Tag: Domestic Policy

The Next President

Back in June I did a post on what the next president would be facing, unfortunately I was mistaken in some areas for the economy had not gone into the toilet yet.

November 4th, the next president will be chosen by the American people (actually the electoral college, but believe what you will) and he will immediately be confronted with a wealth of problems that need immediate attention.

He will face 2 wars, the worst economy since 1930, a growing deficit, job losses, energy independence, a crumbling infrastructure and the list goes on and on, those were the immediate problems that must be faced.

US President George W. Bush’s successor inherits a world of troubles come January, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a defiant Iran, and a US economy battered by the global financial crisis.

The new president will take the reins of a limping superpower facing deep doubts overseas about the limits of its strength, and sharply diminished US standing even among Washington’s closest friends, recent studies find.

If these cannot be handled and handled quickly, then our next president will most likely be a ONE term president.  He will be held responsible for everything that occurs within those 4 years, no matter where they originated.

Now the question will be, will the Congress work with the new president or will they just be a hinderance?  Will a democratic Congress be willing to change things?  Or will they like the status quo?  IMO, there are a lot of “Blue Dog” Democrats in the Congress, I do not see them helping the Obama presidency much.

“America’s moral leadership and decision-making competence will continue to be questioned at home and abroad, despite the arrival of new leadership in Washington,” a Georgetown University working group said earlier this year.

Bush leaves a mountain of unfinished business. Barring perhaps unimaginable breakthroughs, it will fall to one of his successors to end the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, herald the end of nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and celebrate a lasting peace deal in the Middle East.

And the next president will certainly inherit a grim economy — the White House this week predicted a sharp rise in unemployment, while some private-sector forecasts warn of a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009.

The new president will likely face difficult decisions on Iraq. Recent US public opinion polls reveal new optimism amid decreased violence there, but most Americans still want US troops to come home as soon as possible.

The new president will also inherit Iran’s defiance of international pressure over its suspect nuclear program and a fragile six-country deal making ginger progress towards ending North Korea’s atomic weapons ambitions.

Other headaches include Washington’s chilly ties with Moscow — their worst since the Cold War — as well as relations with Pakistan which have tensed over suspected US strikes at extremists along the border with Afghanistan.

The Swedish Model

All the chat about the economy and the taxes and the policies of Obama have been called the “Swedish Model”.  Media pundits, talking heads and even some McCain surrogates have said the economic policies of Obama are socialism and some even said it is the model mentioned.  But what does the “Swedish Model” mean?  Is it socialism, is it something to be avoided or is it a myth?

All that said, just what is the Swedish Model?  Here is your answer.

Health care–all citizens receive high quality health and dental care with modest co-payment.  The quality is so hight that even the wealthy opt out for public health care.

Education–Free education is provided to all citizens at all levels, including college, vocational and adult education.  The quality of education is so hugh that even the KIng’s children attend public school.

Job Training–Free training is provided to all citizens who desire it.

Employment–the Swedish government feels that all citizens has the right to meaningful work.  Unemployed people receive benefits, retraining or a job in a public works project.  The unemployment rate in Sweden is about 2.4%.

Social Security–All Swedish citizens will receive a pension from the state, which pays them 75% of their income at the time of retirement.

Housing–For citizens that cannot afford a house, they are given a housing subsidy.  There are no homeless in Swedish because of their housing and anti-poverty programs have been so successful.

So far I have not seen where that is such a bad deal for the people of Sweden.  The US wishes it could provide such benefits to its citizens.  Screw ideology–the people should be the priority of the governement and you may call it whatever you would like.

Can Medicare Be Publicly Funded?

Medicare has never been a fully public program. A considerable portion of the medical bills has always been paid by the beneficiaries. In fact, on average, retirees over 65 years old are paying more out of their pockets today, with Medicare, than they did prior to the passage of Medicare in 1965. That is an astounding fact.

When the Medicare program was signed into law in 1964, Congress set a mandatory premium for Part B – physician care. They also required Medicare recipients to pay 20 percent of their medical bills. At the time the bill was up for a vote, Democrats stated that this condition was necessary in order for it to pass. The American Medical Association (those were the days when the AMA had decisive power), the insurance carriers, drug companies, and most of the rest of corporate America strongly opposed the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. Making these concessions got them to lower their opposition, but they kept the carriers and the drug monopolies in a position to do the dirty work they have been doing ever since.

One of the results of this compromise has been that Medicare Part B premium requirements have grown each year. The premium, now over $100 a month, is automatically taken out of monthly Social Security checks.

Even with Medicare, there is something like a 20 percent “gap” in coverage for recipients and is a huge financial burden. To help cover the gap, insurance companies sell so-called Medi-gap insurance, which has become a major source of revenue for private insurance companies. The dollar figure of this 20 percent gap has steadily grown to an astronomical figure, in the hundreds of billions each year.

Following the failure to win a universal health care program in the early 1990s, the insurance companies thought up a new scheme and quickly obtained federal government approval for it. The Gingrich Republican Congress, assisted by the caving in of the Clinton administration, devised a new way to satisfy the greed of the insurance companies, through health maintenance organization, or HMOs. HMOs were originally group practices, like the Kaiser programs, set up by well-meaning preventive medicine professionals.

The new HMOs of the 1990s were a whole new animal. These latter-day HMOs were created by insurance companies themselves to “offer retirees a deal.” The deal was simple. Sign up with us, we’ll pay the 20 percent gap, and we’ll give you better service.

Sounds like a good plan, but corruption was rampant. This was the heyday of corporations like Oxford Health Insurance company and other underhanded insurance carriers who, in the late 1990s, were caught raking in premium payments but refusing to provide advertised services, while doctors and hospitals went unpaid for months and even years. After the scheme was exposed, Oxford’s CEO was given a golden parachute worth millions.

Despite such enormous corruption, Republicans like John McCain, with campaign coffers over-flowing with HMO contributions, continue to champion deregulation and privatization, holding up the HMO and the supposed superior health care it provides. Americans have long known the truth, however.

In 2003, when George W. Bush pushed through his misnamed Medicare Modernization Act, expanding these private plans, he used a new Madison Avenue gimmick and called them “Medicare Advantage Plans.” Despite the fancy name, these plans have been a great disadvantage for many retirees, but have been a major new source of profits for insurance companies. Medicare recipients found themselves paying still more out-of-pocket expenses for fewer services. Some insurance carriers were allowed to exclude some Medicare recipients as bad insurance risks.
Amazingly, the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) actually used taxpayer dollars to pay insurance carriers to set up these plans. And even with that money, the carriers demanded more, or they threatened to leave the program.

Finally, a showdown in the US Senate took place in July 2008. Senator Ted Kennedy dramatically returned from his sick bed to vote against the Bush administration’s attempt to lavish more money on the insurance companies. His was the 60th vote in the Senate to prevent a Republican Party filibuster. The mainstream media reported that Congress had voted to lower Medicare reimbursement for physicians fees, but the real deal was that Congress cut the money to the carriers. This was a major step toward Medicare reform that means something for all of us. Physician reimbursement from Medicare was frozen for 18 months.

The Elderly: Truth Not Spoken

Lots and lots of lip service are being paid to the elderly. Each candidate has this idea or that plan or such. For instance from Obama’s website:

  • Social Security and Pensions: In the midst of the 2005 debate over Social Security privatization, Obama gave a major speech at the National Press Club forcefully arguing against privatization. He also repeatedly voted against Republican amendments that aimed to privatize Social Security or cut benefits. Obama has also voted to force companies to properly fund their pension plans so taxpayers don’t end up footing the bill.
  • Medicare: Obama has supported number efforts to strengthen Medicare, including voting for legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper prescription drug prices and to extend the enrollment period for low-income beneficiaries.
  • Protecting seniors: After reports that lobbyists, but not the American people, received information about the most unsafe nursing homes in the country, Barack Obama demanded the Department of Health and Human Services release that information to the public. Following Obama’s letter, the names of the four Iowa care facilities cited for unsafe care were released to the public. Obama’s efforts follow his successful efforts in Illinois to make nursing home information public and strengthen elder abuse laws.

How about the other guy, McCain?

A recent check of his website and nothing could be found specifically about the elderly. I guess that could say something about who is and is not important to his campaign. However, he does want to privatize the Social Security system.

Let us look at a little of the truth.

In a study on poverty by Ben Seligman found these conclusions: “The aged are simply an embarrassment. They are poor, unable to provide medical care for themselves; they violate the canon of self-help, so we dishonor them…. “

People work hard their entire lives and then they must, in most cases, retire to live out the rest of their lives in utter poverty. But who looks out after the elderly? The politicians only give a crap at election time. AARP? Sure they do—for a price.

Over 5 million elderly live at or below the poverty line. They struggle with money, housing, health and crime. If you have been watching the tube then you have noticed the increase of violence committed on the elderly. Occupational opportunities are few no one wants to chance some sort of benefit drain or they work part time where there are no benefits. Medical costs rise for the elderly have a greater chance of some catastrophic illness. Preventive medicine becomes a luxury for few live near a medical facility and mass transit is not reliable.

Most of the millions of retired people have worked hard and were energetic and productive during their working years. Unfortunately, it was not enough to give them the quality of life that they deserve. The system under which they live rewards according to assets, not effort.

The system they live under cares little for their plight and tries little to solve an ever growing problem. Devices had to be found outside the capitalist system. Devices like charity, welfare, public housing, but unfortunately these devices are ineffectual, controversial and badly run. Nothing on the political landscape says that it will be any different in the future.

One day everyone will have to face these problems, and then why not force the government to do something now and avoid the stress and the poverty that awaits you? Once you retire you will become pushed aside, silent and unseen—you will become a reminder of what is facing everyone—something few want to face.

Pickens’ New Energy Proposal

“On the surface, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens appears to be the man with all the energy answers,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.  “Pickens says his ‘Pickens Plan’ can cut America’s dependency on foreign oil by one-third over the next ten years.  It sounds attractive at a time when Capitol Hill is getting nowhere in the pursuit of energy independence.  But would the Pickens Plan really work?  What would it cost taxpayers?  Do parts of it raise Constitutional questions?  And would private parties – including Mr. Pickens himself – benefit financially?”

“A man on a mission, Pickens has set aside $58 million to ensure his energy plan is heard loud and clear,” added Ridenour, “and he’s got people listening, but America should not choose an energy policy based on the appeal of a billionaire’s folksy commercials.  The fine print must be examined.  In this case, the fine print reveals the Pickens Plan requires billions in government subsidies and the widespread use of government eminent domain powers.

“If the Pickens Plan is really all about doing what is best for the country and not for himself, Pickens could demonstrate his sincerity by renouncing the government subsidies he is lobbying for.  That should be easy for a man who says he doesn’t need any more money.”

Could US Become A Battle Zone

For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.

Beginning on October 1, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Army’s component of the Pentagon’s Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US “homeland” and aiding federal, state and local authorities.

The unit—known as the “Raiders”—is among the Army’s most “blooded.” It has spent nearly three out of the last five years deployed in Iraq, leading the assault on Baghdad in 2003 and carrying out house-to-house combat in the suppression of resistance in the city of Ramadi. It was the first brigade combat team to be sent to Iraq three times.

The Pentagon’s official pronouncements have stressed the role of specialized units in a potential response to terrorist attack within the US. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, attended a training exercise last week for about 250 members of the unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The focus of the exercise, according to the Army’s public affairs office, was how troops “might fly search and rescue missions, extract casualties and decontaminate people following a catastrophic nuclear attack in the nation’s heartland.”

“They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” the paper reports. It quotes the unit’s commander, Col. Robert Cloutier, as saying that the 1st BCT’s soldiers are being trained in the use of “the first ever nonlethal package the Army has fielded.” The weapons, the paper reported, are “designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.” The equipment includes beanbag bullets, shields and batons and equipment for erecting roadblocks.

Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America’s borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.

Civilian Response Corps–Part 2

First of all, this sounds like something that VISTA should be involved with. I mean why start something new that is already in operation? Between VISTA and Peace Corps I think the CRC is pretty much already been done. But no—let us start yet another program to suck money away from much needed domestic programs. Sorry, I digress.

In this part we will explore the nature of charity and the call for volunteers.

Americans live in increasingly troubled times. Hunger, foreclosures and poverty are all around. Begging on city streets, a phenomenon that became much less common in the 1990s, is again becoming ubiquitous in urban centers. Not since the Great Depression has the gap between the rich and the poor been so visible and extreme.

Social and political stability requires that the political establishment at least feign concern with these social problems, however. The mass media, schools and other institutions have campaigned for increased charitable giving and volunteer efforts to help the growing number of “disadvantaged.”

There is of course a vast difference between the sincere desire, especially of working people and youth, to seek to help those suffering from poverty or homelessness, and the cynical political calculations of those who have benefited from the huge transfer of wealth from the working population to the corporate and financial elite. The elder George Bush became a symbol of these hypocrites when, after having served as the two-term vice president under Ronald Reagan’s decimation of social programs, he discovered “compassionate conservatism” and delivered his 1988 Republican Convention speech as the presidential candidate, calling for a “thousand points of light” to deal with the devastation for which he and the plutocrats he represented were responsible.

Americans are constantly asked to “volunteer” either their time or their money to help those less fortunate than themselves. Americans have always given as much as they can to help their society and to some extent the world.

Charity has always played the role of a safety valve in modern class society, a way to cover up the most festering sores of class oppression and an attempt to staunch revolt. While it is not possible to provide an exhaustive history here, a few highlights demonstrate its long and reactionary history, especially since the rise of modern capitalism.

Part 3 will be tomorrow.

Thoughts On Immigration

Much has been said, written and debated about “illegal” immigration.  The most opposition seems to from those people who say that the immigrants are a drain on the domestic programs.  They think they get too much in food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc, etc.  this could be true, but how do you stop the loss of funds and services?

First, the whole thing is just a disguised racist thing.  After that, we will have a hard time as a country in eliminating all illegal immigration.  Oh, I know, everybody from lou Dobbs to the pizza delivery guy has an answer.  Psst!  None will work!

How about stop worrying and put into place a national sales tax.  The “illegals” will always buy food, use services, buy gas, etc.  The funds that they are accused of sucking up can be replaced and funded by a national sales tax.

How to do this?  I am not an economist, so that would be for a higher pay grade than mine.  But this is an idea that should be considered.   The whole thing is these people are abusing the system, so let they pay along with everybody else.

Peace–out!