The danger of backsliding

by: Mike Lux

Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:47


One of the most fundamental truisms of politics and policy is that old saying about democracy requiring eternal vigilance. In a political system like ours dominated by big money and the lobbyists that money hires, that is especially true, even in years when Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House.

Beyond the raw power and connections of big business lobbyists, two of the biggest reasons we s till have to worry about this even with Democrats in control are that (a) a lot of these things are done behind the scenes, out of the public spotlight, while other big issues are being intensely debated; and (b) the free market ideology that has come to dominate even in a lot of Democratic circles.

Three huge examples of major backsliding on economic issues have come to light over the last couple of weeks brought on by this combination of lobbyist influence, free market economic theory, and the ability to quietly push for things in the dead of night while health care is taking most of the media's- and the progressive movement- attention. Any of these issues would be easy to win on if the media covered them and/or the progressive movement focused their fire on them, but with health care taking up so much bandwidth, it's harder to fight these things.

The three issues are:

Mike Lux :: The danger of backsliding
  • Weakening investor protections. In 2002, after the corporate corruption scandals of Enron, and so many other companies had dominated the headlines for months, the Bush administration was forced to accept the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, a modest but important clean-up of accounting rules providing some basic protections for investors in publicly traded companies. Ever since we got Sarbanes-Oxley passed into law, corporate America has been trying to repeal or erode it, and investor/consumer/corporate responsibility advocates have managed to hold them off even in the dark years of Republican control of everything (both houses of Congress and the White House, 2003-2007). Now it looks like the business lobbyists and their friends in Congress and the White House are coming dangerously close to eroding these protections by exempting "small" businesses from a requirement that mandates audits of internal controls. The problem is the rather outrageous definition of "small" in this proposal: any business with a market capitalization of $75 million or under. That's a pretty big business to be exempting from audits.

  • Weakening offshore tax crackdowns. As David Sirota points out here, another rare progressive victory over Bush and congressional Republicans in 2002 was banning federal contracts from going to companies that engage in the practice of buying a P.O. Box in Bermuda and filing their taxes from there to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Rosa DeLauro brilliantly maneuvered a vote on this provision on the House floor, and too many Republicans were afraid to vote against it, so Bush and his corporate allies were forced into accepting something they hated.
    Now, apparently at the behest of the Obama administration, this provision is close to being repealed. So much for being deficit hawks.

  • The third problem provision (also written about by David Sirota, and talked about here in a great segment by Rachel Maddow) involves big corporate interests lobbying against language in a customs bill that would ban the import of products made with slave labor, or forced child labor. Seriously: businesses are opposing anything that would keep them from selling products made by little kids forced to work in factories, and by slaves. This is like something out of the 1800s. But the free trade uber alles cheerleaders believe that any restrictions on trade, for any reasons whatsoever, is bad news, so we will have to watch this like a hawk to keep it from getting through. We outlawed slavery in this country in 1865, and child labor forty years after that, but we will let other countries who do it sell their products here with no penalty? Sounds like some serious backsliding to me.

The first two items I mentioned were quite possibly the only two positive policy changes that happened in economic issues in the six years that Bush and the Republicans controlled Congress. There might have been others, but honestly I can't think of any. That the Obama administration is now apparently involved in trying to roll them back is a shame and an outrage, and a reflection that the free market religion that dominates the Republican Party is also way too strong on the Democratic Party as well.

Even as we are closing out the health care debate, progressives need to keep our eye on these lower profile issues, and work with progressive Democrats in Congress to stop this terrible backsliding.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Biggest Back Slide: The Health Reform Bills Pending in House and Senate (4.00 / 5)
The biggest reason we have to worry, even with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, is not merely lobbyists but the corporations that fund them and buy the votes of Congressional representatives with campaign contributions.

On issues like health care reform and corporate welfare, the lobbyists just go around to the representatives who have sold their votes to their corporate campaign contributors to make sure they do the bidding of their financiers.

What the health care reform bills pending in the House and Senate prove beyond doubt is that Congress is pretty much owned by the corporations that have financed the elections of the large majority of them.

A high school social studies class could have come up with reform bills that actually serve the American people, provided of course that the private insurers couldn't bribe them first.

Progressive Democrats of America are to be complimented for condemning this sell out and calling out the so-called "progressive" progressive organizations that have come out in favor of the bills on the table.

Here's what PDA wrote in an email I received this morning:

"House Healthcare Measure Undeserving of Progressive Cheerleading

Dear Nancy,

With the passage of HR3962, fundraising emails from Democratic groups cheering the passage of the House healthcare bill have been issued faster than denials for service from healthcare corporations. Disappointingly, MoveOn, True Majority and Democracy for America are among them. They're not just cheering, they're exalting the bill's public option as the best thing since sliced bread, despite the further degradation of women's reproductive rights.

There is no doubt that these organizations have done great work on progressive issues, but on this legislation they are wrong. This bill is, so far, a very bad bill that will further enmesh corporations into our government and our daily lives without addressing the problem. It diminishes all of our rights, not just reproductive ones, by failing to recognize healthcare as a human right, not a commodity to be traded on Wall Street.

The measure's public option, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), will only attract 6 million out of the 45 million uninsured Americans, and the monthly premium will likely be more costly than corporate premiums. So much for affordable healthcare.

And, it does next to nothing to help Americans who are now being gouged by healthcare corporations. "if you like your insurance--you get to keep it" has morphed into "if you have insurance, you have to keep it whether you like it or not, and if you don't have it--you have to buy it."


In contrast to PDA's stance, I am deeply disappointed that leading lights at Open Left have come out in support of the House bill.

No bill is better than bills that coerce all Americans into buying health insurance from predatory private insurers with no controls over sky-high premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

No bill is better than bills that use taxpayer dollars to pay predatory insurance companies for Americans who cannot afford the sky-high premiums.

No bill is better than bills that allow predatory, price-gouging, profit-seeking private insurers to jack up the total cost of health care by 1/3 in comparison to a single payer, Medicare-for-All system.

There is no doubt in my mind that our influence-peddling members of the House and Senate have actually come up with a bill that makes things worse UNNECESSARILY.

A single payer system would cost 1/3 less money and cover everyone without exclusions for pre-existing illness, without lifetime ceilings, and without dropping people after they become ill.

If the two bills on the table prove anything, it is that the 2008 election proved that predatory corporations were able to buy the Democratic Party and the large majority of its elected representatives, just as it had bought the Republican Party and its representatives.

I include in this infamous group the president whose negotiated agreement with pharmaceuticals last summer not to negotiate drug prices or allow importation of drugs shows that he, too, is in the pocket of the corporate fat cats that financed his campaign.

Shame on all of them!  

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.
 


It has to be killed (4.00 / 5)
No bill is better than bills that coerce all Americans into buying health insurance from predatory private insurers with no controls over sky-high premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

So-called progressives are hyping us in so many ways:

They are scared to death that they could be blamed for the failure of this rotten bill, while the Republicans, the Stupaks and the Liebermans glory in the possibility as an exercise of their power.  But progressives are pathetic as they consider the little power they have to be a burden.

They project a fairy-tale scenario where we pass an admittedly flawed bill, but it gives us a beachhead for future improvement.  I would argue that doing so dooms any chance of real reform in the future.  It is broadly agreed that there is some kind of health care crisis a'brewing, and so the principle of SOME kind of reform has broad support.  But if we get a piece of shit, what happens next?  If a stronger bill were introduced in 2 years, 4 years, it would only get the support of those who really want something better, something that is going to cut into health industry profits and prerogatives.  At that point, the various shades of dog will cry that we have done enough, we shouldn't do anything radical. and the reform coalition will include ONLY those who actually WANT to challenge the health care industry.  It won't get the votes.

The pseudo-progressive premise is that we will be able to elect more progressives every election and our numbers will grow.  We can then win.  I promise you this, if they pass this disaster, they won't get my vote.

The mandate terrifies me.  Maybe it's not a disaster (or much of an improvement) for the very poor, or for the comfortable middle class.  But for millions of Americans in the middle, this is a disaster.  My wife and I are on the financial edge, as basic homeowners currently unemployed.  I'm facing retirement next year at 62, too young for Medicare.  My wife hopes to find a job that keeps us afloat.  As working stiffs, we would most likely be considered too rich to qualify for subsidy.  There is no money for a $1,000 per month policy, which is probably the best we can hope for.

And how is the mandate to be enforced?  Will our tax return have a box asking if we're insured?  If not, add 2.5% to what's due.  If insured, give company name and policy number and don't lie or be a criminal.  Then we've got the government digging into our bank accounts.  When THEY decide we can pay based on their tables, and we're fined or sent to jail?  In exchange for nothing.  NOTHING!  I don't support the teabaggers.  It is a fascistic movement.  But I understand their appeal when they say keep the government out of our lives.  I'm not an anarchist.  I accept the need for government involvement in many ways.  What I don't like is that government involvement serving me up on a platter to the corporations.

Of course, any further restriction on abortion is an abomination.  I needn't repeat the many good things said in support of a woman's choice.  But progressives fall into a trap when they talk about trying to write abortion language that maintains the status quo.  Or they lie.

Any health care reform upsets the status quo.  If government moves more deeply into the insurance field, it raises complications.  You can't isolate major change in one area without collateral change elsewhere.  The dogs know this, and are responding.  Progressives who say that the abortion status quo can be maintained are liars.  Everyone knows it but them, and the dogs and the Republicans smell blood.

The only way progressives can ensure real reform is through exercising power.  And at this point in the game that means killing the existing bills and any warped and twisted variations they may come up with.  And if, at the final vote count, our progressive leaders are supporting the bills, we might start asking just why they're our leaders.



Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
This isn't "backsliding," it's prima facie evidence of corruption (4.00 / 4)
With all due respect, Mike, the Democratic Leadership is bought and paid for by the same people they've campaigned against the last two election cycles.

Right now, they're screwing women (and everyone who likes women), retail investors and human rights en toto... in the name of corrupt industry groups? It seems elections are now pretty much a waste of time, since they no longer have any practical meaning. When the White House and certain House and Senate committees thinks it's okay for American companies abroad to use slave labor, this is all one needs to know about our current "leaders." These are morally depraved people, Mike.

This isn't backsliding, this is predation on "the little people," so they can pocket oodles of cash and valuable prizes. Welcome to the Democratic Predator State. Nor is this some fuzzy "free market religion." This is openly siding with corporate fraudsters (thank you Melissa Bean and Barney Frank) against retail investors, thus eviscerating their retirements. This is siding with slave "owners" against all free people, thus making us all less free. This is siding with corporate tax cheats against US taxpayers, thus making us all poorer. These are morally depraved people, Mike.

Mike, have you noticed that when it comes to massive giveaways to fraudulent corporations, or our various wars of glorious imperialism, there's no mention of the deficit? Have you noticed that word only comes up when it comes down to doing something good for the country and it's people? Could this be because we are ruled by morally depraved people better suited to a jail cell, trading cigarettes for favors, than public office?

It's almost like Obama, Reid and Pelosi have adopted the military's attitude towards "winning the hearts and minds." If they don't like us, we'll just just beat them down until their attitude changes. Yeah, that works soooo very well, doesn't it?

As for congressional progressives, where are they? I know they're decent people, but they have no collective spine. If they couldn't stop Stupak-Pitt, what good are they? They need to leave the Veal Pen and start running against leadership, if they want to be reelected, much less get any R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Oh, just wait until they go after Social Security. That'll be fun too. And the "leadership" will just cry "deficit" from the hilltops and say, "There's nothing we can do, we have to make you poor now. Sorry, and remember to vote for me in November! And can I have some of your slave wages in return for some more hypocritical pandering?! We have some lovely salt mines looking for workers aged under 14! Jobs!"

I propose a new logo for the Democratic Party: "Thrusting you forward into the 19th Century, While We Snorkel In St. Barts."

(end rant)  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


It's not "backsliding.'' (4.00 / 1)
Mike, you're not keeping up with your reading -- to understand DP policy, one must study DLC publications, especially the "Progressive (sic) Policy Institute" crap.

Once you've got a grasp of those positions, and factor in Obama's selection of advisers, this "backsliding" looks more like biz-as-usual, with the mild reforms during CheneyBush looking more like anomalies.

Go back to 2000 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which, among other horrors, exempted derivatives from regulation: the vote in the Senate was UNANIMOUS CONSENT, and in the House, 377-4.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

And a little further back, to the elimination of Glass-Steagall -- 90-8 in the Senate, and 362-57 in the House.
http://www.senate.gov/legislat...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/199...


I couldn't help but notice (0.00 / 0)
that one of the Nay votes for elimination of Glass-Steagall was Mike Capuano.

[ Parent ]
Agreed, No Bill is Better than the Bills on the Table (4.00 / 3)
Those who argue that we have to seize the moment or lose the opportunity forever are just not in reality.

Obama, ever the calculating politician, and his minions in Congress, have decreed that their counter-productive health care "reform" bills will not actually go into effect until they are safely re-elected in 20013.

So what's the rush now?

Well, it's so that they can claim they passed health care reform and position themselves to get re-elected by arguing that no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing illness or dropped if they exceed limits or submit costly claims.

What they aren't saying, but which everyone will know AFTER they are elected and the legislation is implemented, is that this is a coercive health care bill that will make government the merciless enforcer for the private insurance industry, and that the U.S. government will come after anyone who defies the government decision to compel everyone to buy private health insurance that costs 1/3 more than the single payer, Medicare-like system that the majority of Americans prefer.

Once the reality of this coercion sets into the experiential mindsets of the American electorate, it will definitely bring the Democratic reign to a halt - but only after Obama and Co. get re-elected.

Never before in history has any government coerced its entire population into buying a over-priced service that government should have provided and could have provided at 1/3 the cost.

This horrendous stain on the Democratic Party for the most publicly damaging piece of legislation in history will surely send it to the dust heap of history.

So that's the rhyme and reason for all the hype about getting it done now. They can claim victory because no one will really realize what a monstrosity it is until after they are re-elected. Then there will be hell to pay, but what do they care.

 


why do we vote for Democrats? (0.00 / 0)
The press likes to call it apathy. But if niether party represents us we should we vote?

correction (4.00 / 1)
that was supposed to read "why should we vote?

[ Parent ]
"if neither party represents us why should we vote?" (4.00 / 3)
If by "we" you mean progressives, lefties, liberals, labor, peace&justice, environmentalists, civil and human rights supporters, etc -- we shouldn't:

1. Vote for ANYONE based on their party label;
2. Vote for ANYONE with an anti-progressive, anti-left, etc record;
3. Vote for ANYONE affiliated with the DLC or Blue Dogs.

Better to not vote than vote D in such situations. Better still to vote for a non-War Party (either faction) candidate. I'd rather vote for what I want, and not get it, than vote for what I DON'T want, and get it.

What you're seeing now is the result of being hoodwinked by the lesser-weasel fallacy, which guarantees the continuing drift of the DP to the authoritarian and economic right.


[ Parent ]
We should still vote (4.00 / 2)
there are more choices than Democrats or Republicans.  Vote minor party or, worse comes to worse, write-in.

[ Parent ]
So what can we do about this? (4.00 / 1)
Because complaining about it here may be therapeutic, but ultimately not very influential...

child labor bad. slave labor bad. maddow/sirota/lux arguments using this as a political bludgeon poor. (4.00 / 1)
We outlawed slavery in this country in 1865, and child labor forty years after that, but we will let other countries who do it sell their products here with no penalty? Sounds like some serious backsliding to me.

Really?  Other countries have decided, all of sudden, that they don't care about children, have no interest for pragmatic or ethical reasons in labor standards, and have simply chosen to be deindustrialised and the arenas for massive violence and conflict over several centuries.

Yes, that sounds exactly like real history.  This kind of analysis has NO place on a progressive blog - it's important to critique corporations, it's important to make an argument that American workers are being screwed over by the American elite, but the second you start playing the nationalism card to divide progressives or workers in wealthy countries from solidarity with progressives or workers in poorer countries, you are actively participating in discrimination on grounds of citizenship and nationality (which is indirectly tied to race, migration status, and a whole lot of other things).  All stick, no carrot.

So congrats.  I look forward to the nonWhite majority that will vote in the Democrats, but sit idly by while they continue bipartisan policies to disrupt and destroy a variety of societies around the world (and then have the gall to suggest that it's primarily the fault of the people who live there!)  That sounds realistic.

Please.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox