US Constitution by KJD
On this Independence Day, let us not just remember those who died that America might have its freedom, but also what they died for. The truest respect for sacrifice is not to hold a parade, to speak of gratitude or to say fond words; no, the truest respect is to value that which the dead fought for and to continue their fight.
America’s founders fought for freedom, we’re told, and there’s a lot of truth to that, though it wasn’t, then, freedom for all. In the context of the 18th century freedom meant some of what it means today: all men equal before the law, no taxation without representation, freedom to worship as you chose, and so on, but it also meant freedom from the aristocracy, and freedom from inherited power. “All men equal before the law” was a strike, not against slavery, but against the nobility. No man should have more rights than another; no man should have power because of who his father was.
America is the land of opportunity, it was said. Some still say this, and perhaps it’s still true. But the deeper truth is dying. Inherited wealth and inherited power are on the rise. For centuries, indeed until somewhere between 10 and 20 years ago, America, amongst all the nations in the entire world, had the most inter-generational mobility. To put it another way, no matter who your father was, or who your mother was, you could make it in America. More than in any other nation, in America you had a fair shot.
Now no one would say you can’t still make it in America. No one would say that opportunity isn’t still available in the land of the free and the home of the brave. But the fact, the sad fact, is that amongst Western nations the US now has the most income inequality and the least inter-generational mobility (along with Britain, the nation which follows American policies most closely). In America it now matters more who your father is, who your mother is, how much money your family has and how many connections it has, than in any other Western nation. The old European nations are now the land of opportunity, the land where who your parents were matters least.
The reasons are simple enough. Inheritance taxes have been weakened and progressive taxation has been slashed. The primary education system, funded by local tax dollars, systemically favors people who live in wealthy neighbourhoods, while university tuition has grown far faster than inflation at the same time as student aid has been slashed to the bone. The extremely rich have bought the government and use it to arrogate money to themselves, either through preferential laws—for example, Medicare Part D or the Bush tax cuts; or directly—for example, the 15 trillion spent on the financial crisis, the vast majority of which went in effect to the rich.
Power is passed from father and mother to daughter and son, with Congressional seats being passed on like some sort of inheritance and major network spots likewise going to the children of the influential. Perhaps there are no titles, but when, for example, Luke Russert, a man with no meaningful accomplishments of his own save being the offspring of late NBC news anchor Tim Russert, is hired as a national news commentator at age 22 over others who have worked harder, who have done more, and are vastly better qualified, it’s hard to see his inheritance as all that different from a Baron passing his rights, lands and chattel to his son.
All men are created equal. But, as Orwell noted in Animal Farm, some are more equal.
For example, if you were to kidnap a man and torture him for years on end, you’d be tried in a court of law and sent to jail. But if you were at the highest level of government in the United States and did so in violation of the law, your successor might well say that the US needs to look forward, not backwards.
Nothing strikes at the heart of the revolution, at the heart of the struggle for independence than this, that America has become not a nation of laws, but a nation of men, where some men are more equal than others. To be sure it has always been true that the rich and powerful have been more apt to escape Justice’s blind grasp. Yet at the same time, there can be no question that in the last eight years the greatest lawbreakers, the greatest mass murder in the country was also the highest official in the country. And that he and his accomplices will get away with their crimes, not because we don’t all know they’re crimes, but because the idea of accountability, of equality before the law, for the highest government officials is now dead.
There are certainly those who cry out for justice. But, let’s be frank: they don’t matter, because the people in power—in Congress and the executive branch, and quite probably on the Supreme Court (though we can’t be sure about that)—don’t believe that the laws apply to them in the same way they apply to ordinary people.
All men, in the land of the free, in the land of the brave, are no longer equal before the law.
The rallying cry of the revolution was No Taxation Without Representation, and that too is dead. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve, between them have spent, loaned, guaranteed and issued about 15 trillion dollars. With the exception of about 700 billion or so of that money, they didn’t get Congress’s permission for it, and when Congress asked how they were spending the money, they refused to answer.
That’s taxation without representation, and it has continued as much under the current administration as the previous one. Moreover, faced with the greatest failure of regulation in the post-war period, most notably by the Federal Reserve, the government has proposed to give that self-same Federal Reserve even more power. It is notable that of all the agencies which could be given more power, the Federal Reserve is the most removed from Congressional control, the most opaque, and the least democratic.
One suspects that for the executive branch all of these things aren’t bugs, they’re features.
And so, 233 years since 1776, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, aristocracy is on the rise, opportunity is taking a swan dive, taxation without representation rules the day and for the most powerful men and women, America has become a nation of men, not laws.
“A Republic, if you can keep it” – Ben Franklin
Can you? Have you?
My wish for America, then, this Independence day, is that you keep your Republic. Or, if perhaps you’ve lost it, that you regain it.
Cross-posted at FDL
Pride
Keeping the odd hours I do, I just walked through the area where Toronto’s Gay Pride celebrations will take place. At about 4 am the crowd was divided into celebrators still up from last night, with a few bars still open, and workers setting up the tents, portable toilets and stages for the weekends celebrations. Lesbians, gays and straights mingled on the streets, which had been blocked off already by bored police officers, and judging from the couples holding hands or kissing, there were a lot of straights celebrating with their gay friends and neighbours. Still, the sweetest couple I saw, caressing each other and kissing slowly and playfully, were gay, which is as it should be.
And there were a couple of drag queens too, which is also as it should be, because at Stonewall it was the queens who first started ripping up paving stones; the queens who first said “enough!”
Can’t say I find this all that interesting. Yes, he’s a hypocrite. Yes, there’s a train wreck quality to it all. Yes, he’s hurt people in his life. But, at the end of the day, his public life is over (not because he cheated, but because he’s become a laughingstock), he’s clearly in a lot of pain, and I don’t see any real reason to kick him while he’s down.
Now booting him solidly for being the sort of Repubican bastard who wouldn’t take free federal money to help people who needed help, that’s another matter. And in that sense, I’m not sorry he self-destructed. The country will be just fine with one less Republican who has no empathy for other people. But I can’t take any real pleasure in watching him, any more than I did in watching Spitzer implode.
A friend of mine, someone I respect a great deal, just observed that Mousavi calling for more demonstrations was sad, given that it isn’t his head that’s going to be cracked. Leaving aside the fact that I’m not so sure he’s sacrosanct, if things go far enough, my response is “so what?”
Because, with all due respect it’s that sort of attitude that let Bush get appointed as President in 2000 and thus lead to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. Nothing’s worth getting heads cracked to most Westerners. Certainly not an election which was even more unquestionably stolen than the Iranian one (which may or may not have been.)
For all the good Gore has done since then, I’ll despise him to the day I die for his gutlessness in 2000. Democratic crowds, including leg-breakers from the unions and other sources were ready to roll, and he told them to stand down. If there had been large protests, there is a very good chance that Sandra Day O’Connor would have blinked, and voted against Bush.
The price of Gore’s gutlessness was a lot of deaths. A hell of a lot of deaths, and the gutting of the US constitution, which the country may never recover from.
I don’t know if Mousavi is making the right decision in continuing to keep the fight going. But I do know that whether it’s the right decision or not is not determined by whether or not his opponents will use violence. If you are unwilling to stand up to violence, then anyone who is willing to use it controls you. You become their slave, and a slave to fear.
Senate Democrats Against The Public Option Aren’t Caving They Just Don’t Belive In Real Universal Healthcare
Chris at Americablog wonders why some Senate Democrats are caving on healthcare when 72% want a public option and 85% think the system needs to be fundamentally changed. He thinks it’s because such Dems are spineless. That fundamentally misunderstands the situation. To vote against something that 72% of the population wants indicates a Congress member isn’t a panderer to public opinion. What it indicates instead is that they either:
- actually don’t believe in a public option, let alone real universal healthcare a la single payor; or,
- are being paid enough by insurers and other folks who want the current healthcare gravy train to continue that they are willing to vote against what the majority of their constituents want.
Personally, I’d go with both. They don’t believe in universal healthcare, and they know that their real constituents aren’t the people who vote for them but the people who fund their campaigns and make sure they, their friends and their families are taken care of. And no, they don’t think that’s you, the voter and taxpayer.
They don’t believe they won’t be reelected if they vote against a public option. And given re-election rates of Senators, who are the people causing the most problem, they’re probably right, aren’t they? Their calculation is that voters are sheep and won’t make them pay any real price for killing a good healthcare plan.
I’d say they’re right. So given that they probably don’t believe in universal healthcare, that they don’t personally need it since they have good healthcare, that they get paid to vote against it and that they’ll pay no price for voting against it, why shouldn’t they kill it?
Seems like a brain dead calculation to me. I’m sure it does to Diane Feinstein too. As another entitled aristocrat once said “let them eat cake”.
Senate Finance Committee: We’re Going to Make You Buy Bad Insurance With No Public Option
Seriously, this is just pathetic:
1) Lower the medicaid coverage rate from 150% to 100% of the Federal poverty line, 133% for kids and pregnant women (once you have the baby, too bad for you)
2) Subsidies stop at 300% of the poverty line (was 400%)
3) No Public Option mentioned
4) Insurance exchanges at the State level
5) Must buy insurance unless it costs more than 15% of your income
6) A fine if you don’t buy insurance unless you’re below the Federal poverty line
For the most part, as Walker discusses, this is actually identical to or slightly worse than the plan put forward by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Yes, worse than the insurance industry’s plan. Remarkable. Baucus is really earning his campaign donations these days.
Of course, this is only one proposal, and in principle others from the House and other Senate committees could be better, and the better ones could be enacted. Obama has said he wants a public option, and he may whip for it.
But, if something like this is what comes out as the eventual “reform” it is worse than nothing. Being forced to buy bad insurance, with huge co-pays without a public option to keep prices in check has as its primary value that it is a subsidy for the insurance companies and that it reduces catastrophic healthcare costs for hospitals, because due to forced purchases of bad plans, some of the folks who used to come in at the last minute, after having not gotten care, and then costing the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars in emergency care, will be partially paid for. They’ll still come in last minute and not have been properly cared for since the deductibles will mean they didn’t get help, but 70% or 80% of their final death-rattle costs will be paid for.
The problem with this plan is that it won’t control costs. Without a public option, the insurance companies will have no check on their prices, let alone pressure to actually reduce them. Because people will be forced to buy bad insurance, they’ll hate the plan, and because “reform” has been passed, we’ll have to wait another 10 or 12 years for another shot.
Obama desperately wants to pass health care “reform”. The fear is that he may take the easy road, and pass any bill that is “better than nothing”, and that progressives will once again accept the logic that it’s better to get something rather than fight for an actual good bill.
But because Obama does desperately want to pass something, if progressives stand firm in the House or the Senate, and refuse as a bloc to pass anything without a good public option, nothing can pass unless Republicans cross the aisle, which is rather unlikely.
So the answer is to stop being taken for granted. Stand up for and demand a public option, and refuse to accept a bill which does less. Don’t let Obama have a cheap victory; a cheap “medicare reform”. If he wants it, make him whip for a real bill, a good bill, with a public option. He whipped for money to bail out banks in Eastern Europe. He whipped for TARP. He can whip for a good healthcare bill. And it won’t even cost 700 billion.
Actions tell you what politicians really care about. For example the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee hasn’t put out a public option on health care, because two Democratic members won’t vote for it.
“Not even at Rahm’s level has anyone specifically called members of the HELP committee and said ‘we want this public option,’ said the source. “No one from the White House has called and put pressure on any of them.”
Obama says that a robust public option is important to him. But it’s all about priorities. The war and IMF money to bail out Eastern European banks was a White House priority, you could tell because Obama himself whipped for it when it was in trouble, just as he did for the TARP bailout funds.. A real public option? It’d be nice to have, says Obama, just like he said he’d like to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
He’d like to. But he won’t expend any effort or capital for either.
I wonder how much capital he’ll expend for real health care reform. Is something that can be called “health care reform” enough, or does he really want the real thing?
We’ll see.
Image by Admit One
Why did it increase .5%? The savings rate has gone from negative to about 5%, a ton of people have lost their jobs, and wage gains have been essentially nonexistent.
Is it, therefore, just a slight bounce from extreme restriction during the height of the panic, or is there reason to believe it will continue to go up? I see, on the horizon, another wave of foreclosures, continued job losses (even if not as high as before, they will still be losses) and any recovery will cause further oil inflation, while there’s little reason to expect significant wage increases amongst those who are employed.
So why would we assume that consumer spending is going to keep increasing? Is there an expectation that credit will loosen and Americans will go back to borrowing? If so, does that mean that foreign countries like China are going to step into the void and start lending in a big way again (their lending to America is down, and lending from Americans to America is up). Or is there another bubble on the way which will give Americans inflated assets to borrow against as they borrowed against their home values? If so, I can’t see what it would be. Certainly cap and trade can be turned into a new asset class, and maybe a new bubble, but it won’t give ordinary consumers much money… Is there another bubble possibility I’m missing?
I’m constitutionally a bear, not a bull, so I don’t make the bull case scenario as well as I do the bear, but I’m not seeing where more consumer spending is coming from. The stimulus is not getting to consumers in large enough amounts to offset other losses, and the huge bailouts for the financial sector are likewise mostly not making their way into the broader economy, but are going to fill in a rather larger hole. Increased savings could lead to increased real investment, I suppose, but again, I don’t see that that money is mostly going to investment in the real economy.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t, yet, see a very strong bull case scenario. At this point it rests primarily upon cyclical factors like decreased inventory levels and business need for capital spending as well as on government stimulus, and perhaps that’s enough, but I’m not yet convinced.
Anyone want to make the bull case scenario? Be happy to hear it.
The measure of terrorism's success
The Tiller family has announced that it is closing Dr. Tiller’s clinic. The terrorists have won, and that assassination has succeeded in doing what it was meant to do. I’m sure the murderer is very happy tonight.
The bottom line on right wing terrorism against abortion rights is that it’s succeeding and has been for some time. Take a good hard look at the chart at the top and try and tell me otherwise. And when it comes to late term abortions, well, Tiller was one of the very few who still provided the service. According to Tiller, speaking in March before his assassination, he was one of only three doctors left in the US doing such abortions. Now there are two. If those numbers are right, one third of all abortion doctors doing these abortions were just killed.
In the aftermath of Tiller’s death, I heard a lot of progressives talking about how the anti-abortion folks were losing. The bottom line is that they’re winning. It is harder to get abortions than it was 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 25 years ago. Abortion access peaked in 1982 and has been declining ever since. Consider that the US population has increased by approximately 30% since 1982. At the same time the number of providers has dropped by over a third.
Now, most types of abortion violence had been in a slow, long term decline (the exception is burglary) so there’s certainly some reason for optimism. At the same time I strongly suspect that anti-abortion violence will rise, along with other types of right wing terrorism, during Obama’s administration.
The larger point is simpler. It’s harder to get an abortion than it has ever been since Roe vs. Wade, because there are just less doctors who perform abortions. Until more doctors step up and start providing abortions, especially late term abortions, this will continue. It’s hard to blame doctors for not being willing to provide abortions. Not only could you be killed for doing so, your family will be stalked and perhaps harmed, your clinic will be burglarized, you will be subject to constant legal harassment and your life will, in general, be made a living hell along with the lives of your family, friends and associates.
It’s a lot to ask of someone. But this comes back to the truth of rights. You have no rights that people aren’t willing to suffer and die for. Rights that someone won’t put their life on the line for will be taken away by people who are willing to resort to intimidation, violence and to push for laws which take those rights away.
So the questions, then are these:
1) Where are the doctors who are willing to risk their lives, the lives of their families, and to endure constant harassment to ensure that women keep this right, not just in theory, but in practice?
2) Where are the mass of people who will provide money, aid, and physical protection to the doctors who put their lives on the line? Yes, they exist even now, but obviously there aren’t enough of them, because the number of abortion providers keeps going down.
Is this a right you’re willing to risk your life to keep? If enough people don’t answer that question yes, then you will continue to lose it.
