Insurance companies owe 44 Senators who would filibuster public option $91,363,636 each

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 21:00


According to the CBO report on the health care bill Harry Reid sent to the floor of the Senate, the opt-out public option would have taken in $134 billion in revenue from 2014 to 2019 (see page 5 of the report).

That $134 billion, or more, will likely now go to private insurance companies.  As such, why aren't the insurance companies paying the 44 Senators who said they would filibuster a public option (all 40 Republicans, plus Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln and Ben Nelson) an appropriate finder's fee for the massive amount of revenue they will generate for those companies?

I did some poking around looking for industry standard on finder's fees. Something around 3% of the deal seems to be normal:

from an investment banking perspective, 3% of value has long been a thumb rule used by M&A advisors. It may go up to much higher (~10% even) depending on how important the the organization views this deal to its future; complexity and expertise provided around jurisdictions, tax law, IP, funding and other factors.

This is certainly a find of major, long-term value to the insurance companies, so perhaps something more than a 3% finder's fee would be warranted.  But hey, we are talking public officials here, and don't want to raise a whiff of corruption, so let's be modest and keep it at 3%.

3% of $134 billion is $4.02 billion.  Divided 44 ways, that comes out to nearly $91.4 million per Senator ($91,363,636.36, to be precise).  Quite a windfall for those Senators.

However, it would appear that the insurance industry has only contributed just under $11.8 million to all federal candidates so far in 2009.  It will have contributed far less to each of the 44 Senators that just made them hundreds of billions.

What a bunch of chumps these Senators are.  They go and make hundreds of billions of dollars for the insurance industry, and don't even bother to collect an appropriate finder's fee.  Some believers in the free market, they are.

Chris Bowers :: Insurance companies owe 44 Senators who would filibuster public option $91,363,636 each

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Insurance companies owe 44 Senators who would filibuster public option $91,363,636 each | 62 comments
they pay them afterwards (4.00 / 5)
See Daschle.

Or a spouse. See Lieberman, Bayh.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

And Daschle again! He's a double-dipper! (4.00 / 4)


"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
[ Parent ]
Conservatives are not the problem. (4.00 / 1)
Trying to change the subject to them will not address the fundamental problem being the weakness of progressives.  
True (0.00 / 0)
I can appreciate that progressives don't seem willing to invoke the crazy gear.  I'm not sure that character (?) deficit works in our favor.  What I can't decide is whether progressive instincts preclude access to a crazy gear.  Makes me wonder at times if progressives shouldn't go on the hunt for some good old fashioned political mercenaries...  
[ Parent ]
I really don't have any answers to that (0.00 / 0)
What people here call a personality strength- I consider to be a sign of weakness. I am starting a business right now, and I am really cognizant of the risks involved with each move, BUT I am willing to take them because I realize that risk taking is a part of the process of success. WIthout it, the status quo will remain my not having a successful business.  
[ Parent ]
I'm Proud of you (0.00 / 0)
I'm proud of you taking the risk in starting a business.  There are many risks, however the rewards are genuine.  You should reach out and get a peice of the American Dream.

Think about it this way.  You elected representative to congress probably has probably been offered some deal too.  

More power to you.  Good luck.

Conservative.(former Money Man)....Bothers you, huh? Gore at Poetry Circle.

[ Parent ]
Crazy gear. I like that term. (0.00 / 0)
But no, I don't think that's necessary. The wingtards need that stuff precisely because they are divorced from reality. Since we're not, we don't need it.

Spine. Huevos, Gumption. Whatever. Showing low-information voters what you stand for, in clear terms.... that would pass for crazy gear in these unfortunate times, it seems. There are those who know how to bring it.

Alan Grayson, for example, has no crazy gear, but he's got this, on Hardball talking about wingtard criticisms of Obama acting all diplomatic-like:

..."I remember Bush Jr. kissing Prince Abdullah on the cheek and then holding his hand for an extended period of time. Maybe if he let him get to second base then gas would be a dollar a gallon."

Crazy Gear? No, but it sure works, eh?

"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

[ Parent ]
I half-expect the left to shoot itself in the foot (0.00 / 0)
And have gay rights activists complaining that such a statement is somehow homophobic.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Homophobic? Huh? (4.00 / 1)
No, I would expect conservadroids to say that. After all, they're the ones who sweat bullets anytime someone even jokingly impugns their masculinity.

Somehow, I think your understanding of "teh left" is somehow lacking in nuance, to say the least.  

"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

[ Parent ]
Don't you remember (0.00 / 0)
I remember Bush dancing with the Prince Abdullah and that sword bit.

Conservative.(former Money Man)....Bothers you, huh? Gore at Poetry Circle.

[ Parent ]
The interesting part was comparing the "Bush kisses Prince" (4.00 / 1)
story to the "Obama bows to Japanese PM" story.

The jabs at GWB were all taken my late night comics and sketch comedy shows. The Obama bowing story played to prime time news.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't call it a crazy gear (4.00 / 3)
Sometimes it is rational and logical to take risks.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I guess I should have been more clear (4.00 / 2)
By crazy gear I meant, for example, the willingness to take the risk of tanking the bill and/or calling the opposition's bluff.  I think for our progressives, that would be playing in crazy gear.  Even Alan Grayson, apparently, is willing to sign on to this legislation with the medicaid expansion, even if the medicare option fails (and I assume when he was quoted, the public option was already gone; picked up in the threads at FDL).  These folks are genuinely interested in saving lives, and they're not willing to put the lives that can be saved on the line.  I can respect that.  However, that very same willingness would prevent them from literally pulling the trigger to shoot the legislation in the head, or to offer a credible threat of doing so.  In a sense they're doing triage.  Saving those they can and letting go of those they cannot save.
[ Parent ]
That's part of the problem (4.00 / 2)
Let's say (just an example to illustrate) a certain health care bill will save 40,000 lives per year and that a more progressive health care bill will save 200,000 live per year.  If you push take a risk on going for the more progressive option, let's say that you get it half the time and the other time it fails.  On average, holding out for the more progressive position will save 100,000 lives while compromising will always save 40,000 lives.

Now, if it were just one bill, I can understand being willing to go for the sure 40,000.  But it's not just one bill.  Progressives do this all the time.  And being unwilling to risk those 40,000 lives the first time means that progressives are more likely to lose the next time if they take a stand and the compromise position will be pushed closer to zero.

I can respect their concern for life, but it means that I can't really respect their ability as politicians.

Progressives need to show that they are willing to take stands and that they are willing to swallow poison pills for the greater good.  I think the left should have been willing to accept the DC voting rights bill just to show that poison pill amendments won't necessarily work.  If it came down to it, I believe that progressives, in keeping with their stated aims, should prefer a public option with the Stupak amendment to a health care reform bill with neither if forced to choose between only those two.

This may sound like a cold utilitarian calculus that dehumanizes living, breathing people into mere statistics.  In a way, that's true, but when you turn those statistics back into people, you'll have more of them walking around, which is the same thing that happens when a hospital is forced to practice the triage you mentioned.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
again exactly right (0.00 / 0)
appreciating the value of being ruthless, the value of branding, the value of even sometimes using fear and other tools because they re tools that in the long run yield better results than allowing the status quo to continue under the rubric of being liberal although you know  the action will leave a lot of people in harms way- probably more than if you had just been tougher in the first place.  it may be cold, but it has a long term value that is not.  
[ Parent ]
Gave you the 4 because you are one of the few posters who consistently (4.00 / 1)
tout the value of risk taking. This can not be unscored enough as one of the many flaws with progressives. I can not for the life of me understand why. Maybe it is because they focus on the negative- that risk means LOSERS as well as winners? But overall they seem risk adverse in the extreme.  
[ Parent ]
If I might... (4.00 / 1)
I would like to suggest to you that risk-taking is inherent reality for progressive candidates and office holders--and activists. Indeed, it's inherent for anyone who runs for office who isn't a "golden child." This applies most certainly for most people who run from the "left."

Donna Edwards ran two campaigns to finally defeat an entrenched and throughly corrupt incumbent, who was also favored by Nancy Pelosi and Steny "Soul For Sale" Hoyer. Yet, she's being pretty "afraid" these days. It shouldn't take too much imagination to see why that is the case.

If you've worked on a couple campaigns, you know what I'm talking about. It's rough out there.

Additionally, progressives in general get nothing more than lip-service from the party hacks (and they run the party) and they get no real help from leadership.

Having said that, I think where you're right is that once people get into office and form coalitions (CPC), these coalitions are too easy to intimidate and these coalitions still haven't matured to the point where they've developed the "taste for the jugular" that is standard operating procedure in politics.

So there are two things I would suggest: 1), the flaws with progressives are that they're new to town and haven't matured to the extent we'd like; and 2) the entire system, media, party are all aligned against them. This is no accident and we can thank Bill Clinton for pushing for and signing the Telecom Act of '96 for fucking us over so fucking badly. But that was no accident either. He always wanted to move the party to the right. So Thanks, Bill!

So while you're making valid points, I would hope you wouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater." This sentiment of mine doesn't invalid your sentiment in any way.

All of us. WE are all members of an embattled minority that are about to be thrown to the wolves by people who were more than happy to use our rhetoric over the last two election cycles and it paid off well for them... only to dump us all on the slag heap of political prurience to suit themselves.

It was ever thus. Jeebus, I've been threw this enough times to know who the real villians are in all this.

It's not those who dared to try to live up to the shingles they put out. It's the fuckers who use us then throw us out with the previous day's fishwrap.



"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

[ Parent ]
Progressives are new to town? (4.00 / 1)
Considering that the Congressional Progressive Caucus contains many of the most senior Democrats and was formed before the Blue Dog or New Democrat coalitions (1991 vs 1995 and 1997, although the DLC was formed earlier), I find that hard to believe.

There's not always a conspiracy lurking behind every shadow and perhaps part of the problem, which some don't want to admit, is actual incompetence on the part of progressives.  

I'll give you the "haven't matured to the extent we'd like", but it's not because progressives are new to town.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
that could explain their behavior (0.00 / 0)
they have the behavior of old men and women not able to imagine their fears are false. So maybe rather than replacing conservatives, it is time to replace the old dogs on the liberal team with young blood?
[ Parent ]
Well, I certainly appreciate your generosity... (0.00 / 0)
Methinks your perspective is somewhat blinkered  for some reason.

Many of the most senior Dems? That is only true on the surface. How about asking, who are the most POWERFUL Dems and then telling me how many of them are in CPC? That question yields a different query result. But you probably knew that.

Here's another question: How many of the current members were elected just in the last 3 or 4 election cycles? Notice anything there, sport?

Lastly, I'm not sure where this "conspiracy" word comes from, but you obviously have no operational experience in politics. It's not about "conspiracies," so much as factions that work rather openly to destroy their competition. It is now and always has been SOP.

Is that concept somehow lacking in your lexicon?

"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

[ Parent ]
NO NO NO (0.00 / 0)
Emocrat....Don't you dare give up on your beliefs.  That would be unfair to yourself.  You lose part of yourself when you give up on your beliefs.  

Conservative.(former Money Man)....Bothers you, huh? Gore at Poetry Circle.

[ Parent ]
For the record, I've never given up my beliefs... or my attitude (4.00 / 1)
Which has cost me. Believe me. Hence my closing sentence.

I'm in my late 40s now. I was a punk in late HS. I was an artsy-fartsy punkish sort in college--got into trouble with admin then too (J-School/Poli Sci offers such opportunities to the enterprising). The early 90s gave me something of a break, as I had this brief period where things seemed to be somewhat sane. By the end of Clinton's first term, it became clear to me that thought was bullshit. Clinton's second term, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagal, laid it all out. Bush, well, even my VERY Republican father hated the Bushes... all of them, since he knew some of them.

But I worked on campaigns from '87-'92 and did everything from organizing to scheduling and press/issues--I even turned down a "nice" job in DC, because I couldn't afford the whopping $32K salary (try living in DC on that when you're not from a wealthy family!). So I'm not clueless. I've known some really excellent human beings who put their asses on the line and were more than willing to risk losing in order to get something better for people. IE, to serve.

So I'm not giving anything up. At this point, I can't even imagine it.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I'll burn any bridge belonging to a hypocrite, even if it's feeding me at the time--especially if it belongs to a bigot... that I'll do out of spite. But part of this most necessary (in my view) discussion about "the left", what that means and who's serious and who's not... well, I don't want to label everyone who isn't sufficiently "pure" as a tosser just because there are more problems we aren't considering.

So yes, I think there is real danger here. I also think there will necessarily be a lot of chaos among the left in this period. It's only natural that people question the prevailing "order," when that order isn't producing results. We'd be stupid NOT to.

So I'm not giving up on anything. But I'm not going to violate my own understanding of how things work and overlook potential or real allies either.

In this country, friends of the quasi-leftish sort are far and few between. Good ones even more so. I'll not turn away a good person, just because they aren't sufficiently "pure" in one moment or the other. Understanding is as key to politics as anything else in life.

What matters to me is how we coalesce around ideas that will actually do some good and find others who will also go for that ride. If we can't grow this thing we call "progressivism" in a meaningful way, this is all just silly posturing.

Does that clear things up for you?

 

"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

[ Parent ]
I can think of a few reasons (4.00 / 1)
One is that progressives are just flat-out bad at risk assessment.  They mis-estimate the probability of a bad outcome happening and/or the magnitude of that bad outcome.

Progressives may over-value each issue as if it is the most important issue ever, thus feeling the need to get as much as they can out of the current legislative battle and settling for less because they don't understand how it affects future fights and care more about avoiding a complete loss.

Progressives may simply fear losing more than they like winning.

It could be that too many of the current batch of progressives we have in Congress are fine talking about action, but lose heart after any setback and go into panic mode.

I could probably come up with more if I wanted, but that seems like a good start.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
All of your arguments seem valid (0.00 / 0)
and frankly many are not mutually exclusive of others. I found myself nodding yes on all of them.  My problem ultimately with all of this is that I think it is all short sighted for a group that claims to be about long term human progress to not understand that saving a few lives while killing off more is not saving lives.  It may make you feel good, but it is illusionary- just like the idea of covering up hyper inflationary costs with subsidies is.
[ Parent ]
Second crazy gear (0.00 / 0)
The problem becomes when someone shifts from the crazy gear to the second crazy (crazier) gear.  That's when a smart and talented politician becomes Richard Nixon of the last days.  Some of them have hit that second crazy gear and stayed with there petal to the metal for years.  
[ Parent ]
How about we cross that bridge when we come to it (0.00 / 0)
Rather than advocating caution because of a slippery slope argument? See, this is what drives me crazy. You mention all the things that can potentially happening while ignoring the actuality. The actuality is that they are risk adverse in the extreme. To the point of absurd results and arguments like "well no one will be bothered by the mandate because of medicaid coverage." Uhm- no one on medicaid will be having to paying a penalty on a mandate, and thus, the mandate will be harming a different set of voters.  See the problem with the progressive logic, or lack thereof here?
[ Parent ]
Those would be teabaggers, yes? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not the least bit worried about that kind of crazy. Well, not from the left.

The right will always outdo even the most batshittiest of any leftist, save perhaps  some anarcho-syndicalist Lefty McLeftowitz with a penchant for throwing stink bombs at an otherwise "serious" presser.

But I jest. Or do I? Yes, I do!

"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

[ Parent ]
Study the early 20th century again (0.00 / 0)
and you'll see that leftists of the era did, when pushed, answer the class war waged upon them by taking lives and property, sometimes as hostages, sometimes for keeps.

History tends to show that crazy can and does win class wars.

[ Parent ]
With due respect, there isn't one single problem (4.00 / 2)
But a number of them. And yes, right-wingers are the biggest problem, in BOTH parties. Corruption is most definitely a buy-partisan affliction and this entire issue is best summed up in terms of corrupt interests more than ideology.

The White House in particular, is a really big problem. The biggest of them all, really, since that's the nexus of Democratic power in this country and it turns out they're all on the take.

The House progressives are weak. They are scared, quite frankly. I don't blame them for that, as they are also weak in terms of resources and infrastructure as well. Plus, they're getting hammered by the press, House leadership and the WH to boot.

But frankly, I don't see how House progressives can bother with the pretense of being "progressives" if they can't even find a line in the sand to draw here. For while the wonky part of this debate is iffy enough, the political part of this looks a lot worse. Then again, every district has it's own set of considerations and like it or not, we have to respect those.

For what little it's worth, the progressives better be careful about this. If they sign on to this milquetoast garbage, they can make the wonky argument they got the best they could get, which would be true.... Then again, I don't see how the mere mortals out on Main Street are going to like this "reform" at all. Most are going to hate anyone who promotes this crap and label them with some very unfortunate epithets. This is not really going to improve most people's lives and telling them, "We'll get it done ten years from now," won't cut it with most people. Most people are going to be pissed, although they might not actually get pissed in time for next year's election. Here's hoping!

And therein lies the problem and I think this "victory" will prove more Pyrrhic than anything for the Democratic Party, and I seriously hope Progressives don't go down with the ship on this one. OUR people don't deserve that fate.

This has turned into a real conundrum, methinks. I say, let the pseudo-centrists take the blame and pillory the bastards. Run away!!!!


"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

[ Parent ]
They seem to be deluding themselves into believing the mandates (4.00 / 1)
will not matter. There are entire threads about how people will not really care about mandates. I have no idea what bubble world they are living in, but a) their opinion does not reflect polling or b) people I know. I am just thinking it is more like people are tired, and when you get to that place of tired you start to believe your own b.s. about something even where you know it is b.s. just because you want to move on. Thus, people will be okay with mandates because you don't want to fight this battle.  
[ Parent ]
I think that's right, we're just tired (4.00 / 2)
I'm sure tired of discussing it, but mandates are going to be a disaster. My wife is mad as hell about it, and she has health insurance anyway.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Meanwhile you got folks writing crazy shit like "It is just 750 a year" (4.00 / 1)
I mean- to me that's just nuts. Completely tone deafness. Activist may be tired, but like making movies, all the audience is going to see in the final product. They are not going to care what went into this. They are going to care that they hate the final mandate without appreciable personal benefits.
[ Parent ]
Rubber, meet road. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the IM and whether or not a genuinely large proportion of Americans will see any hope for themselves and everyone they care for. Thus far, I don't see it either.

Add in the reactionary media barrage and a WH solely concerned with it's own interests (financial, mostly at this point). Yeah, WE get hung out to dry on this puppy, since no one really expects Josephine Six-Pack to be happy with this at all.

Am I being too cynical? Or am I merely being realistic?

"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

[ Parent ]
I can already see the media frame (4.00 / 1)
for this as "progressives push for mandates." Years from now conservatives will argue that this is just one more example of how big government leftist want to take your money from you. Blah, blah, blah. We have heard this all our lives. That people right now are ignoring this narrative is crazy.
[ Parent ]
Yep. (0.00 / 0)
All the well meaning people in the world couldn't stop this narrative now. The IM was the biggest poison pill of this whole thing. It just reeks of predatory policy-making, on a symbolic level if nothing else. Ditto bailouts, etc. We pay, they play and all the while, our little personal worlds crumble under the weight of the Predator State. Jamie Galbraith has it right.

At this point, I'm hoping the progressives take the weekend to really suss this out a bit and put themselves in the real economy (Main Street) to get some input. The IM should have been jettisoned Day One, knowing full well how this was going to turn out. It would have been a good PR point for progressives--FREEEANCE, bitches!

But something tells me this won't even be the worst of the media narrative on this "victory." So we get Americans no real results (they can actually see) with a  lot of downside. Or at least the potential downside seems pretty huge.

Ugh. Nice chatting, but I've got to go lie down now.....

"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

[ Parent ]
Your wife (and others) is key here. I have insurance and I'm fucking pissed! (4.00 / 2)
I can't place the day exactly, but when I heard Barack Hoover Obama spouting how most people WITH "insurance" are happy with it and don't want change... I damn near threw up. Happy?! Are you (preznit O) out of your upper class mind?!

So yeah. This is why I think some House members really need to think long and hard about this. I like my Rep, for the most part, but no, I won't be voting or donating a friggin' dime if she votes for this crap. I told her as much and judging from her telephonic "townhall" meet, I'm in the roughly 70% majority opinion in my district. And I live in Righty-Tighty San Diego! Ha!

"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

[ Parent ]
Some of them, absolutely right... (4.00 / 1)
But Raul Grijalva, for starters, isn't in that crowd and he feels comfortable with voting against this crap. It also happens he's co-chair of the CPC. So I don't think there is a unified congressional progressive "voice" yet on this.

I totally agree with you on the IM. It will be a disaster. No doubt about it. Fuhget the Youth Vote for long time, among others.

That said, I can't say what's in other people's minds. I don't think the CPC is going to cave en masse on quite the level that's being talked about right now. It will be political suicide for some and too close for comfort for others.

OTOH, if they do, emigration will start looking a lot more important real quick! Because if this bread and butter issue gets the shiv from progressives outright, there's really no point to all this, is there?


"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

[ Parent ]
Onion (0.00 / 0)
Every time you peel away another layer of the onion, it smells worse.  And worse.  Fines. Mandates.  Tax the good insurance or more likely eliminate it.  Reduce payment for Medicare so more doctors leave the system.  

Will this save money?  No, it will just pump up insurance profits as now they will cash in on millions of uninsured.

[ Parent ]
Yes. And that's where the wonky meets the reality. (4.00 / 2)
We're paying through the nose to subsidize entities that would sooner see us die than pay to keep us alive.

People get that, intuitively if nothing else. The under-30s will be severely pissed.

"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

[ Parent ]
which makes the idea that we are going to constraint (0.00 / 0)
this evil sound like appeasement of the Germans. Nice in theory, but totally ignores the character of the players.  
[ Parent ]
Point taken, though I wouldn't go so far as to bring the Nazis into this (0.00 / 0)
Nor would I automatically assume Representative X is a totall wussy, just because he/she is under a shitload of pressure.

But one thing is certain at this point: "progressives" are not going to deliver anything to The People. What will be delivered will be some modest improvements that most people won't notice, though they WILL notice the added complexities, the added costs and the continuation of much of the status quo.

There's really no upside that I can see to backing this. Run Away!!!!!! Then we can say, "See? Told ya so!" when it all fails--since that's what it will do. And, "When you idiots are ready, give us a listen. It just so happens we know how to solve problems in ways that don't drive 90% of this country's population fucking bonkers with rage."

It's late, I'm tired and that's all I got right now.

"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

[ Parent ]
Yeap- part of this is class stuff too (4.00 / 2)
I read some of the comments over at mydd etc, and I realize, these are people who despite their claims have never truly struggled from the bottom of the economy. I mean- the bulk of them are CLEARLY middle- middle class. The other night here, there was this exchange in which that became abundantly clear in which several of the posters could not fathom why a) someone could not 'prioritize" to pay for insurance  (as if that has been the issue rather prohibitively expensive being the issue) and b) that no one would be made if they had a mandate since many people will have insurance anyway. As you say, this ignores how complex it makes people's lives in a way that actually adds no value. But, it's like describing the color red to someone who has never seen the color red. They just aren't going to get it. They have all these presumptions, and it takes too much work for me to explain why these assumptions are wrong. The assumption- for example that people with insurance will not be mad about a mandate since they have insurance says to me "what bubble are you living in?"
[ Parent ]
yep, conservatives aren't the problem (4.00 / 1)
Conservatives cause no problems in American politics at all.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Every problem in American politics is caused by a lack of willpower among progressives.

Its our lack of will that causes all problems.

[ Parent ]
Yup! If only... (0.00 / 0)
...all progressives read "The Power of Positive Thinking", this would be a huge step towards more success!
:D
[ Parent ]
Ain't it amazing... (4.00 / 4)
Not that they sell us out.  Seems the system's incentives are organized to produce exactly that result.  But, that they sell us out so cheaply.

I found Luke Mitchell on Obamacare a real interesting read.  [Harper's but no subscription required for this piece.]

thanks (0.00 / 0)
For the link to this great article. It addresses much more than the health care deform mess. The picture it paints (correct imhp) is truelly terrifying.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR
[ Parent ]
This Is Pretty Standard (4.00 / 2)
The ROI (return on investment) for corporate spending on national politics has long been as high as 1000-1 for the masters of the game.  I noticed that at least as far back as the mid-90s or so.  I can't remember the specifics, but I observed several instances where the campaign contributions in the millions were roughly equal to the corporate goodies in billions.

I'm sure that some don't do nearly as well.  Heck, some probably do have to pay industry average finder's fees!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Strong point, Paul! And this totally distorts the stragegies of business. (0.00 / 0)
Because, of course, if it's so cheap to buy legislation that favors you, why spend huge sums, for instance on improving the quality of your steel, when its more efficient to simply increase tolls on th foreign competition? Why invest in reducing your carbon footprint, when with less money you can simply excempt your business from regulation? Why care about worker's demands, if you can prevent them from organizing by making some lawmakers skew the law in your favor? Etc etc etc.

Yup, sure an interesting topic. Hmm, is there anybody in economics or PolSci who rsearches the RoI effect of political donations and lobbying costs?

[ Parent ]
That's why some call it cheating (0.00 / 0)
if it's so cheap to buy legislation that favors you, why spend huge sums, for instance on improving the quality of your steel, when its more efficient to simply increase tolls on th foreign competition?

While the kinder souls among us call it "gaming the system".  begs the question, though, if buying legislators is so "cheap", why is it only the conservative corporate interests that buy them? Is there such a thing as a "good" corporation?

Would it be morally correct to bribe politicians to do the right thing?

Or is this yet another arena where those with principles (such as politicians should not be bribed!) get pushed around by those without conscience?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
"Would it be morally correct to bribe politicians to do the right thing?" (0.00 / 0)
Good question. Intuitively, I wanted to answers "yes!", but on second thought, I'm wondering if it can be justified to support the corruption by exploiting it for good causes. Depends on the details, I guess. Maybe if it's really an issue of overwhelming importance....

A better answer, anyone? Anyone? Rosenberg?

[ Parent ]
Sirota is coming close to the question (0.00 / 0)
Here in the discussion of "moral hazard".

By using corruption to push pols in the "right" direction, one is setting up a moral hazard that others might use the same corrupting influence to move the pols in the "wrong" direction. So corruption is corrosive.

But if the system has been so corrupted by money and horse trading that further corruption is like a drop of water in the ocean, swimming against the tide gets tiring.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
academic (4.00 / 1)
The question, whial interesting, is not relevant to the problem.

Because the political fight in economic matters is always between capital and people, the few of great wealth can always out bid any attempt to bribe that the people can offer. At best our efforts would raise (slightly) the cost of doing business for the capitalist exploiters. They probably pass this cost of business on to the people anyhow, just like all other costs that might cut into profit in this distorted, (sometimes captive) market.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
I'm totally disheartened. (0.00 / 0)
Couple the epic failure of our Democratic Party to seize a remarkable moment in history by passing wildly popular health care reform with a real public option or, better yet, Medicare for everybody, with the massive fiasco of further deregulation of the finance industry, and toss in Taibbi's impeccable demonstration of how my favorite candidate in decades sold us all down the river, and you have the perfect recipe for widescale "blue flu" on Election Day 2010.

I'll vote--the alternatives are even worse--but it will be with the least enthusiasm I've had in my 26 years as a voter.

We care, they don't. (4.00 / 1)
That's the bottom line. We're always going to be at a disadvantage in negotiations. They know we're not willing to cut the baby in half. We get rolled not because we're weak, but because ultimately we care about people and getting things done. A lot of the anger is wrongly directed. How do you negotiate with someone like Lieberman who just doesn't give a fuck?  
by choosing to be ruthless because (0.00 / 0)
you know breaking their hold on power saves more  lives than leaving them in power does.  caring is not an excuse for creating more damage in the long run by leaving them in power.  
[ Parent ]
You don't negotiate with Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
Which unfortunately means you have to negotiate with Snowe or Collins, who I am not convinced are that much better.

Or you just outright threaten Lieberman's interests.  Unfortunately, it's not really feasible to threaten to be pro-Iran or pro-Hamas in a way that scares Lieberman's Israel constituency.

The left will always have a strategic disadvantage against the centrists.  The left can only hold ground or move right.  The centrists can hold ground and refuse to budge out of the center, move left, or move right.  The left can only withhold its votes.  The center can play the left against the right.  

I believe that some people just don't understand that the left is fundamentally weaker than they think it is.  That doesn't mean that I think progressives should just cave.  I think that we need to think more in terms of asymmetrical political warfare and less in terms of singing kumbayah and starting a mass movement that will overcome through the basic principle of democracy if we can just free ourselves from corporate shackles.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
one solution could have been reconcilliation (0.00 / 0)
but they took that off the table, which makes me question whether this whole we cant address the conservatives is a feature rather than a defect. I don't think we are stronger. But, when you are not stronger that means you have to be willing to entertain ideas that you may find distasteful to win.  
[ Parent ]
They could have even just nuked the filibuster (4.00 / 1)
That really does only take 51 votes.

Their general unwillingness to do that never gave me much confidence that they would use reconciliation.

There is a lot of Democratic complicity with the status quo. And, from what I have seen, members of Congress aren't actually eager to do much of anything that would be considered daring. I just don't think that somehow progressive "weakness" is the only problem in our political system.

[ Parent ]
Their weakness is of course not the only issue (0.00 / 0)
but it is a big one. Weakness comes in the form of bowing to leadership pressure. Do you see the conservadem giving  a shit about either polls (the public views) or the pressure they receive in Congress? I know many of you think that is a product of their bargaining position, but that's false. It is a product of simply willing to be unmoveable. When Obama said he was willing to take any bill- that was the key to progressives winning. I would not have given Pelosi the margins when she pushed forward the Stupak bill. But , as someone reminds me above- part of the issue is that maybe these progressives are mostly people who came into power a whiel back rather than recently. Maybe they don't know how to be difficult to deal with.  
[ Parent ]
Conservadems constantly bow to pressure (4.00 / 1)
Do you see the conservadem giving  a shit about either polls (the public views) or the pressure they receive in Congress?

They bow to pressure from industry. From their donors. From pundits. From right-wingers. They are constantly bowing to pressure.

They just don't bow to progressive pressure, at least very often.

part of the issue is that maybe these progressives are mostly people who came into power a whiel back rather than recently. Maybe they don't know how to be difficult to deal with.

?????????

Only people who came into power recently know how to be difficult to deal with? That strikes me as a truly bizarre conclusion.

[ Parent ]
as a rule of thumb what i said is accurate (0.00 / 0)
why should they bow to progressives? You don't get them a reason to bow to you. I know I wouldn't if i were negotiating with you. Nothing personal.

And, if I am not mistaken, the Ginrich take over in 1994- part of the reasons they were so able to push hard was that they were not as entrenched in the old ways of doing things like a Bob Dole?

What Rahm essentially did by adding blue dogs (which breaks my rule of thumb) was to put into place people who would be status quo personified, and with progressives (again if my memory is correct and the above quote by another poster along this thread is right) we essentially have a lot of older progressives who have been there since the days where the GOP was still in major power so they read the world through that view. IS this wrong about the nature of who is in power right now? How many progressives versus blue dogs have come into power in the last 2 or 3 cycles?  

[ Parent ]
Oh poppycock (4.00 / 3)
The D party is the center party.  Anyone who tells people they can't vote for the left is almost always up to something.
[ Parent ]
Insurance companies owe 44 Senators who would filibuster public option $91,363,636 each | 62 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox