’s now or never if she indeed has any ambitions to be president. 

 

And let’s not forget VP Joe Biden who I’m sure would love to take another crack at the presidency if Hillary doesn’t run – or maybe even if she does run for all we know!  Biden gets an unfair rap as a buffoon because of the number of gaffes he has made in his public appearances.  But Biden has always been one to speak from the heart and not from a TelePrompTer.  I’ll take that over someone whose words are always programmed for political correctness.  In addition, he served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was widely respected for his expertise there.  Had President Obama not picked him as his VP, he would have been a fine choice as his Secretary of State.   Instead, Biden has worked as a loyal team player behind the scenes on behalf of the president to make up for his relative lack of experience with inside Washington politics. And best yet, he is a true liberal from a modest background who truly cares about the working person and others who are struggling to get by in these difficult times.  But in 2016, he will be 74 – perhaps too old to be seriously considered by the electorate. 

 

If Hillary does run and get the nomination, she may well decide that Elizabeth Warren can make a valued contribution to her presidency if she wins just like Joe Biden has done for President Obama.  Maybe this means a cabinet spot or – wait for it! – the VP slot.  Warren’s strong following among liberals may prove to be a help in mobilizing this group to support and vote for Hillary instead of sitting on the sidelines.  A woman at the top of the ticket would be historic.  Two on the ticket...why not?

Stopping Government by Extortion

ex·tor·tion  [ik stáwrsh'n ]

getting something by force: the acquisition of something through the use of force or threats

NYT op-ed columnist Paul Krugman had this humorous take on the nature of extortion and how it drove the latest budget and debt ceiling negotiations.

So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume. 

Not much of an offer, is it? But here’s the kicker: Your neighbor’s relatives, who have been egging him on, are furious that he didn’t also demand that you kill your dog.   

And now you understand the current state of budget negotiations.

Anybody who doesn’t see the similarity to the Tea Party tactics, threatening the nation with default if we didn’t comply with their demands just isn’t paying attention.  It is easy to dwell on which side’s position we may think is right.  Important as that is, it pales next to the Tea Party’s use of extortion to get what they couldn’t attain through the democratic process.  This is unforgivable and must be stopped in the future! 

Let’s be clear.  As a liberal, I am strongly opposed to Tea Party political positions.  But I ask the reader to believe me when I say that if a liberal group with positions I agreed with used the same extortion tactics, I would condemn them just as strongly. 

Most economists agree that if the US had gone into default, the results would have been catastrophic.   But the President in not negotiating with the Tea party rightly saw that preserving our democratic process was even more important that keeping us from going into default if we were forced under duress to choose one or the other. 

So under the terms of the last agreement, we now have new budget and debt ceiling deadlines.  Will the extortion card be played once again?  The Congressional leadership says no, especially with the Republican brand taking a beating according to polls like this one.   

But interviews with Tea Party stalwarts after the shutdown and debt ceiling crises were postponed show that they remain just as defiant as ever.  What comes across is not that they were sorry for the tactics they used; they are simply sorry that they lost!  What crazy things will Ted Cruz do next time?  It’s not a pleasant thought! 

But there is a way out of this mess!  It is something called the McConnell Provision originally proposed by Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell back in 2011.

The McConnell Provision received broad bipartisan support last year. In fact, it was one of those rare policy proposals that received support from both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times editorial boards. 

And for good reason. Extension of the McConnell Provision would lift the periodic threat of default from the U.S. economy and remove politics from future debt limit debates, while preserving Congress’ essential role in spending, revenue and borrowing decisions.

But we would be deluding ourselves if we think this will be an easy sell for Republicans, especially those like McConnell himself who are facing primary challenges from the Tea Party. 

The only hope is that saner heads in the Republican Party will decide they don’t want to go through more beatings that will further erode their approval ratings if they try stunts like this again.  But you truly never know with the Tea Party who may well in their perverse logic subscribe to the mindset that The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves!