President Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Was he right?

The US spends more on “defense” than all other countries combined. According to official reports from 2003 and 2005, we have 737 military bases in 63 countries outside of the US and its territories.

This is intentionally misleading. Bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan are not counted. While there are ten Marine bases in Okinawa, official reports admit of only one. Not all troops are on bases. Personnel are stationed in 156 countries.

Those numbers are at least impressive, perhaps even stunning. Then there are the 6,000 plus bases in the US and its territories.

Domestically, the plethora of bases is not necessarily a factor of military considerations. Congressmen like to have the steady flow of tax dollars into their state or district that always seem to accompany military bases.

The number of military personnel has decreased significantly since my time. The bulk of the increase in military expenditures is in equipment. A few major conglomerates get the bulk of that bulk. Therein lies the trailing part of that complex. So, the taxpayers are shelling out gargantuan sums to a few corporations for unneeded “defense.”

Some people are getting fat off the government teat. Let’s just call them a part of the elite.

Banks were originally intended to provide funding for other businesses. Businesses need money for start up, to meet salaries, for inventory, for expansion. Banks should represent less than 5% of the economy. They now exceed 20%. Last year, over half of all profits went to banks. This represents a severe distortion of the economy. It is unsustainable.

These avaricious parasites with their fossilized ideology have created more debt than the sum total of all assets on Earth. They think of themselves as Masters of the Universe, even after their stupidities destroyed trillions of dollars in value around the world. Countries are going bankrupt. Families are being cast out on the street. They award themselves bonuses that would embarrass King Midas. Did you get a thank you card for your bailout?

We can’t forget the drug dealers and insurance companies. Our congressmen certainly didn’t forget them. You said yes when your congressman asked if you wanted to subsidize the memberships of PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) and AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), didn’t you? You were awfully generous. They both have America in their names but don’t let that fool you. That’s not where their loyalties lay.

So What?

You knew all of that. Why bring it up again? Because I’m going to put it into historical perspective. I’ll use it to predict the future. Isn’t that worth the rehash? It’s going to be fun. Well, maybe fun isn’t quite the right word.

The invention of agriculture was a boon, at first. It allowed people to stay in one place long enough to build substantial shelter. They had time to do that because agriculture normally allowed for enough free time to devote to other pursuits; or, even a bit of leisure.

They were able to produce surpluses most years. However, an occasional drought or flood or locust could bring a famine. They soon decided to store some of their surplus for those lean times. From their own village, town or city there might be a bad person who stooped to theft. Thieves could come from neighboring populations. This required someone to be in charge of a granary; someone to care for it, watch it, dole it out when necessary.

It also made necessary such new inventions as police forces and armies. These people couldn’t devote the necessary time to farming but had to take some of the surplus to survive. The keepers of the granaries appear to have become chieftains, lords and, eventually, local kings. As the communities grew and the leaders became accustomed to special status, their appetites grew.

They became rulers. They wanted special clothing and other adornments. They had friends and relatives who deserved special treatment, as well. This required craftsmen who wouldn’t have time for farming either. They needed a share of that surplus.

The king needed a great wall or an impressive pyramid or something else to impress the people. So, it was necessary to impress them into corvée. This resulted in less surplus while the demands on the surplus grew. Sometimes the king needed to expand his kingdom. His ego needed a boost but for the people it just added to the load to be borne.

Those farmers who had a surplus and leisure time now were subsisting on what was left after the elite took all of the surplus, and more. Their leisure time was spent on required, unpaid labor for the gratification of the elite. What began as a boon became a burden.

It is interesting to find large numbers of stone knives in the Indus Valley when it was in the midst of its Bronze Age. While the elite had the advantages of metal implements and the soldiery had metal weapons, chariot parts and such, the common people were forcibly kept in the Neolithic Age.

The result of this mismanagement of resources was the demise of civilizations and disappearance of great empires. I haven’t analyzed every fall of empire but would rate this as the primary cause of most and at least a contributing factor in the remainder. There may be other factors even when this is the primary culprit.

It happened in the Indus Valley. It happened to Sargon the Great and his successors. It happened to at least two, perhaps three, of Pharonic Egyptian civilizations. It happened to the Mayan, possibly their predecessors, the Olmec, and likely their successors.

Sometimes the end comes by just a total collapse. More often, a neighboring power provides the coup de grâce. These usurpers would not have the capacity to bring down the great, over-the-hill power had it not destroyed its own power, its own economy. In a nutshell, the elite overreached. Their own egos and pleasures blinded them to the reality of how vulnerable was the house of cards upon which their delusions were based.

Does that sound familiar?

My late wife died in 1974. She never had to work outside the home. A single income was sufficient. But, 1973 was the peak for average income in the US, adjusted for inflation.

As a bank supervisor in Los Angeles, we scraped by. Moving to Atlanta, our prospects improved. From 1966 to 1973 we bought three new houses; each larger than the previous one. We bought three new cars. We went on multiple foreign trips each year. Sure, I worked for Delta and the flights were free but the hotels and car rentals weren’t. I also began taking flying lessons; acquiring my commercial license with instrument and multi-engine ratings. I also returned to college. The money was always there.

That was not bragging. That was just to remind you of how our economy used to be. The jobs I had at Delta were ramp rat, passenger service agent, auditor of the caterer and meal planner for all flights out of Atlanta and computer programmer. What happened to the average income earner?

There was an oil embargo in 1973. There was another in 1979. They caused a considerable hiccup in the economy. Then came St. Ronny.

He gave us Supply Side and Trickle Down economics. He also gave us Arthur Laffer’s curve and Milton Friedman’s calcified theories. David Stockman, Reagan’s economic guru left the administration in due time and wrote a book. In that book he admitted that it really was Voodoo economics and that they knew it while they were selling it.

We went from the largest exporter of manufactured goods to the largest importer; from the largest importer of raw materials to the largest exporter; from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor. All this transpired from 1981 to the end of the last administration. Without a major war or extraordinary economic trauma, Reagan increased the debt by 189%. Those who remember those years fondly should remember that they were paid for by credit card. The bill has come due.

The simpletons that followed in the Clinton administration were of the same ilk and, though the numbers show a modest improvement, it was nothing to be proud of. Rubin, Summers, Greenspan and Gramm provided the finishing touches. The present administration’s economic team belongs to the same club. Does it seem odd that the malefactors that brought us this latest disaster get trillions of tax dollars while aid to the poor for heating oil is cut? Multi-billion dollar bonuses for the elite while the dedicated teacher of your children is taking a cut?

While we were becoming a 3^rd-world country and tax breaks were given to corporations for exporting jobs, the income and wealth differential of the elite and the bottom 80% grew almost exponentially. The signs and portents of demise that the elites of the great civilizations and empires of the past ignored have been ignored by our very own special people.

What comes next? One guess. When will it happen? I don’t want to spoil your fun by giving the exact date. You might run out and sell every US equity short.

Have a nice day.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Despite what some may think, I was not around for the Dred Scott decision. That aside, I had comforted myself that the Supremes could not make a worse ruling than the one that gave us Bush the lesser.

I was wrong, horribly so.

We are now the only developed country in the world that allows corporations to legally spend unlimited amounts to control the government. Aren’t we special?

Stay with me a couple of minutes. You will see how stupid and/or corrupt at least five of the Justices really are.

How did we get here and what needs to be done? It is simple but the ramifications cannot be overstated.

First we are dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. The radicals of the Court loudly proclaim that they believe in following the intent of the Founding Fathers. They also maintain that the courts should not legislate, nor usurp the legislative role. Yeah, sure.

No Supreme Court has come close to the activism of the present Court. They have overturned more legislation, by far, than any Court of which I am aware. That tendency alone was sufficient to make all predictions on the latest travesty easy. Commentators from the entire spectrum got it right. This ruling was no surprise.

How about their claimed devotion to what they term ‘strict construction?’ That is also a gross mischaracterization. What was the Founding Fathers’ opinion of corporations? It may not be common knowledge but is far from a secret to any scholar or amateur enthusiast of our founders.

With the exception of Alexander Hamilton, all of the founders hated and/or mistrusted and/or feared corporations and the threat they represented to the nation to which they had given birth. This at a time when corporations were relatively rare and weak compared to the present. Back then one must prove a societal need, a benefit to the public, in order to obtain a charter.

Corporations are not mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The last time I checked, the wording was still “We the people . . .” Corporations had only the latitude to function as was delineated in its charter. Where did this idiotic concept of corporations having a legal personality originate? Not from the Supreme Court. It came from an essentially parenthetical couple of sentences by one Justice.

The year was 1886. The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The doctrine of corporate personhood was included by Justice Morrison Remick Waite before the beginning of arguments. He stated, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

So, two sentences by a single, junior Justice changed the Constitution, laws and the dictionary definition without argument, without discussion, without any attempt at rationality. It subsequently became the very foundation of corporate law.

Let’s look at this. It doesn’t require looking too deeply. It doesn’t require a degree in Constitutional Law. It does require more intelligence than five of the present Justices. It requires common sense. It requires an absence of devotion to the plutocracy, a jettisoning of ridiculous ideologies. Here we go.

Everyone acknowledges that a corporation is property. It, and/or its shares, not only can be owned, by its very nature it must be owned. If it is a person, it enjoys the constitutional prohibition of slavery. You are not permitted, under any circumstances to hold a person as property. Ask your wife.

A corporation speaks with one voice. Although the textbooks tell you that the shareholders control it, or that the directors control it on behalf of the shareholders, the reality is that management rules. Management’s priorities are rarely the same as the stockholders. Stockholders also are further removed from participation by mutual funds, hedge funds and similar devices. Does anyone believe that corporate lobbying efforts are always (sometimes) consonant with the interests or opinions of shareholders?

While many other legal and logical arguments reach the same, or supportive, conclusions, no serious arguments have been proposed that contradict those arguments. We have no need to pursue any further the irrationality of claims for corporate personhood. Let’s proceed to the ramifications.

The last presidential campaign was easily the most expensive in history. The estimates I saw last year were well over $1 billion but less than two. I haven’t seen your checkbook but to me that is significant change. Actually, I consider that amount obscene. It distorts and corrupts. There is no upside for anyone who values their right to vote.

Now let’s look at real money. The major Wall Street casinos have announced record, or near record, profits. These profits are after record amounts being set aside for bonuses. Have you paid attention? These bonuses total about $150 billion.

If Wall Street decided to redirect only half of that amount to campaign finance, we would never have to watch another non-political commercial in an election year (every other year) again. Although that might seem initially to be an attractive side-benefit, all you have to remember is how quickly campaign advertising begins to pall.

While we know better, politicians owned by special interests insist that they are not swayed by lobbyists’ bribes. Given the amounts now available to them, they likely will not even bother to address such questions. The $150 billion cited above represents only that available from the major institutional players of one corrupt industry. Factor in the insurance industry, PhRMA, agribusiness, energy and a host of others wanting laws that benefit them, to our detriment.

There would not even have been the sham of the healthcare debate with its foreordained outcome. The drug pushers could sell morphine as a toothing medication for infants again, as Bayer did before it became famous for its aspirin. The Department of Agriculture could eliminate all of those pesky areas and become a foundation to channel taxpayers dollars directly to ConAgra, ADM, et al. Exxon and its peers would not have to waste another nickel cleaning up after themselves. There no longer would be a need to debate global warming, or spending any funds on research. Government could really be streamlined.

How much have you ever donated to a political campaign? Look on the bright side. Now there is no need to.

I believe that there has never been a law or ruling which so drastically changes and damages our system.

Many people get upset about the power of the government. Permit me to reminisce. Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s there was a little flap at Delta Air Lines, where I was working. You need to understand that at that time aircraft mechanics were treated like royalty. They were the princes of the industry and highly prized by the airlines.

One of these princes let his sideburns grow to the level of the bottom of his ears. No, they were not mutton-chop sideburns. Though wild hairstyles could be seen everywhere across the country, his could not be considered wild by any definition. He was fired.

Except when I was in military service, I would never expect the government to be so intrusive, so controlling of the minutiae of people’s lives. Corporations are not bound to respect any of your rights, beyond the prohibition of discrimination. The government is constrained by the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers, I have always feared corporations far more than I feared the government – until now.

All is not lost. The Court struck down campaign finance laws, not corporate laws or regulations. The Congress unquestionably has the authority to control corporate behavior through changes in corporate law. It could be done by regulation. You and I are, as people, are not controlled by laws in this area so it cannot be claimed that corporations are being discriminated against or denied that to which people are entitled.

I would ask that you notify me the next time you see a bunch of corporations exercising their right of freedom of assembly or, perhaps, their freedom of religion. I would love to attend a baptismal ceremony for one of these ‘guys.’

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You have been sold down the river. So have we all.

We need to differentiate between healthcare reform and tinkering with health insurance. Yes, there is a difference. The entire burlesque these past few months has revolved around the tinkering.

A handful of congressmen offered HR 676, Medicare-For-All. That represents reform. All of the rest of our political entertainment has been farce and sleight of hand.

I will get to the parts that all of you younger folk are concerned about but first let me speak to one that is of more consequence to us geezers. That would be a part of the “secret deal” between al-PhRMA, the White House and Max Baucus – the do-nut hole.

I had the chance to do some more reading of the Senate version of healthcare. It really is quite interesting despite being written in a language no human has ever mastered.

For anyone unfamiliar with the do-nut hole, let me explain. Medicare Part D was a present from the Bush administration to the drug pushers and insurance companies. Not only was it unfunded, it costs the government more than any of the “reform” plans that came out of either house of Congress.

A senior has a choice of insurance plans covering most, not all, prescription drugs. In my case the choice was among 50-odd plans. You are required to pay premiums, deductibles and co-pays until you reach the hole. Once in the hole you pay 100%. Though you are still required to pay premiums, the insurer pays out nothing. It begins at $2,830 for 2010. As with everything connected to healthcare, there are substantial annual increases.

You can reach this amount fairly quickly because it includes all of the above items that you pay plus whatever the insurance company pays. However, getting out is just a bit different. The exit point is $4,550 but there is a catch. You arrive at that figure on your own. Payments made by the insurer are not included.

Now you must remember, this plan was not designed to benefit seniors. The government is forbidden to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. The VA is not so constrained and averages a discount of about 58%. This means that, having insurance, the drug dealers have more customers and they get the full retail price. That price is whatever they want it to be.

No, they didn’t forget the insurance companies. They are guaranteed against loss and receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

Now that you understand Part D, let’s see what the “secret deal” contains. It promises the drug dealers that Medicare will continue to be forbidden to negotiate. The drug dealers promise to help out with $80 billion, spread out over 10 years. Most of that will supposedly be going to reduce seniors’ costs in the do-nut hole.

To get that help, a 50% savings only while the senior is in the hole, you must buy brand names, no generics. Again, that is 50% of whatever the drug dealers want to charge.

Interestingly, al-PhRMA commissioned a study of what all of this will cost them. That study shows that, despite forking over $80 billion over a 10-year period, they will realize an increase of $137 billion in just the next 4 years. That, of course, is in addition to the windfall that Part D itself gave them.

They may have been too embarrassed to extend the study out any further, as a close reading of the plan shows that the do-nut hole will not be closed immediately. It will gradually be closed over a period of 13 years. Oh, lordy. They’re doing all of this for poor little me?

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tells us that there will be substantial increases in the premiums seniors will pay for their do-nut hole discount.

And, now we have just one more bit of information that might be of interest. While the drug dealers are generously offering a discount of $8 billion a year, they are raising prices. This year they have already raised the overall prices the greatest amount since 1992. That would work out to more than $10 billion already this year.

If that doesn’t sound bad enough, let’s look a little more closely. Since those $6,000 per dose drugs, and others up on the high end, are not being raised much, if at all, the bulk of the increases are on the most commonly used drugs. That makes the effect on most people even more pronounced.

The various plans that were developed had price tags from something over $800 billion to $1.1 trillion. That is tax money. That doesn’t count increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The government will pay the costs for those who can’t pay. They will subsidize small companies providing healthcare. They will also continue to subsidize the insurance companies. This is in addition to the subsidies represented by the present tax exemptions for health insurance benefits.

I have already covered many of the general problems of the various plans. While the elimination of bans for preexisting conditions is in the plans, there are ways for the insurance companies to circumvent that stricture.

Ms. Pelosi proclaimed the inclusion of the public option and spoke of the plan covering 35 million people. The impression was intentionally left that the public option would cover those 35 millions. Actually, that increase in coverage comes from requiring small businesses and some individuals to purchase coverage. The public option is estimated to be available to up to 6.5 million.

The public option will, therefore, not play the claimed role of competing with private plans so as to keep their prices down. The only potential positive that might come from the public option would be as a foot in the door. It might, only might, be a way of expanding its coverage at some point in the indeterminate future. Don’t hold your breath.

By mandating that more people buy insurance and not holding the companies’ price increases down, the industry will reap tremendously increased revenue and profits. Those will be born by the average Joe, by increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, as well as subsidies from the government, i.e., taxpayers.

Obama and the Congress took single-payer off of the table before the “negotiations” began. They gave the various parts of the medical industry places at the table while ignoring the public and the majority of physicians. Then they cowered and kow-towed before al-PhRMA, AHIP, the AHA and the AMA, which represents less than 20% of physicians and stands against the wishes of the majority of them.

I have difficulty comprehending how that can be described as change or leadership or reform. I am convinced that the better way is for the President to take charge, to declare the entire process and resulting mess a failure and to demand a new start based on Medicare-For-All. That would not just require leadership; it would actually be leadership.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

This is not a prediction. It is only what I see as an optimistic scenario.

What’s going to happen with healthcare reform in Congress? Your guess is as good as mine. Because there is no leadership, no one knows what the outcome will be.

We do know a few things, however. Since it was given away before the issue was put on the table, there will be no single-payer system. In other words, there will be no real reform. My optimistic scenario really devolves into a hope that we get a couple of the crumbs that remain.

What remains will be an expensive mess that will further enrich the healthcare industry. Why? Because Obama learned the wrong lesson from Clinton’s failure.

Obama saw Clinton’s failure as being partly due to the opposition of PhRMA, AHIP, AMA and AHA. He decided to lure them into being allies. PhRMA agreed, if they could get his promise to accept their phantom concessions in return for increased looting of the national treasury, i.e., more subsidies and getting the government to guarantee them more customers. They got that promise.

The American Health Insurance Programs industry group is in a death match fight against reform, even though they would benefit more than anyone else from it. The AMA is fighting it but they represent only 20% of physicians. Fifty-nine percent of physicians support single-payer. Seventy-five to seventy-nine percent support the public option.

The American Hospital Association isn’t fighting quite as hard because they want to maintain communication, in the hope of getting greater subsidies. They are crying crocodile tears while still spending tons of money against reform.

The other lesson Obama thinks he learned was that the Congress didn’t go along because Clinton gave them a plan in which they had no input. That is only partially true.

What lessons should Obama have learned? There are two. One is that people respond to leadership, even when they are not in full agreement. Bush understood that. He called himself the decider and the Republicans followed. Even some Democrats fell in line. Obama started off by saying he would let Congress lead. I cannot, for the moment, think of a funnier joke. I doubt there is one.

The other lesson should have been that people are averse to complexity. A thousand-page bill offers the opposition a million points of attack. But it offers potential supporters only the opportunity to run around like a chickens with their heads cut off trying to defend against those attacks. Supporters are enervated by the effort to defend, leaving little energy or time to organize effective support. They are in a permanent defensive mode.

That could have been overcome with a simple Medicare-For-All bill of perhaps 10-15 pages. Then his primary tactic would be a constant parade of seniors extolling Medicare. A high degree of visibility for seniors would also intimidate Congress to some extent as seniors are much more likely to go to the voting booth.

Okay. Let’s get to my little scenario. There are 5 bills; 2 in the Senate and 3 in the House. Each house will combine its bills. There will be one for each. All except the Senate Finance Committee have the public option. It may end up in the Senate’s final bill. It may not. It will be in the final House bill.

Each house votes on their own bill. Then they go to the conference committee. Even if the public option is not in the Senate bill, it is likely the House will insist on it being in the compromise. The House will pass it. Obama must have something to show for his efforts. He will have to exert all of the pressure he can on Senate Democrats.

It will require going the reconciliation route if there are not 60 votes. Reconciliation allows the funding aspects to pass with only 50 Senators plus the Vice President. The other parts still would require 60 but a few Senators could vote against it on the funding part but for the other part. This would give them some political cover by saying that they voted against funding it.

It is still doable but nowhere near a certainty. Any public option that survives will be watered down. It will not be available to everyone. Various versions see it covering from 5 to 20 million of the uninsured.

Any bill will contain bans on denying people for preexisting conditions but that won’t be a problem for the insurance companies to find a way around by charging outrageous premiums or more subtle tactics.

They can avoid the ban on annual and lifetime limits by the same tactic. They don’t have to pay for people they don’t insure.

As I have contended all along, without a single-payer system, reform is little more than a catch phrase.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Time’s up. The Goliaths of our healthcare system have stepped over the line. They told us how intelligent they think we are. It didn’t sound like a compliment.

They told Obama with a straight face that they had a plan to help him get the reform he wants. They had their fingers crossed. They are staging public relations stunts with the President while Maximus Baucus intends to control the shape of whatever oozes from the cesspool that is the Senate Finance Committee.

There is an elegant way to beat them. It will take some effort but the results will be truly gratifying.

First, they wouldn’t feel the need to even talk about reform unless they saw the handwriting on the wall. Polls show support for at least a public insurance option in the 60-75% range. They can count the heads in Congress. They see other industries at an international competitive disadvantage due to healthcare costs. They are aware that Obama has some political capital.

Let’s identify the problem. That’s easy. It’s all of the money they spend purchasing Congressmen. We just have to alter the equation somewhat.

Since many corporations in other industries have come to the realization that the present system is hurting them, they simply cut off Senator Baucus and a few others. Max takes tons of money from other industries. If they quit bribing him, with the understanding that their actions are based on his support for the healthcare leeches, they can reduce the total of his take by more than what he gets from that one industry.

Also, most of Obama’s political machine may be taking a temporary break after the campaign but it is still intact. Just the threat of activating them should cause any targeted legislator to second-guess himself.

That imminently successful machine could prospectively identify alternate candidates for the next election cycle. The potential for raising respectable amounts of cash for a primary and the prospect of drying up some of the incumbents’ existing sources might be a powerful incentive to back Obama’s reform, and other issues.

Those measures and a bit of backroom arm-twisting could deny the healthcare industry sufficient leverage with these political prostitutes to destroy the clout they are now exercising.

p.s. I think I found a picture of Donald Trump’s mother.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites