Washington

ThirdPartyTalk: Setting the Board

I don't know if anyone pays attention to the generic ballot for Congress, but things are looking up lately for Republicans. The aggregate on Pollster.com shows a generic Republican polling only two points behind a generic Democrat; at several polling outfits, notably Rasmussen Reports, Republicans are ahead substantially in the generic ballot. Coupled with the losses Democrats suffered in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races this month, you could argue that 2010 is shaping up to be a bad year for the Democratic Party.

Is there anything in Versailles that isn't written by lobbyists?

Well, HR676 and S703, but leave them aside. Times via Economic Populist:

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

Declaring victory on Too Big To Fail banks

Have we declared victory on health insurance reform yet? I confess I don't keep up with the access bloggers as much as I should, so maybe I didn't get the memo. Anyhow, the Versailles consensus that declaring victory is distinctly preferable to achieving it works for finance, too. James Kwok:

Gillian Tett has an article criticizing the idea that CoCos — contingent convertible bonds — will solve the “too big to fail” problem. ...

Contingent convertible bonds, a.k.a. contingent capital, are the latest fad to hit the optimistic technocracy in Washington and London. A contingent convertible bond is a bond that a bank sells during ordinary times, but that converts into equity when things turn bad, with “bad” defined by some trigger conditions, such as capital falling below a predetermined level. In theory, this means that banks can have the best of both worlds. They can go out and borrow more money today, increasing leverage and profits (which is what they want). But when the crisis hits, the debt will convert into equity; that will dilute existing shareholders, but more importantly it means the debt does not have to be paid back, providing an instant boost to the bank’s capital cushion. In other words, banks can have the additional safety margin as if they had raised more equity today, but without having to raise the equity.

Sounds ideal! Where do I sign up?

Strategery

[I thought I'd update and re-post this, since with HR3962 our GENIUS Dems have really outdone themselves their indefatigable efforts to preserve the two-party system by giving the Republicans ever better odds in 2010 and 2012. Not that it matters to them; they're all made in Versailles by now anyhow. --lambert]

Obviously, I'm not a member of that curious breed, the "Democratic Strategist," nor do I play one on the teebee, nor do I have an interest in joining the League of Triple-A Democratic Strategists as a way to make it into The Show; and anyhow, if I were any good at strategerizing, somebody would be paying me to do it (Inside Rotisserie Baseball commenters take note).

Then again, because I'm not paid [except for your donations!], I can't ignore the obvious on health care insurance reform, and it seems to me that the "some bill, any bill" that the current Congress is going to emit will have some problems down the line. Among them:

1. Pffft. That deflated feeling, as of air escaping from a tire, will come when people compare the promise of "hope" and "change" to what is actually delivered -- and when (2013). As far at the [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan], I still think my "baseline scenario" -- the mandate will force millions to buy junk insurance, bailing out the insurance companies -- is the most likely outcome, and it's not going to play well over time, especially with Obama's youthful base [UPDATE See Ian Welsh]. Then again, we might think that the electoral process has become a stepping stone to lucrative jobs on K Street or on the teebee, and so what we think of as the politics or optics of it all is just not relevant to insiders and wannabe insiders.

Is the health insurance reform mandate constitutional?

David Jenny writes* in the Bangor Daily News:

The president and Congress agree: Washington’s solution to 46 million uninsured Americans is to “mandate” that they all purchase health insurance from private companies, or — if the president’s view should prevail — a government-run “public option.”

Until now, our federal government has never claimed the power to compel individual citizens to pay insurance premiums to either private companies or government entities.

Astonishingly, no one is asking: “Does the federal government actually have the power to dictate that individuals purchase health insurance?” ....

Swine flu vaccine for swine at Golden Sacks

The Lords get the vaccine while the peasants wait in line. What could be more natural or fair?

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans.

Recent news reports indicate 13 companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner, have been cleared to receive the vaccine.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today, “Although CREW has been unable to uncover the demographic makeup of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase, it seems safe to assume the vast majority of their employees are not pregnant women, infants and children, young adults up to 24 years old, and healthcare workers.”

No, seriously.

Sit-in for single payer at Pelosi's office in SF

Via email, Mobilize for Health Care:

Dear Friend,
CALL PELOSI NOW! (415) 556-4862 and (202) 225-0100
There are 8 people sitting in RIGHT NOW in Nancy Pelosi's Office in San Francisco!

They are not leaving until they get an answer to their demands! Their demands are that the Kucinich amendment MUST be in the health care bill that the House votes on, and that the House MUST vote on the Weiner amendment.

Pelosi PROMISED the American people that she would ensure BOTH of the above would happen, and she has betrayed us by renigging on those promises!

Golden Sacks can't "show the note," couple saves own house

Miami Herald:

When California wildfires ruined their jewelry business, Tony Becker and his wife fell months behind on their mortgage payments and experienced firsthand the perils of subprime mortgages.

The couple wound up in a desperate, six-year fight to keep their modest, 1,500-square-foot San Jose home, a struggle that pushed them into bankruptcy.

The lender with whom they sparred, however, wasn't the one that had written their loans. It was an obscure subsidiary of Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs Group.

Politics is a dirty word for democracy

Susie and Atrios have both cried foul on this:

WASHINGTON — Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts.

This is disaster capitalism:

step one, pervert the financial system into a kleptocracy, steal everything in sight

step two, use the inevitable crisis as a way of destroying democracy and steal what is left

"Silence of the DudeBros"

Heh. nycweboy:

I was struck - but not surprised - by the relative silence over a Sunday front page NYT article about the White House's "DudeBro" problem: the reality that the President is surrounded by the lefty equivalent of the all male "boys club" mentality that can be found many places, including Washington politics. ...

One Reason Why Your Health Insurance Premiums Are So High - Wall Street

Insurance premiums for small businesses are being driven higher not just because of an increase in healthcare costs, but also because Wall Street wants higher returns:

The higher premiums at least partly reflect the inexorable rise of medical costs, which is forcing Medicare to raise premiums, too. Health insurance bills are also rising for big employers, but because they have more negotiating clout, their increases are generally not as steep.

Higher medical costs aside, some experts say they think the insurance industry, under pressure from Wall Street, is raising premiums to get ahead of any legislative changes that might reduce their profits.

Now, you might think with health insurance reform pending in Congress, the industry would be concerned about screwing its customers. But you'd be wrong because Washington doesn't run this country, Wall Street does:

“There’s no one out there who hasn’t had to do a mea culpa to Wall Street,” said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst for Pali Capital who follows the companies. While the industry is particularly vulnerable now in Washington, she said, “it seems like they’re more afraid of Wall Street.”

"The stoopid should not attempt to reason"

Yes, our old favorite Boohooman has followed up on his venting with a thumbsucker on his deep spiritual dilemma: Whether to keep on being a fan, or try to figure out how to become an engaged citizen. I wish him well, and hope he feels free to take all the time he needs working things out.

I sold my pajamas to the junk man

What a bunch of WATBs "progressives" are. Somebody in the White House said something about somebody and now they don't feel v-a-a-l-i-dated. Or maybe they do but shouldn't. Or should and don't. The future lies ahead! Or it's wrong! All wrong! Bad Tux the Snarky Penguin offers some perspective, and guess what? "Incrementalism" is not the order of the day. Nor the complexity of trying to govern a divided Versailles:

Film at 11: Irony not dead

WKJM calls out superciliati. It's actually a fascinatingly Neo-Broderite reaction:

Single payer civil disobedience in Chicago

Here:

Seven protesters have been arrested in Chicago during a sit-in for single-payer universal health insurance.

The arrests took place Thursday at the corporate offices of Cigna insurance company. A police spokesman says the protesters were arrested on criminal trespassing charges.

They were among about two dozen advocates who picketed at Cigna. Protesters carried signs and chanted "patients, not profits."

Organizers include the groups Healthcare-NOW! and the Center for the Working Poor. They plan similar protests next week in several other U.S. cities.

The major health reform proposals being worked out in Washington don't include a single-payer plan.

So, there was a stampede in Detroit, today...

And, they say that it's "just" a recession. Chaos decided to roost in Detroit, today, as the truly despressed and distressed came out in droves seeking housing and utility payment assistance from the City of Detroit:

The economic tsunami washing over metro Detroit swept its casualties to the doors of Cobo Center on Wednesday in the form of 35,000 people so desperate for help with mortgage and utility bills that threats were made, fights broke out and people were nearly trampled.

Some were treated by emergency medical workers on site.

It's been a busy day in health care, and health insurance, reform today

Obama, in the Rose Garden, speaking to a gathering of physicians today:

Every one of you here today took an oath when you entered the medical profession. It was not an oath that you would spend a lot of time on the phone with insurance companies. (Laughter.) It was not an oath that you would have to turn away patients who you know could use your help. You did not devote your lives to be bean counters or paper pushers. You took an oath so that you could heal people. You did it so you could save lives.

Having bought the government, Goldman Sachs shuts down its Versailles desk

This is interesting from Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), legendary for its clout in Washington, has inexplicably halted its political fund-raising machine.

The strange twist comes at a time when Wall Street's biggest and most powerful investment bank, nicknamed Government Sachs by critics, seems in other respects to be just as politically involved as ever.

By all accounts, its senior executives are in close contact with Washington regulators, the lobbyists on its payroll include some of the best connected, and it continues to spend heavily to influence government.

A more perfect union (for what and for whom)

Via the great Field Negro, this from Naomi Klein:

In the late 50s and early 60s, angry white mobs were reacting to life-changing victories won by the civil rights movement. Today's mobs, on the other hand, are reacting to the symbolic victory of an African American winning the presidency. Yet they are rising up at a time when non-elite blacks and Latinos are losing significant ground, with their homes and jobs slipping away from them at a much higher rate than from whites. So far, Obama has been unwilling to adopt policies specifically geared towards closing this ever-widening divide. The result may well leave minorities with the worst of all worlds: the pain of a full-scale racist backlash without the benefits of policies that alleviate daily hardships. Meanwhile, with Obama constantly painted by the radical right as a cross between Malcolm X and Karl Marx, most progressives feel it is their job to defend him – not to point out that, when it comes to tackling the economic crisis ravaging minority communities, the president is not doing nearly enough.

That's how the Overton Window works, kidz!*

Now, Klein being Klein, she ties together (a) the reparations movement, (b) the "crisis in African-American wealth, (c) the bailouts (in which Obama played such a prominent role), and (d) the transfer of wealth to banksters:

Mark me down for 'unreasonable,' thanks

Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men.
- George Bernard Shaw

Trolling through some recent history I found this from hipparchia from back in March. Jason Rosenbaum:

The argument that single-payer health care would be more efficient is a straw man. Both health care reform plans would increase efficiencies and save a great deal of money. But only one can get 60 votes in the Senate.

The HCAN strategy all along has been to calculate based on some unknown formula what is politically feasible at the moment (curiously, without seeming to take into account the effect that energetic activism can have on feasibility) and direct all its energy towards that goal. It's a reasonable and legitimate plan, I wish them success on it, and for reform advocates generally (including single payer) their success is all our success. I still don't like it, though.

First, it's asymmetrical. Do you think AHIP is so finely calibrating its strategy? Hell no. They're trying to burn the motherfucker clear to the ground. We need to be the equal and opposite reaction by repeatedly and loudly demanding our entire wish list. Second, it's not our job to think about, or even care, if the perfect is being the enemy of the good. That's for politicians to consider, not activists. Our job is to ceaseless agitate for the best policy. Our elected representatives can worry about the perfect, the good, the realistic and the rest of the sausage-making process.