But, wait a second. Why hasn't anyone in the media or legal world wondered aloud, "If a corporation has First Amendment rights, doesn't said corporation also have to be treated as one person when it commits acts of fraud or malfeasance?" Seriously. How do they get to have it both ways--as if I have to ask, knowing the power that they wield in our "democracy"?
Here's what should happen, if a corporation is indeed one person. That person should go to jail or pay the fine(s) if, say, the accounting department (see ENRON and WorldCom), or the risk management department and CEOs (see Goldman Sachs and Leimann Bros. for starters) commit crimes. Every man and woman who is part of that corporation should be treated as part of the whole. Everyone in that corporation should go to jail, not just the few who screwed our country. After all, despite what the Koch Bros. and Fox News would like you to believe, the rank-and-file, managers, and everyone else are who really build the wealth in a corporation. Granted these people have little to no say in executive decisions, but perhaps they should if the lot of them are going to federal prison if the CEO decides that he is not interested in the laws of the U.S. of A.
I just can't believe that a corporation can have the power to control our democracy, yet have none of the responsibilities that every other "person" in our country has.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Don't touch Medicare...Privatize Medicare
Interesting tactic by the GOP right now, pushing to privatize Medicare and hand out vouchers so people will have the freedom to buy health insurance. This will save the government tons of money, they say. Let's look a little closer.
Fact: Medicare is very expensive, and can't be covered by our tax revenues, even before the GOP forced us to cut taxes on corporations and the rich. Why is that? Because health care costs are rising faster than in any other country on earth. And in the GOP-authored and pushed through 2003 Medicare drug bill, which has cost--and handed big pharma--more than a trillion bucks so far, has a direct provision that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices with drug companies. So as it is, and not because it's in any way socialist, but a GOP cash cow, it is very expensive.
But all that money has to go somewhere, why are the right wing backers (big industry) wanting to kill it? Because, as many doctors and clinics are finding out, it's hard to get money out of Medicare for services. It is not trivial, but easier to make deals with the health insurance industry. So here's what you do. You kill Medicare as a single-payer, even though used right it could help to control the runaway cost of health care. Then give out cash to people so they can go try to find an individual plan that will cover their health situation, which, if you're over 60, you know that it's damn near impossible. This way, the money goes directly into the health care industry, people assume all of the risk, and there's no control whatsoever on the rising cost of health care. And, the government gets out of the way so industry can fleece us as it sees fit.
The CBO has documented that the plan will not really save the government much, and will strap the elderly with much higher health care costs. And one thing I have a hard time figuring out is why the insurance industry would want all those unprofitable elderly enrolled in the first place? What industry wants to take the thousands upon thousands of elderly Medicare beneficiaries that could never pay in as much as they claim. This can not go well for seniors. They will not get good service, and there will have to be low levels of coverage. BC/BS is not going to assume the structural debt of Medicare, and corporate hospitals and big pharma are not going to give up profits, so something has to give. I think it will be the American people who have very little to say regarding the decisions made about their lives.
The Ryan plan is already costing the GOP political points, and District 26 in upstate NY may be a sign that voters can see what's brewing. But does the GOP care? Naw. Why let voters get in the way of your ideological battles and handouts to big industry? After all, Obama is not one of us, right? So he can't win in 2012. If the GOP keeps following an ideology that does not coincide with the needs of the populace, I would suspect he will, no matter the ad hominem attacks.
Fact: Medicare is very expensive, and can't be covered by our tax revenues, even before the GOP forced us to cut taxes on corporations and the rich. Why is that? Because health care costs are rising faster than in any other country on earth. And in the GOP-authored and pushed through 2003 Medicare drug bill, which has cost--and handed big pharma--more than a trillion bucks so far, has a direct provision that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices with drug companies. So as it is, and not because it's in any way socialist, but a GOP cash cow, it is very expensive.
But all that money has to go somewhere, why are the right wing backers (big industry) wanting to kill it? Because, as many doctors and clinics are finding out, it's hard to get money out of Medicare for services. It is not trivial, but easier to make deals with the health insurance industry. So here's what you do. You kill Medicare as a single-payer, even though used right it could help to control the runaway cost of health care. Then give out cash to people so they can go try to find an individual plan that will cover their health situation, which, if you're over 60, you know that it's damn near impossible. This way, the money goes directly into the health care industry, people assume all of the risk, and there's no control whatsoever on the rising cost of health care. And, the government gets out of the way so industry can fleece us as it sees fit.
The CBO has documented that the plan will not really save the government much, and will strap the elderly with much higher health care costs. And one thing I have a hard time figuring out is why the insurance industry would want all those unprofitable elderly enrolled in the first place? What industry wants to take the thousands upon thousands of elderly Medicare beneficiaries that could never pay in as much as they claim. This can not go well for seniors. They will not get good service, and there will have to be low levels of coverage. BC/BS is not going to assume the structural debt of Medicare, and corporate hospitals and big pharma are not going to give up profits, so something has to give. I think it will be the American people who have very little to say regarding the decisions made about their lives.
The Ryan plan is already costing the GOP political points, and District 26 in upstate NY may be a sign that voters can see what's brewing. But does the GOP care? Naw. Why let voters get in the way of your ideological battles and handouts to big industry? After all, Obama is not one of us, right? So he can't win in 2012. If the GOP keeps following an ideology that does not coincide with the needs of the populace, I would suspect he will, no matter the ad hominem attacks.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Why I hate American Idol and every show like it.
OK. First off, I don't like the way the contestants sing, or the songs they choose. So it would be painful to watch even if I could stand the format of the show--and I worry that one of the contestants is going to be injured by all the sunshine that gets blown up their arses by the "judges". But the endemic insta-celeb of these shows is my biggest problem. Some of my favorite artists, and some of the biggest cultural and artistic influences were not cut from some commercial mold that creates pop-bots, which sing as they are told, so the big media can flood the market with the homogenized crap that is about as original as the piles of mass-produced flip-flops down at the Wal-Mart. Real artists developed a craft, and worked hard. If it resonated with people, it grew. They, and their audience had something to say, and it was many times a primal scream.
Would Woody Guthrie, Pete Seger, or Neil Young survive the first Idol cut? No. Go read about how any truly original artist got their big break. Many times it was getting discovered at a small venue, got airplay by a bold DJ (before media conglomeration replaced them with play lists), or got picked up by an indie label.
The model for commercial celebrity is nothing new. It started as soon as there was money in records and airplay. But this is ridiculous because it's hard to escape the parade of new "great performers" flooding our culture like iGadgets. In the current system, there are very few DJs with a metro-area market that can help the new REM, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Social Distortion, The Clash, The Replacements, or Pearl Jam along. The internet will help keep some semblance of counter-culture going, but there always seems to be less and less that has yet to be homogenized by our corporate plutocracy, and why I can't stand anything about "Idol".
Would Woody Guthrie, Pete Seger, or Neil Young survive the first Idol cut? No. Go read about how any truly original artist got their big break. Many times it was getting discovered at a small venue, got airplay by a bold DJ (before media conglomeration replaced them with play lists), or got picked up by an indie label.
The model for commercial celebrity is nothing new. It started as soon as there was money in records and airplay. But this is ridiculous because it's hard to escape the parade of new "great performers" flooding our culture like iGadgets. In the current system, there are very few DJs with a metro-area market that can help the new REM, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Social Distortion, The Clash, The Replacements, or Pearl Jam along. The internet will help keep some semblance of counter-culture going, but there always seems to be less and less that has yet to be homogenized by our corporate plutocracy, and why I can't stand anything about "Idol".
Why American capitalism isn't sustainable Part 4: the environment
What drives capitalism? Profit, of course. How much profit is there in a device that would save the world? None. Zip. Zilch. You put tons of money in it, it saves the world, and you didn't make a penny from it. So why would Apple develop an iWorldsaver when people are mesmerized by high-res, 2-inch screens with little frogs jumping across lanes of traffic? Not going to happen.
My point is that the only development of environmentally positive systems (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels, or a device that turns assholes into something useful) is going to come from pooled tax money--which can be terminated by the next collection of assholes in congress--or university research. And the majority will even notice the impending catastrophe because they will be texting.
One of the biggest problems with capitalism is that the only profit to be made from doing anything sustainable will come as pressures from depleted resources (used up or polluted) mount and there is little time for development.
My point is that the only development of environmentally positive systems (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels, or a device that turns assholes into something useful) is going to come from pooled tax money--which can be terminated by the next collection of assholes in congress--or university research. And the majority will even notice the impending catastrophe because they will be texting.
One of the biggest problems with capitalism is that the only profit to be made from doing anything sustainable will come as pressures from depleted resources (used up or polluted) mount and there is little time for development.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Is the Husker Nation really broke, governor?
Governor Dave Heineman
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 94848
Lincoln, NE 68509-4848
Dear Governor:
I have been trying to understand the Nebraska state budget, and I’m a bit confused. According to the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nebraska ranks first in the nation in the production of commercial red meat, and second in the nation in cattle and calf sales. We rank third in the nation in the production of corn for grain, and sorghum and dry edible beans. Over the last 15 years, Nebraskan corn farmers alone received more than $8 billion in farm subsidies. Corn surpluses in December were almost 8% lower than a year ago, and it is perched above $6 per bushel and expected to rise further.
As of 2009 we only have approximately 1.8 million residents. Our state appropriations increased only 2.5% from the 2009-10 to the 2010-11 budget, and from 2008-09 to 2009-10 appropriations dropped almost 1% (http://www.budget.ne.gov/).
I don’t know how the state handles the agricultural economy, but how in the world can we be in a deficit when so much is being produced here? I’m always hearing that the tax receipts are lower than expected, or that we are spending way too much on teachers and chalk. Could you help me out here? Where is all this money going, and is there really a deficit, or is this manufactured in order to cut the budget for the middle class?
DocD
Thursday, March 17, 2011
My take on peaceful protests
I was watching the Oscar-drenched movie Gandhi a few weeks ago. It was a nice refresher on civil disobedience and oppressed societies. But there are two concepts that jumped out at me. First, the Indian people tried peaceful protests. They gathered together in defiance of the British Indian Army, and the Brits killed them. And they arrested Gandhi. He stopped eating, the people all got upset, and the Brits let him go. Then, Gandhi had a great idea: shut down the colony by having an impromptu day of prayer. When people stopped working, the British Empire lost lots and lots of money. These types of protests, as Martin Luther King, Jr. found out, are the only ones that work. When civil-rights leaders held a march, the Alabama police beat them up, set attack dogs on them, and sprayed them with hoses. Awful, but who really cared? Not enough people until the Black community started boycotting buses and other businesses, and the oppressors lost money.
Now look at the Middle East and the Arab protests. The protests worked in Tunisia, and in Egypt. Huge groundswells of fury. In Tunisia the aristocrats didn't have the military might or blood-thirst to start killing the people. In Egypt Mubark had the military, but apparently the uproar--and perhaps his nationalism and conscience--was too much. Of course, though Mubark skipped out with more than $70 billion of mostly American free money, his legacy is still in power and we will see if the people have actually gained a foothold.
Other countries with peaceful protests will not fare as well, as we are seeing in Bahrain, and Libya. Bahrain and Libya are prime examples of relict colonial holdings of Western Europe, and the wealth and power of the ruling elite have not come from the toiling of the populace as it did in India. This wealth just appeared. In the case of Bahrain, wealth grew because of the US military and the fact that they are close to the Straits of Hormuz, that 29-mile-wide stretch of the Persian Gulf through which 29% of the world's oil passes. The Bahrain monarchy are not tied to the people, and this supposed division between Shia and Sunni is not nearly as important as the fact that the US has given and sold them more attack helicopters than you can shake a protest sign at. Did our Pentagon think that they were going to use all those arms against a common enemy, or their own people?
In the case of Libya, Colonel Gadaffi became a ruthless dictator by selling billions of dollars of oil to Europe, buying US weapons, and oppressing his people, much like the Italians did before him. It is estimated that the terrible, awful, blood-thirsty, terrorist--but we don't really care because you've got oil leader is worth more than $100 billion.
In both of these cases, the entire country could march, and they will most likely die. They could walk off their jobs, and it would hardly affect these despots. What the people do doesn't support their leader's wealth. These uprisings do, however, hurt the US and Western Europe because of the increased price of oil. The only problem is that we need that oil to survive, and will therefore side with the terrorist despots.
This is a similar problem for the state employees in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. If you walk off the job, the kids will suffer, society will suffer, and our country's future will suffer. Will the economy? Will the GOP? Perhaps, but they might also replace you with corporate for-profit education and you can join the hordes of corporate whores. The next election might well change things, but when billionaires can throw money at a democracy willy-nilly, democracy loses.
Now look at the Middle East and the Arab protests. The protests worked in Tunisia, and in Egypt. Huge groundswells of fury. In Tunisia the aristocrats didn't have the military might or blood-thirst to start killing the people. In Egypt Mubark had the military, but apparently the uproar--and perhaps his nationalism and conscience--was too much. Of course, though Mubark skipped out with more than $70 billion of mostly American free money, his legacy is still in power and we will see if the people have actually gained a foothold.
Other countries with peaceful protests will not fare as well, as we are seeing in Bahrain, and Libya. Bahrain and Libya are prime examples of relict colonial holdings of Western Europe, and the wealth and power of the ruling elite have not come from the toiling of the populace as it did in India. This wealth just appeared. In the case of Bahrain, wealth grew because of the US military and the fact that they are close to the Straits of Hormuz, that 29-mile-wide stretch of the Persian Gulf through which 29% of the world's oil passes. The Bahrain monarchy are not tied to the people, and this supposed division between Shia and Sunni is not nearly as important as the fact that the US has given and sold them more attack helicopters than you can shake a protest sign at. Did our Pentagon think that they were going to use all those arms against a common enemy, or their own people?
In the case of Libya, Colonel Gadaffi became a ruthless dictator by selling billions of dollars of oil to Europe, buying US weapons, and oppressing his people, much like the Italians did before him. It is estimated that the terrible, awful, blood-thirsty, terrorist--but we don't really care because you've got oil leader is worth more than $100 billion.
In both of these cases, the entire country could march, and they will most likely die. They could walk off their jobs, and it would hardly affect these despots. What the people do doesn't support their leader's wealth. These uprisings do, however, hurt the US and Western Europe because of the increased price of oil. The only problem is that we need that oil to survive, and will therefore side with the terrorist despots.
This is a similar problem for the state employees in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. If you walk off the job, the kids will suffer, society will suffer, and our country's future will suffer. Will the economy? Will the GOP? Perhaps, but they might also replace you with corporate for-profit education and you can join the hordes of corporate whores. The next election might well change things, but when billionaires can throw money at a democracy willy-nilly, democracy loses.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why American capitalism isn't sustainable Part 3: the Empire Strikes Out
The United States spends more than a trillion dollars per year on "security", which for the most part supports the British Empire Redux. It appears that the U.S. is a British groupie. We have treated aboriginal people the same way that the British Empire did, we exploit resources in territories and allies--our euphemisms for colonies--and developed a system of government and attitude for our homeland like the the UK on steroids.
Much like the British Empire, we use a huge seagoing and land-based military to support huge, multinational corporations that extract wealth from colonies for the crown, which in the US is Wall Street. The problem with this model, as the British showed us a century ago, is that it is not sustainable. The homeland spends so much money extracting resources from all of these places (e.g., South America, Asia, the Middle East) that one perturbation at home (e.g., gas prices jump or Wall Street collapses the economy) or multiple perturbations in the hinterlands (e.g., Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, etc.--in the British Empire it was India) can bring the whole thing down.
The problem isn't that an empire is bad. I love sitting here on my couch made in China, eating food grown in Mexico and California picked by Mexican serfs, and watching a TV made in three different countries, and all of which I can afford on a salary that hasn't increased in 20 years. I can put on my blinders and forget that anyone in the world has suffered under oppressive regimes supported by my Department of Defense to get me these nice things at such a low price that even with my limited spending power, some rich fuck can get still richer selling it to me.
The problem is that this imperial system doesn't follow the rules of free-market capitalism. The profits are not based on supply and demand, because they are propped up by a system that controls the variables of wages, cost of resources, and especially, risk. This causes the system to perpetuate and grow, ignoring all checks and adjustments until a catastrophic collapse. Without the checks built into real free-market capitalism, the system will, without doubt, turn into a boom and bust cycle that will fail catastrophically when the resources of the homeland can no longer support the military support for the corporations, and the price of resources exceeds the spending power of the proletariat (e.g., gas prices rise above $4.00 per gallon).
Keep an eye on this. China is making deals all over the world for oil and coal, because they need it desperately. Instead of using our mythical capitalistic wheeling-dealing "best and brightest" industrial cleverness, we sent "our brave young men and women into harms way to defend our liberties back home", yada, yada, yada. Our military got us nothing when it comes to oil contracts with the colonies who sit upon the reservoirs. Nothing but enormous debt and an unsustainable empire that will, inevitably fall apart, leaving the homeland in dire straights.
Much like the British Empire, we use a huge seagoing and land-based military to support huge, multinational corporations that extract wealth from colonies for the crown, which in the US is Wall Street. The problem with this model, as the British showed us a century ago, is that it is not sustainable. The homeland spends so much money extracting resources from all of these places (e.g., South America, Asia, the Middle East) that one perturbation at home (e.g., gas prices jump or Wall Street collapses the economy) or multiple perturbations in the hinterlands (e.g., Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, etc.--in the British Empire it was India) can bring the whole thing down.
The problem isn't that an empire is bad. I love sitting here on my couch made in China, eating food grown in Mexico and California picked by Mexican serfs, and watching a TV made in three different countries, and all of which I can afford on a salary that hasn't increased in 20 years. I can put on my blinders and forget that anyone in the world has suffered under oppressive regimes supported by my Department of Defense to get me these nice things at such a low price that even with my limited spending power, some rich fuck can get still richer selling it to me.
The problem is that this imperial system doesn't follow the rules of free-market capitalism. The profits are not based on supply and demand, because they are propped up by a system that controls the variables of wages, cost of resources, and especially, risk. This causes the system to perpetuate and grow, ignoring all checks and adjustments until a catastrophic collapse. Without the checks built into real free-market capitalism, the system will, without doubt, turn into a boom and bust cycle that will fail catastrophically when the resources of the homeland can no longer support the military support for the corporations, and the price of resources exceeds the spending power of the proletariat (e.g., gas prices rise above $4.00 per gallon).
Keep an eye on this. China is making deals all over the world for oil and coal, because they need it desperately. Instead of using our mythical capitalistic wheeling-dealing "best and brightest" industrial cleverness, we sent "our brave young men and women into harms way to defend our liberties back home", yada, yada, yada. Our military got us nothing when it comes to oil contracts with the colonies who sit upon the reservoirs. Nothing but enormous debt and an unsustainable empire that will, inevitably fall apart, leaving the homeland in dire straights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)