Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Washington, The Revolving Door Is Hazardous to Your Health
On Tuesday, October 13, the Senate Finance Committee finally is scheduled to vote on its version of health care insurance reform. And therein lies yet another story in the endless saga of money and politics.
In most polls, the majority of Americans favor a non-profit alternative -- like Medicare -- that would give the private health industry some competition. So if so many of us, including President Obama himself, want that public option, how come we're not getting one?
Because the medicine that could cure our healthcare nightmare has been poisoned from Day One -- fatally adulterated, thanks to the infamous, Washington revolving door. Movers and shakers rotate between government and the private sector at a speed so dizzying they forget for whom they're supposed to be working.
If you've been watching the Senate Finance Committee's markup sessions, maybe you've noticed a woman sitting behind Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Her name is Liz Fowler.
Fowler used to work for Wellpoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was its vice president of public policy. Baucus' office failed to mention this in the press release announcing her appointment as senior counsel in February 2008, even though it went on at length about her expertise in "health care policy."
Now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want -- higher profits -- and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.
A veteran of the revolving door, Fowler had a previous stint working for Senator Baucus -- before her time at Wellpoint. But wait, there's more. The person who was Baucus top health advisor before he brought back Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. And why did she leave the staff of the committee? To go to work -- surprise -- at a firm representing the same company for which Liz Fowler worked -- Wellpoint. As a lobbyist.
You can't tell the players without a scorecard in the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. It's why they always win. They're been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House -- health care, energy, financial reform, the Employee Free Choice Act and more -- the soil has never been so fertile.
The health care industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress and more than 500 of them are former Congressional staff members, according to the Public Accountability Initiative's LittleSis database.
They want a public option about as much as you want the swine flu, and just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, the industry has been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee puts for-profit insurance companies first -- by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.
In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent $380 million on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And -- don't bother holding onto your socks -- a million and a half of it went to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, the man who said he saw "a lot to like" in the two public option amendments proposed by Senators Rockefeller and Schumer, but voted no anyway.
The people in favor of a public alternative can't scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career. In fact, over the last two decades, the current members of the entire finance committee have collected nearly $50 million from the health sector, a long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine.
Not that we should be surprised. A century ago, muckraking journalists reported that large corporations and other wealthy interests virtually owned the United States Senate -- using bribery, fraud and sometimes blackmail to get their way. Jokes were made about "the Senator from Union Pacific" or "the Senator from Standard Oil."
One reporter in particular was out to break their grip. His name was David Graham Phillips. One day in 1906, readers of Cosmopolitan Magazine opened its March issue to discover the first of nine articles by Phillips titled, "The Treason of the Senate."
He wrote, "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous: interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few: interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom."
The public outrage provoked by Phillips and other muckrakers contributed to the ratification of the 17th amendment to the Constitution, providing for the direct popular election of senators, who until then were elected by easily bought-off state legislators.
Of course, like water seeking its own level, big money finds its way around every obstacle, and was soon up to its old tricks, filling the pockets of sympathetic and grateful politicians.
Today, none dare call it treason. So why not call it what it is -- a friendly takeover of government, a leveraged buyout of democracy.
Outrageous? You bet. But don't just get mad. Get busy.
52 Comments so far
Show AllThere's not really much new in this article other than placing our current corruption into historical perspective.
We can spend this entire thread detailing the many ways in which the early years of the twenty-first century are different from those of the twentieth. Sadly, this article makes it clear that they are exactly in the same in politics.
The saddest aspect of our current situation is the fact that the corporate media has been able to redirect the outrage of an ignorant and gullible public against the very elements that have the power to reign in corporate rapacity. My disappointment in Obama pales in comparison to my anger toward the irresponsible US electorate.
q
some of my anger is reserved for the corporate media and some for the electorate.
for peace and sustainability
Bill, nicely written article, but the "take over" is no secret to anyone. It was pretty much complete in the first year of the Clinton Administration when Rubin (Sachs Goldman CEO) whispered sweet nothings into Clinton's ear telling him the way things were in Washington.
If you remember, Clinton campaigned as a populist and won on a 'people' driven campaign/platform. But like all the 'so called' populists before him, his Administration quickly changed direction toward corporate domination and influence.
Obama did the same thing.
In other words, game over. And if you doubt that take TARP legislation. Micheal Moore accurately notes in his latest film that legislators received the most negative outpouring of calls, letters, and emails refuting the TARP Bill legislation. Congress then overwhelming voted down the legislation, but the next day a deal was cut to pass it behind closed doors with a few elites.
We don't live in a Democracy Bill, but an oligarchy.
If you want change, maybe you ought to consider revolution.
I think we have one more chance before revolution.
We must vote all representatives who voted for the bailout of the banksters, for the surge in Afghanistan and have not signed on to support HR 676, Medicare for all, Single payer OUT OF OFFICE. THese three issues have the overwhelming support of the people of this nation. Any representative who voted against the people and for the corporations that have filled the pockets of our 'representatives', must be voted out of office.
We need to KICK THE CORRUPT OUT OF CONGRESS. Hey, vote for anyone else on the ballot. We need a reboot of Congress. And don't pay attention to whether they have a little D or a R after their name. Both major political parties are equally corrupt. THere is no lesser of the two evils. They are both EVIL. Vote independent, or third party, or start a new party. Just don't vote back the same bastards who are betraying us. Treasonous is a reasonable word for them.
Agree. The Senate is corrupt and represents interests with money (corporate and othewise). It is too powerful and secretive. Term limits are needed; then legislation is needed to rid the revolving door and effective legalized bribery. The problem is the Senate will block all these efforts in order to maintain power. Bill Moyers article is a good start for change: educate the public who in general have no idea how corrupt the government is. Second, vote for independent parties.
Treason is a reasonable term; and so is just(ly) one for DEM all! Tell DEM : Single-payer OR SINGLE TERM!
There's one thing Moyers leaves out. When my senator, Feingold, once got on the air and disappointed everyone by telling Amy Goodman that passing single payer just wouldn't happen, I knew that from that moment on, the green light to screw up like this was given. Congress is free as a bird to fatten up the private insurance companies and leave us crumbs at best and we'll be told to shut up and accept or else. If even Feingold turned out to be such a let down, what is to trust of Washington anymore?
Jill: I saw the interview -- Amy Goodman and Russ Feingold -- and quite frankly, I was stunned by the fact that Russ Feingold had already given up the fight. That was early on in the so-called health care discussions that quickly became discussions about "health insurance reform" and a mandate to buy insurance from the insurance companies.
At the very least, I thought that Senator Feingold would be one of the senators who stood with Bernie Sanders. But, sadly, NO he hasn't.
Kay, I love Bernard Sanders and would do almost anything to trade my other senator, Kohl, for him. WI used to be a proud state with rock solid socialist progressives. Even surrounding states such as MN, MI, IN, MO, IL, PA, and OH used to have some sympathy towards socialism given the then strong labor unions responsible for giving those states a life before the decline of labor unions turned the into rustbelt states that they are today. I wished WI could be like VT. The economy in WI is about as depressing as it can be.
I think that capitalism will have to be replaced with socialism before we can dream of having any universal health care for everyone. Capitalism has ruined families for years. My own parents and siblings worship capitalism like there's no tomorrow. But my children and my sibling's children wish everyone could be rich and happy. I don't mind being a secretary instead of a broker middleman even if I don't make millions out of it.
I do not want other families to go through the same grief I went through thanks to lack of insurance in the family. I still have moments of grief when I can never forget the day my husband passed away thanks to lack of adequate insurance needed to rescue his life. His doctor was quick to deny him treatment where he needed it. I would like to know how many more broken hearted families it will take to make single payer the law of the land.
Awhile back Sen. Sanders was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal pushing for single-payer or at least the public option. Someone called in on the republican line and said that Sanders sounded like he wanted private health insurance companies out of the picture.
He replied, simply: I do want them gone.
I can't imagine most Democrats in the Senate showing that kind of a backbone. They would fold like a tent so fast.
Jill, I am sorry to hear what happened to your husband and my heart goes out to you. Our pols are cold-hearted to understand. They have their "single payer" while the rest of us are thrown to the merciless privatized "care" wolves.
On your first paragraph, I too would love to trade my current Republican Senator Kit Bond for Sanders. I thought WI was more progressive than my state of MO. I need to talk to my roommate who moved in from Milwaukee and get some more info. I like the WI cheese a lot btw. :)
With reference to capitalism, it's unfettered capitalism that has been ruining us all. Regulated capitalism would have given a voice for single payer although socialism would have been better at it.
Jennifer, thanks for the warm return. We'll be happy to keep the cheese cow pumping. :)
On Senator trading, I can't tell who's worse, Republican Bond or Democrat Kohl. They're both worthless as far as I am concerned. Isn't Bond retiring this year? Your state might be interesting to watch. It was close last year but went for Mccain in the end. But I suppose MO could use a Sanders even more than WI but I still want Kohl out.
Regulated capitalism looks fine but can easily be turned into unfettered capitalism and that has happened before. I don't think we can afford to take chances with any type of capitalism. We need socialism and now.
Jill, I missed Feingold on Goodman's show, but I know the feeling. I live in Maine now but Minnesota is my home state, and I had expected much more from Amy Klobuchar. At least I don't think that Al will ever let us down. Here I have to look at Snowe on the TV and it's just about enough to make your skin crawl.
I know a lot about Amy Kloubacher. I suspect that she must have been getting her mentoring from my other WI senator, Kohl. She's too DLCish. Speaking of MN, I still miss Paul Wellstone a lot and I worry about Feingold's life despite a few disappointments I have with him. I'm glad Al Franken put Norm Coleman to rest. I look forward to watching Al Franken on the issues. Does he support single payer by any chance? If you can, ask him to support Sanders's single payer plan. I will still bug my two senators to support Sanders's plan. I might even decide to take some vacation time off and go to Washington and see if I can meet those two senators in person and nag them. I can't trust technologies to get through to them much less yield promising responses.
Jill, I will paste this article:
Franken signs Senate letter supporting public option in health care reform
By Cynthia Dizikes | Published Thu, Oct 8 2009 5:14 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen. Al Franken signed on to a letter [PDF] today that urges Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include a government-run public insurance plan in the final version of the health care reform bill.
“Minnesotans I’ve talked to around the state want to see real health care reform,” the Minnesota Democrat, who sits on the Senate Health Committee, said in a statement. “They know that the status quo is unsustainable, and they want security, stability, and affordability in the plans they’re choosing for themselves and their families. Minnesotans are telling me to fight for a public health insurance option because they know it’s the clearest way to keep down costs and hold insurance companies accountable.”
The Senate Finance Committee has voted down two attempts to include a so-called public option in its version of the health care reform bill, which likely will come up for a final vote next week.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who heads the committee, has previously said that the votes do not exist in the Senate to pass a bill with a public option.
Opponents of a public option argue that it would create an unwieldy bureaucratic mess that would strangle the private insurance market. Proponents say that it is the most effective way to bring down costs.
The letter, authored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a Senate Health Committee member, states that the public option has the support of all the health committee’s Democrats, three-quarters of those on the Finance Committee and what signers believe to be a majority of the caucus.
“We are concerned that — absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option — health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment,” the senators wrote.
The Senate Finance bill contains a co-op proposal in lieu of a public option. In the letter, the senators criticized this approach.
“While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country,” the senators wrote. “There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has not come out for or against the public option, has not signed the letter, according to a version of the letter that MinnPost obtained.
gandy, thank you for the article you posted. I have so and so feelings about public option. It looks ok but it's nothing like single payer health care from what I have read about it. I hope Al Franken does the same thing with Bernard Sanders's (S 703) bill on single payer.
JillSwanson, I've referenced that Feingold appearance many times myself in comments at CD and elsewhere, for exactly the same reasons that you do! So I did a double-take when I read your comment.
With that in mind, you may appreciate this comment:
http://tinyurl.com/ylz539n
Because Tinyurl doesn't work for some people, here's the first part:
________________________________
... I like Russ Feingold, I really do. And though I [am pessimistic] about the prospects for incrementally reforming the Democratic Party, I think if the Worst of the Worst of our Democratic Elected Misrepresentatives-- say, the Worst hundred or so-- could be replaced en masse with Feingolds, we might get Change We Can Believe In.
However, on a few occasions in recent months I've cited Feingold's May "Democracy Now" appearance, during which Amy Goodman probed Feingold on Congress' intransigence in considering single-payer health care.
Poor Russ could only look down and all but nervously scrape his shoe-tip back and forth on the carpet as he stammered that it just wasn't possible to get through Congress, and everybody in Congress knew it. (I paraphrase.)
Of course, he coughed up a couple of rationalizations, but didn't even attempt a response based on principles, or merits.
And he certainly didn't venture the plain truth that our Elected Misrepresentatives are obliged, first and foremost, to serve their true Master-- Mammon, manifested as corporations and vested interests-- despite the fantasy that Congress derives its power and authority from the people.
To Feingold's credit, he didn't express the motivation the bemused Max Baucus has been stating matter-of-factly: to give Obama the big "Win" he tasked Congressional Democrats to obtain.
I think Feingold remains fundamentally decent enough to suffer anguish and shame, and it showed during that interview. [...]
· Yr Obd't Servant
OS, I don't know what to fully make of that comment but I will have to think it out for a while. There's so much I love about Feingold. My most favorite moment of his was his vote against the Patriot Act. I know his life is at stake while trying to be the best he can be and that being 1 out of 100 senators isn't always easy. I just wished he would have instead say something like, "Whatever the odds, I will be one of the senators who will keep trying to bring it up." I can only hope he'll try and not sink to Kohl's level.
Who is Mammon you are referring to? I never heard of him before.
Mammon is a term, derived from the Christian Bible, used to describe material wealth or greed, most often personified as a deity. The word itself is a transliteration from the Hebrew word "mammon" (מָמוֹן), which means "money."
· Yr Obd't Servant
Oh silly me. I was absent-minded on that one. Thank you for the reminder though. I think Mammon is what my parents and my siblings worship like there's no tomorrow. They're so into capitalism. Tell them one single them which they detect as socialism and the hiss and fire away like mad. I wonder if there's any way I can reason with Mammon worshippers.
I like mammon and more mammon. Anyone who says money cannot buy happiness is full of shit.
That was another inspirational piece by Moyers and Winship. Marcy Kaptur is inspirational because she cares about the people she represents enough to tell the truth.
We got to where we are today by allowing congress to pretend that campaign finance and revolving door lucre wasn't really buying legislation. While it is still almost impossible to prove in court than an individual politician sold a vote or legislation, it is obviously true in general because we have clear examples like the bank bailout and healthcare.
It is illegal, it is bribery to do what congress does every day while they have the gall to stand up and say they are moral and would never sell their office. While we have let them tell those lies unchallenged, the corruption has gone wholesale.
What they do is unconstitutional. They are sent to Washington to represent the citizens of their home states. To not do so violates their oath. To not give honest service in their office is also a crime.
Let's start holding them accountable. I saw here on CD this morning a story about a man who refused to shake Tony Blair's hand, saying it had blood on it. We can do the same. We can refuse to play along with Washington's fiction that the K-Street juggernaut only speaks but does not buy, that it is not a crime against democracy. The majority of people know something is seriously wrong in Washington. Now is not the time to lose faith in our ability to make ourselves heard by our government.
We talk amongst ourselves, "the choir," and we build our arguments. Moyers writes another call to action and we say that no one outside our box hears him. Well, make a few copies and distribute them. One of these days, we will win... or not. Either way, at least we did our part to keep freedom from perishing from swine flu.
I respect the authors of this article but it is old and redundant news to me. If there was any way the American electorate could take away the health care from all the people in the crime family that is euphemistically called Congress, until every American had health care coverage; then you would see REAL action on single payer health care!
When Washington votes and passes things it is written by corporations, the insurance companies in this case, and it benefits corporations not the PEOPLE!
IT'S TIME TO RE-BOOT!
Excellent piece! I just wrote a long rant on corruption but treason is the right word for it. It's here for reference:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/10-0#comment-1315150
"Outrageous? You bet. But don't just get mad. Get busy."
Here is the result of my busy hour:
* Third party, we need honest and somewhat intelligent people... to give you an idea, Nader lacks on both counts.
* Both parties out of Congress in 2010, replaced by the third party.
* Defense against treason and corruption is the prime goal of the new party.
* Lower the rhetoric on divisive but less important issues such as race.
* Make lobbying illegal. Donations at most $100 per person.
* Revoke corporate personhood.
* Make it easy to recall federal elected officials
* Open up the process of law creation, write one bill at a time, all who participate must have open public records.
* Allow voting or repeal of federal laws in exceptional cases (?)
* Banking is a major source of corruption, reform it!
* Reinstate Glass-Steagall,
* Regulate hedge funds and private equity funds. Now they have the privilege to be unregulated.
* tax derivatives,Tobin tax
* Unbalanced trade is another major source of corruption, balance it!
This is a start. Whoever signs underneath it IS the third party.
Except for your remark against Nader who was and still is honest and very intelligent but unfortunately left out by our cold-hearted electorate, I think most of us would strongly agree with you. And just to let you know, BeForKids has a new third party for your points. It's called the Main Street Party.
If Nader adopts something like my original comment as his platform, I'll be the first to support him. But I look at the "Issues" on his web site... He's is way, way off. Let's not blame the electorate lest we get to the point described by Brecht:
Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
How does the fact that Nader has priorities different from your own make him dishonest?
q
Nothing can be fixed before corruption is fixed. The checks and balances must be reinforced, it's not that easy, it requires a lot of dedication, it can't be a secondary issue, secondary issues must not be allowed to interfere with the main goal. I think Nader is smart enough to know the truth... what else could I conclude? Regardless, say he is honest but not bright enough. Does it change anything? No, he has to be ignored either way, at lest until he comes around.
Well, the fourth item on Nader's lists is "Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare" which pretty much fits the bill as far as corruption is concerned. Nader also discusses the issue of corruption under other points, especially the one about a national initiative.
Your second sentence is so poorly written that I'm not at all sure what you mean. If you're trying to say that the check and balances among the braches of the federal government must be restored then I agree. What you don't seem to understand is that corruption of each branch is the reason that these checks are not functioning.
You smell like any number of other right-wing drones who come to this site to disparage respected Progressive figures.
q
Thank you quickstepper. I think he'll understand once he/she reads Nader's books. There is a lot about Ralph Nader that no one out there is willing to appreciate him for.
One note. Arktig is not rightwing. Like Henry8, he is mixed. There are some issues Arktig can agree with us on and some Arktig won't. I myself had issues with Arktig on nuclear energy but on issues such as health care and the need for single payer, Arktig shares our views.
Compare the "Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare" to the long list I posted. Then reread this part: "it can't be a secondary issue, secondary issues must not be allowed to interfere with the main goal" You had all the answers already! Lip service is one thing, FIRM COMMITMENT TO SPECIFIC POLICIES IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
Obama was also floating around similar fuzzy promises. Haven't you learn anything? We are still looking for a person who'd take an intelligent, elaborate, responsible and firm stand on the issue of corruption. There isn't one now.
How ironic (apparently not to you) that you demand "specific policies" when your list is so fuzzy and unfocused. Nader's list IS specific.
I think that we have all "learn" more than you have.
q
quickstepper grammar fixing has nothing to do with fixing the real problems of this country. You haven't read the the Nader section you recommended - "Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare" doesn't even mention the word "corruption". There is nothing about government or even corporate corruption, the checks and balances are not mentioned either... I have to repeat myself, Nader is far from focused on corruption, it explains why he can't get votes.
Quoting from the section which you claim that I did not read:
"From pollution, medical negligence, procurement fraud, product defects, and financial fraud, to antitrust, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, foreign bribery and occupational homicide, corporate crime is widely ignored by politicians – yet acutely felt by all Americans. (emphasis mine)"
Nader doesn't even mention "corruption" huh?
Like most right wingers, you, sir, are a liar.
q
OK sir, I'm a liar and Nader is really focused on corruption. Good to see that you found a single reference to some nebulous "public corruption" on his site. Keep looking, you might find another one.
I found enough.
The point, sir, is that you accused me of not reading that section when you yourself clearly did not do so.
Please feel free return to this board when you feel the need to have your lying troll ass kicked again.
I'm afraid that Uncle Karl won't be giving you any warm pats on your bottom tonight.
q
I missed that reference to "corruption", not a surprise, it's a rare find. Your nitpicking and silly posturing aside, the only conclusion here is the original one - Nader is very far from being committed to ending corruption and from proposing a fix for it, he may be even further than Obama.
How do you clean a festering wound? You incise it! You cut it out! And you keep cutting until all the surrounding dead tissue is cut out! Then you disinfect and keep cleaning until you can see healthy tissue.
bill moyers is at it again - exposing the inconvenient truth of the fascist state of america - swinging door and all
although i don't think the door is swinging - i think its always open - wide open
for those interested: google the head of the sec and invariably you find they come from/go back to the cia
mike ruppert in his book crossing the rubicon has laid out how the cia runs the cocaine and heroin business in the world and use wall street to launder the drug cash - right through the fortune 500 - companies like GE and GM to name a few
once again through not the swinging but the wide open door
so our job as citizens is to stand down the imperium and all its faces - not only including wall street, congress, senate and whitehouse but also the sec and the cia
keep in mind that jfk's effort to stand down the cia left him with a rather large hole in his head (actually a couple) in dealey plaza dallas texas november 1963
One way to throw a brick at the revolving door is to remove Baucus from the Chair of The Finance Committee.
The Hill ran a story in July:
Dems Warn Baucus With Gavel Threat
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/52699-dems-warn-baucus-with-gavel-threat
Max may have escaped action earlier by bargaining his vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. He no longer has that chip to bargain.
One way to diminish the amount of influence being peddled is to remove one of the peddlers.
Contact Senate Democrats. Demand he be removed as chairman. The man is corrupt. He betrayed his Party. He betrayed Montana.
Great article.
I wonder why progressives like Feingold, Kucinich, Lee, Frank, Sanders and others don't introduce a bill to end the revolving door? In fact, a bill to end lobbyist bribes, gifts and perks? What could have better public support?
This is a great question and even a better idea. I'm just dying to hear their response if they are presented with the question.
Agreed. The solution is a no-brainer; Just make bribing a crime again.
Perhaps the reason they (progressives with integrity) can't get this obvious law on the books is that the justice department would simply ignore evidence of corruption because the justice department is corrupt.
The sad fact is, folks, that most people in this country are corrupt or working their ass off to get in a position where they can be bought. Honesty is un-Ameracan.
"The sad fact is, folks, that most people in this country are corrupt or working their ass off to get in a position where they can be bought."
With all due respect, the "sad fact is" that most people in this country are just trying to survive - and many are failing. It's the sorry sacks of shit with political amibitions who are queueing up at the the corporate bribery window.
q
"With all due respect, the "sad fact is" that most people in this country are just trying to survive - and many are failing. It's the sorry sacks of shit with political amibitions who are queueing up at the the corporate bribery window."
You can say that again. I used to not have to work and could homeschool my children until my husband passed away a few years ago. I don't any choice but to be employed full time lest I run into monthly debt and possible bankruptcy.
"The sad fact is, folks, that most people in this country are corrupt or working their ass off to get in a position where they can be bought."
That is half true but haven't you considered that most of us working are doing this to survive and pay our bills and mortgages?
Honesty isn't unAmerican as much as it is turned into a liability. Every politician who is honest either gets marginalized, forced to lose, or has his or her life taken away. I still pray that Senator Feingold doesn't lose his life unlike Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, and other good Democrats like them.
"The sad fact is, folks, that most people in this country are corrupt or working their ass off to get in a position where they can be bought. Honesty is un-Ameracan."
It's the slippery slope. Honesty used to be American, it used to be a part of the American business culture. As the law became more accommodating to corruption, honest behavior became a liability. Soon the word was out and those who played by the rules were either left behind or had to learn how to bend them. The process is by all means reversible. We have to strengthen business law and make corruption a losing proposition. It's a known process, all of this had happened before.
"They [the corporations] want a public option about as much as you want the swine flu..."
I think the healthcare industry will somehow be satisfied with the "public option" once their lobbyists and government employed shills explain the benefits of its "utilization."
Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" on pg41 describes how the railroad corporations near the turn of the LAST century used the revolving door and one of their own shills--attorney general Richard Olney--to kill the Interstate Commerce Commision.
But like a good shill, Olney explained to his former bosses:
"The Commission, as it functions has now been limited by the courts, is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people and a sort of protection against hasty and crude legislation hostile to railroad interests... The part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission but to utilize it."
Frank goes on to say this is how corporations stave off "public outrage" and promote the illusion government is looking out for the people's best interests.
According to Frank, the reaction by those in power to the "tactical undermining of federal agencies" can be summed up by the message of economist George Stilgler's 1971 essay on regulation that won him the Nobel Prize: What did you expect? --In other words, business is only doing what comes naturally.
You have to figure that if the people holding the power in the business arena don't expect a level playing field when it comes to market "competition"--then what makes those with less power think they can compete meaningfully in such an arena?
So I would put it to Moyers and anyone else who promotes the public option--what the hell do you expect is going to happen with the "public option" while the for-profit healthcare industry is still around?
It's not just a revolving door but also history repeating itself.