Richard WarnickWall Street Socialism Threatens Democracy
There’s no bull like Wall Street bull…
It’s already being called “a financial PATRIOT Act,” and “cash for trash.” Read it and weep: Text of Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan.
It puts the power of the purse in the hands of the executive instead of the legislative branch. The dollar amount is not limited to $700 billion, but rather to $700 billion at any given point in time. It does nothing to restore the financial market regulatory system that was dismantled by Republican legislation.
This proposal specifically exempts all decisions from any form of oversight.
Sec. 8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
As if the proposal weren’t bad enough already, over the weekend lobbyists changed the part about only purchasing assets from financial institutions headquartered in the U.S.
Think Progress: “Given Bush’s history of gross fiscal mismanagement… why should Americans trust another $700 billion to his care?”
The latest ARG poll results: 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president. A total of 82% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 68% say the national economy is in a recession. Zero percent say the economy is getting better.
UPDATE: Naomi Klein nails it– this is yet another example of the Shock Doctrine.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald comments on the sudden explosion of right-wing opposition to the bailout:
Does anyone have any confidence at all in the Democrats’ willingness and/or ability to impede this bailout train if the Bush administration and the Right were vigorously behind it, warning the nation of impending doom unless we submit to vast, unchecked government power of the type Henry Paulson is demanding? The instances of complete Democratic acquiescence under those circumstances — including when they “controlled” the Congress — are far too numerous to allow any rational person to think Democrats, standing alone, would stop the Paulson plan. As sad as it is, meaningful right-wing opposition is critical for that to happen.
…[P]eople have long predicted that the Right will do a complete reversal (once again) in their positions on vast federal power and unlimited executive authority the minute that such power is vested in someone they oppose and fear rather than in themselves. The remarkable spectacle of watching these right-wing authoritarians suddenly demand Congressional oversight and voice opposition to unlimited executive power — two months before a highly possible Obama victory — is quite obviously reflective of that shift.
UPDATE: Today, President Bush insisted that the bailout legislation not include any “punitive measures” such as regulations or curbs on executive compensation. The White House also opposes doing anything to help ordinary Americans faced with home foreclosure.
UPDATE: Hold on a minute, here. The allegedly desperate financial institutions in need of taxpayer rescue are now demanding more.
[F]inancial institutions are weighing in with what they want in the bill. On Sunday, the Financial Services Roundtable - a lobbying group representing the nation’s banks - called on Congress to make the plan “broad enough to include different types of assets.”
The Treasury has amended its original request to give it authority to buy up not just troubled mortgage assets, but troubled assets period.
UPDATE: Now even some normally non-paranoid bloggers are wondering if this thing is an elaborate trap. From Josh Marshall:
I think Kos, Digby and Kilgore have this about right. The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP’s Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
What we need right now in government are real conservatives. We need statesmen who believe in responsibility and a balanced budget.
In previous years, people criticized “tax and spend Democrats,” but now we have an even worse monster: “tax and borrow Republicans.”
It is difficult to imagine how an American president could run this country and its budget into the ground more effectively than George W. Bush and his cohorts have. They are on an insane spending spree and nobody is stopping them.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
We have had borrow and spend Republicans. The era of big government never went away. We have had a run of incompetent government. Mission Accomplished, Heck of a job, and all that.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
The destruction for American sovereignty has been a near 200 year project, beginning with the War of 1812. The financiers have never appreciated that the little people have any rights, but to pay and obey.
While we may be reaching the end of it, America does tend to pull rabbits from its hat when the crunch hits. We will all see, if we are lucky to live through it.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Richard,
How is this different from the desire of some to nationalize health care?
Or the oil companies?
I say we start a new campaign, everyone regardless of party, let’s throw the scoundrels out and start again.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
I wish it were that simple. Of course, a few guys on the internet can’t enact real change in government. If they could, Ron Paul would have had better success.
What I find frustrating is that we have a system which makes it very hard to hold government accountable for their actions. People complain about politicians, but they keep electing people just like them. In order to have a real chance at any elected federal position, you need to have advanced in the ranks of the Republican or Democratic party, which means you need to be pretty watered-down in order to be palatable to the mainstream. What you end up with at the end is a politician who is pretty much the same as the guy he is replacing.
I’m not suggesting that we should be electing radical politicians as a general rule, but in a case like today’s government, which is rotten to the core, a radical change is required. I don’t know what the answer is, but whatever we have been doing isn’t working. Incumbents have a tremendous advantage, especially in Utah, and voting anyone out of office seems like an insurmountable task.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Kevin,
I agree with you about how hard it is to make change at the federal level. So let’s start on the local levels, electing representatives who will represent the people. Those can advance in time or be thrown out. I’ve seen local races decided on less then 10 votes, surely we can’t influence those decisions.
One of the other changes we need to make is to the system of gerrymandering districts. That virtually assures incumbents re-election, so let’s force a better system to be adopted.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Bob– I am not aware of any major party American politician who is in favor of nationalizing health care or the petroleum industry. Care to name one?
The difference is this: Wall Street Socialism privatizes profits and socializes losses. Instead of buying equity in financial firms that hold so-called “illiquid” (i.e. presently worthless) assets, the Bush administration wants taxpayers to buy up the worthless assets!
A government-run single-payer universal health insurance system, like Medicare, helps consumers by lowering the overall cost of providing services. For-profit health insurance spends a lot of money inefficiently, and increases costs. This is why the World Health Organization ranks U.S. health care 37th in the world, just behind Costa Rica!
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
It is the unitary executive unchecked by the judiciary or the legislature that concerns me the most, aka kingship. Not a good idea in the 170o’s. Not a good idea now.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Richard,
In my reply, I tried to embed two videos and included some links to some other quotes. I think the spam filter grabbed it.
I can repost with out the embedded video if it can not be recovered from the filter.
I’m trying to stretch my skills and learn how to embed videos and pictures.
Thanks
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Reply Part 1 (let’s see if I can sneak this by the spam filters)
Or how about this quote concerning health care:
link - http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co
Now is the time to push those boundaries once more. We have come so far in the debate on health care in this country, but now we must finally answer the call first issued by Truman, advanced by Johnson, and fought for by so many leaders and Americans throughout the last century. The time has come for universal health care in America. And I look forward to working with all of you to meet this challenge in the weeks and months to come. Thank you.
Direct call for national health care? I don’t know how else we are going to get universal health care, do you?
Or this supporting a single payer system:
MA Democratic Party Support for Single Payer Reform
link- http://masscare.org/ma-single-payer-bill/ma-democratic-party/
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Here is a video, I believe it is Maurice Hinchey talking about nationalizing the oil refineries
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
And here is Maxine Waters talking about socializing, doesn’t that mean nationalizing? the oil companies?
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Bob– I’m back, did you post everything you wanted or do you still want your original post to go up?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Democracy is void when a majority of the people understand that they can vote money into their pockets by installing those who would give it.
This leads to inevitable devaluation of currency, and the subsequent collapse of economy. The secondary phase of this degradation of the economy by the greed of the people, or corrupted elements therein that induce simpletons to play along, is dictatorship.
Democracy simply is not a permanent form of government for any nation, it has its time, and though it may be in name be called a republic or democracy, it reality that isn’t the case. Only by virtue imbued in a people to sustain the laws regulating the awarding of monies to open hands can keep the dictatorship from occurring. At this phase of American democracy, I would challenge anyone to maintain that the electorate has anything but its monetary self interest in mind. The poor see opportunity in Obama, and the rich can count on maintenance from McCain. It is my view that without some form of revolutionary ethos, not related to the ballot box, this cannot be accomplished by the poor, as the rich generally have the game stacked, and invariably get their way. The poor may be thrown a bone, but that usually occurs in socialist democracies with somewhat homogeneous (culturally or ethnically) populations.
Anyone for arguing that America is a democracy given the last 8 years, and now this welfare for foreigners and the rich?
We move towards dictatorship, irrespective of who becomes executive, especially in the cycle of debt and economic collapse we currently find ourselves. It follows what appears to be natural predilections in the life cycle of democracies.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bob– Universal health care insurance and nationalizing the entire health care industry in this country are two very, very different things. Anyway, when Obama talks about universal health care it’s not really the single-payer system that we need –and nobody is advocating (except, apparently, a few Massachusetts liberals). Obama has talked about single-payer, but he only supports it in theory.
YouTube is blocked where I work. What did Hinchey and Waters advocate, exactly, and why?
OTOH Bush’s Wall Street Socialism is about to happen unless Congress can muster the political will to stop it. Nothing theoretical. It’s an unprecedented power grab by the Executive Branch, even by Bush standards.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Richard,
I think there was one small portion that I didn’t get but the majority of it was posted.
I am trying to learn, was it the number of links in the post or do I have to have special authorization to embed videos that caught it in the same filter.
By the way, we may disagree but I appreciate the help when comments are trapped. I realize the efforts, you and the other admins go through to keep the discussion open. Thanks
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I actually don’t know how Akismet works, and only Cliff could tell you about the effects of recent software upgrades. I don’t even know if it’s possible to embed videos in comments, maybe it is.
More links in a comment seem to increase the chances of ending up in the spam bin, but not always. The software makes its own rules based on various inputs, that’s all I can tell you.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Richard,
Another link, for Hinchey
And a different one from Maxine Waters
Richard, honestly how long would it take to go from Single payer health care to national health care?
And from Obama’s own presidential campaign site:
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
* The Obama-Biden Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama and Biden will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama-Biden plan will have the following features:
1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
No matter how it starts, it certainly can’t end anywhere but a national healthcare system.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Bob– You seem to regard a government-run national healthcare system as inevitable, and inevitably bad. I’ll keep an open mind, as we presently haven’t got any system worthy of the name and Costa Rica is better than us. But think about it– the government would have to buy hospitals and clinics, hire 300,000 doctors and who knows how many other health care professionals, take over the pharmaceutical industry… Not what I call a simple step from providing health insurance, and it’s politically impossible.
I can’t install Adobe Flash Player (no administrative privileges on this computer), so I still can’t view the videos. My guess is that Hinchey and Waters, liberal as they both are, are being deliberately presented out of context. Last time I checked, Rep. Hinchey was not in fact a Communist.
Now, back to your original point, Were you saying that Bush’s plan– which is not theoretical, it’s happening this week –is OK because a few Democrats might be in favor of some politically far-fetched socialization schemes?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Richard,
Nope, I’m just pointing out that both parties are interested in nationalizing industries. Just like both parties are trying to take away our rights.
Maxine Waters stated it was time to consider socializing the oil companies. Not out of context at all. Maurice Hinchey talked about nationalizing the oil refineries to control supply and price.
What I find frustrating are the people who don’t see the parallels between the healthcare industry and the oil industry.
AIG already provides accident, health and workers compensation insurance; and guess who now owns a large chunk of that company?
Rarely are any politicians upfront and blunt about their intentions so when I see the step by step plans, I project to where they are leading. How many medical plans does the government currently control; medicaid, medicare, the congress plan, VA hospitals. At the local level, there are many county hospitals.
How much would it take to “bail out” another business or industry, say this time a hospital chain? Or a pharmaceutical company.
Aren’t the protests about the investment banks, AIG, Fannie & Freddie about the government nationalizing those private companies? It’s not far fetched and it is inline with the stated goals.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Of course, Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938. Privatization was a mistake, and we’re now paying the price. I’m not that concerned about AIG either, because the taxpayers will probably come out ahead on that deal.
Bush’s trillion-dollar-plus bailout scheme is total crap, however. Congress would be crazy to authorize it (not that they won’t, we’ve seen them do a lot of crazy things in recent years!)
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
While we were talking about socialized medicine, my wife took our neighbor to a local private hospital (not in Utah), and had to wait for four hours in the emergency room before anyone would see her. The delivery of private medical care is in serious decline.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Leo,
Sorry, but I would want to have a little more information before I declare a 4 hour emergency room visit as a sign of decline.
What problems did the neighbor have, what were the other people in the emergency room for, could have the neighbor seen her primary care physician instead, does the neighbor even have a primary care physician, etc?
Not every one’s problems need to be seen immediately nor should we have that expectation, don’t you agree?
September 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
My neighbor went to the emergency room because that is where her HMO sent her after she fell. One of the problems with current private medicine is that, unlike Medicare, the choice of physicians is quite limited once you are in certain HMO’s. She was in considerable pain, given morphine, and admitted to the hospital, once she was seen. She is still in the hospital as I write this. I think this qualifies as serious, don’t you?
I would no revamp the system of national healthcare based on one anecdote, but the number of people without insurance, and the number of people with insurance who nevertheless have difficulty receiving proper care is daunting.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Leo,
So I take it the medical problem wasn’t so severe that it required immediate medical treating (I’ve been on the phones with HMOs, I know how long it takes). No ambulance was needed, she was able to walk on her on, etc. I am not making light of her problems, just noting the admissions process may be more of the problem.
Also, how much has the ease in which medical malpractice suits can be filed contributed to fewer doctors or hospitals. Maybe instead of just reforming the medical/insurance fields, we need to include the legal aspects.
Also, the limitations of her “chosen” insurance plan may be more of a problem then the actual state of the medical industry. I’m not saying we don’t need reform but let’s not blame only the medical industry, we put up with and in some cases seek that level of care to keep down the costs. It is not unreasonable to expect restricted access or longer waits, if a person deliberately seeks the lowest cost plan.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
No ambulance was needed because my wife drove her. She could not safely walk on her own. The medical problem was severe enough that she did require immediate attention. She just didn’t get it for four hours. People have died waiting in emergency rooms. Fortunately, my neighbor’s condition did not threaten immediate death.
She previously had a condition that did require an ambulance, and she did get very good care. It just wasn’t from a hospital in her HMO, which caused the HMO to pull her out of that hospital. The system is optimized for the well-being of the HMO, not for the well-being of the patient.
The HMO is a well-known name, which I will not report here, but which many people would recognize. The medical marketplace is inherently weighted against the consumer these days.
An old friend is a lawyer specializing in defending malpractice cases. He knows when to settle, because sometimes malpractice does occur. I am willing to support malpractice tort reform if we can actually control and reduce malpractice in other ways. However, to blame a declining health care system solely on malpractice claims is an old dodge, IMHO.