In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate, Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. "'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'." Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that "extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan" to "disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies." He called this "global security" and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which the US has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: "We have no interest in occupying your country." In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations security council. There was no UN authority. He said that "the world" supported the invasion in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks. In truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that the US invaded Afghanistan "only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden." In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, Pakistan's military regime reported, and they were ignored.
Even Obama's mystification of the September 11 attacks as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the twin towers were attacked, the former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik was told by the Bush administration that a US military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as "stable" enough to ensure US control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go. Obama's most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a "safe haven" for al-Qaida's attacks on the west. His own national security adviser James Jones said in October that there were "fewer than 100" al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but "a tribal localised insurgency [who] see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power." The war is a fraud; only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of "world peace." Beneath the surface, however, there is serious purpose. Under the disturbing General Stanley McChrystal, who gained distinction for his assassination squads in Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan is a model for those "disorderly regions" of the world still beyond Oceania's reach. This is known as Coin (counter- insurgency), and draws together the military, aid organisations, psychologists, anthropologists, the media and public relations hirelings.
Covered in jargon about winning hearts and minds, it aims to incite civil war: Tajiks and Uzbeks against Pashtuns. The US did this in Iraq and destroyed a multi-ethnic society. They built walls between communities which had once intermarried, ethnically cleansing the Sunnis and driving millions out of the country. Embedded media reported this as "peace;" US academics bought by Washington and "security experts" briefed by the Pentagon appeared on the BBC to spread the good news. As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the opposite was true. Something similar is planned for Afghanistan - people are to be forced into "target areas" controlled by warlords, bankrolled by the CIA and the opium trade. That these warlords are barbaric is irrelevant. "We can live with that," a Clinton-era diplomat once said of the return of oppressive sharia law in a "stable," Taliban-run Afghanistan. Favoured Western relief agencies, engineers and agricultural specialists will attend to the "humanitarian crisis" and so "secure" the subjugated tribal lands. That is the theory. It worked after a fashion in Yugoslavia, where ethnic-sectarian partition wiped out a once-peaceful society, but it failed in Vietnam, where the CIA's "Strategic Hamlet Program" was designed to corral and divide the southern population and so defeat the Vietcong - the US's catch-all term for the resistance, similar to "Taliban."
Behind much of this are the Israelis, who have long advised the US in both the Iraq and the Afghanistan adventures. Ethnic cleansing, wall-building, checkpoints, collective punishment and constant surveillance - these are claimed as Israeli innovations that have succeeded in stealing most of Palestine from its native people. And yet, for all their suffering, the Palestinians have not been divided irrevocably and they endure as a nation against all odds. The most telling forerunners of the Obama plan, which the Nobel Peace Prize-winner and his general and his PR men prefer we forget, are those that failed in Afghanistan itself. The British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th century attempted to conquer that wild country by ethnic cleansing and were seen off, though after terrible bloodshed. Imperial cemeteries are their memorials. People power, sometimes baffling, often heroic, remains the seed beneath the snow, and invaders fear it. "It was curious," wrote Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, "to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. "And the people under the sky were also very much the same - everywhere, all over the world ...people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same - people who ...were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world."
Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
A budget only Republicans could love
Barack Obama's budget contains a message to everyone concerned about mass unemployment, ramped-up military spending and social service cutbacks: Get used to it. "We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard-earned tax money of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money," Obama said. He was channeling the Republican Party's talking points in defense of a budget proposal that would impose a three-year freeze on non-military discretionary spending, while devoting a relative pittance to additional stimulus measures to create jobs. The budget proposal that the administration submitted to Congress--a broad outline that, once passed, is meant to serve as the guide for appropriations legislation worked out during the year--predicts record federal deficits for next year and a high level of debt for at least the decade to come. But under the $3.8 trillion proposal, the Pentagon war machine is exempt from the freeze. So military outlays would continue the upward curve begun under George W. Bush to pay not only for endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to maintain the U.S.'s military grip on its worldwide empire.
Just in case some Pentagon contractors whose profits have grown fat off the "war on terror" got the wrong message from the talk about the government tightening its belt, Defense Secretary Robert Gates invited top defense company executives to a meeting last week. Gates emphasized "the need for a closer partnership with them and [pledged] to work with the White House to secure steady growth in the Pentagon's budgets over time, according to his spokesman," the Politico reported. Meanwhile, other discretionary spending will be frozen--which amounts to a cut, given inflation and population growth. A freeze would be negative at any time, but it would be especially devastating in the context of the halting recovery from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. For example, although education will fare better than most domestic programs under the proposal, Education Week noted that "school districts are facing a major drop-off in funding when the up to $100 billion in education aid made available under the stimulus package is gone--a prospect known as 'the funding cliff.'"
Moreover, the budget shifts additional education spending into "competitive grant" funding that requires school districts to embrace charter schools and attack teachers' unions. Even the American Federation of Teachers, normally uncritical supporters of Obama, noted: "While there is much to applaud in the budget, we are concerned that virtually all of the proposed increase is for competitive grants, while Title I--the lifeblood for our most disadvantaged children is flat-funded. Students with the most needs should not have to rely on how well adults compete for dollars." And by settling for a small jobs creation program, Obama has thrown in the towel on ambitious measures to drive down joblessness. "In essence," economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "the administration is accepting mass unemployment as just one of those things we have to live with...What we're witnessing is an awesome national failure." In reality, the freeze on discretionary spending - which excludes Medicare and Social Security - will barely make a dent in the deficit.Krugman estimated that without the freeze, total public debt would be 78.7 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2020, while the Obama administration estimates that a freeze would reduce that to 77.2 percent--in other words, very little change.
The reason the spending freeze proposal will make so little difference is that it would apply to only a small part of overall government spending. Besides exempting the Pentagon, the budget freeze also excludes big entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention payments on existing debt.
But Obama isn't opposed to putting entitlement programs under the knife. He has embraced longstanding Republican calls for a "bipartisan" commission to consider ways to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans favor such commissions because they would allow their members in Congress to avoid the political heat for cutting popular programs; now, Obama wants to do the same thing. It wasn't so long ago that presidential candidate Obama denounced exactly what he's proposing today. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," Obama said in the first presidential debate with John McCain. "There are some programs that are very important that are under-funded." Likewise, Democrats last year ridiculed House Minority Leader John Boehner's response to the Obama administration's economic stimulus legislation. "It's time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we 'get' it," Boehner said.
So what did Obama have to say in this year's State of the Union address? "Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
You don't need to be a radical to see the absurdity of this pronouncement. Given the collapse in business investment and the drop in consumer spending because of unemployment and the housing crash, government spending is providing a large part of whatever energy the halting U.S. economy has. That's why there have been a series of economic stimulus packages coming out of Washington--not only from Obama, but even George W. Bush in his last years. Now, though, Obama, ever subservient to the Pentagon and Wall Street, has concluded that once the bankers and generals have taken their cut, there's nothing but crumbs left for the rest of American citizens. Of course, the national debt and the federal budget deficit aren't irrelevant. They could undermine the U.S. economy in the long term by forcing the government to pay higher interest rates to finance spending, and lead investors to ditch the U.S. dollar. But the alarmists who insist on spending cuts now, while the U.S. economy is still staggering, are prepared to sacrifice millions of people's livelihoods through mass unemployment in order to please the bond market.
Meanwhile, in all the talk about the deficit, neither Republicans nor the Obama White House will discuss the measures that could have a real effect on it--raising taxes on the rich and derailing the Pentagon gravy train. One of the two chief reasons for the ballooning federal deficit during the 2000s was George Bush's $1.3 trillion in tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the already obscenely wealthy. Obama plans to allow these tax breaks to expire next year, as they were supposed to under existing legislation. But what's really needed is to raise taxes on the rich- to get back the billions they made off tax cuts for the last decade. The other chief reason for the deficit is military spending, whether in the form of the Pentagon budget, the hundreds of billions for U.S. wars and occupations, or the construction of the national security state. But Obama has exempted every part of this spending from the freeze. The Obama budget underscores the steady rightward shift of his administration. The president has made his priorities clear. Those who want a different agenda are going to have to fight for it.
Just in case some Pentagon contractors whose profits have grown fat off the "war on terror" got the wrong message from the talk about the government tightening its belt, Defense Secretary Robert Gates invited top defense company executives to a meeting last week. Gates emphasized "the need for a closer partnership with them and [pledged] to work with the White House to secure steady growth in the Pentagon's budgets over time, according to his spokesman," the Politico reported. Meanwhile, other discretionary spending will be frozen--which amounts to a cut, given inflation and population growth. A freeze would be negative at any time, but it would be especially devastating in the context of the halting recovery from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. For example, although education will fare better than most domestic programs under the proposal, Education Week noted that "school districts are facing a major drop-off in funding when the up to $100 billion in education aid made available under the stimulus package is gone--a prospect known as 'the funding cliff.'"
Moreover, the budget shifts additional education spending into "competitive grant" funding that requires school districts to embrace charter schools and attack teachers' unions. Even the American Federation of Teachers, normally uncritical supporters of Obama, noted: "While there is much to applaud in the budget, we are concerned that virtually all of the proposed increase is for competitive grants, while Title I--the lifeblood for our most disadvantaged children is flat-funded. Students with the most needs should not have to rely on how well adults compete for dollars." And by settling for a small jobs creation program, Obama has thrown in the towel on ambitious measures to drive down joblessness. "In essence," economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "the administration is accepting mass unemployment as just one of those things we have to live with...What we're witnessing is an awesome national failure." In reality, the freeze on discretionary spending - which excludes Medicare and Social Security - will barely make a dent in the deficit.Krugman estimated that without the freeze, total public debt would be 78.7 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2020, while the Obama administration estimates that a freeze would reduce that to 77.2 percent--in other words, very little change.
The reason the spending freeze proposal will make so little difference is that it would apply to only a small part of overall government spending. Besides exempting the Pentagon, the budget freeze also excludes big entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention payments on existing debt.
But Obama isn't opposed to putting entitlement programs under the knife. He has embraced longstanding Republican calls for a "bipartisan" commission to consider ways to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans favor such commissions because they would allow their members in Congress to avoid the political heat for cutting popular programs; now, Obama wants to do the same thing. It wasn't so long ago that presidential candidate Obama denounced exactly what he's proposing today. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," Obama said in the first presidential debate with John McCain. "There are some programs that are very important that are under-funded." Likewise, Democrats last year ridiculed House Minority Leader John Boehner's response to the Obama administration's economic stimulus legislation. "It's time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we 'get' it," Boehner said.
So what did Obama have to say in this year's State of the Union address? "Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
You don't need to be a radical to see the absurdity of this pronouncement. Given the collapse in business investment and the drop in consumer spending because of unemployment and the housing crash, government spending is providing a large part of whatever energy the halting U.S. economy has. That's why there have been a series of economic stimulus packages coming out of Washington--not only from Obama, but even George W. Bush in his last years. Now, though, Obama, ever subservient to the Pentagon and Wall Street, has concluded that once the bankers and generals have taken their cut, there's nothing but crumbs left for the rest of American citizens. Of course, the national debt and the federal budget deficit aren't irrelevant. They could undermine the U.S. economy in the long term by forcing the government to pay higher interest rates to finance spending, and lead investors to ditch the U.S. dollar. But the alarmists who insist on spending cuts now, while the U.S. economy is still staggering, are prepared to sacrifice millions of people's livelihoods through mass unemployment in order to please the bond market.
Meanwhile, in all the talk about the deficit, neither Republicans nor the Obama White House will discuss the measures that could have a real effect on it--raising taxes on the rich and derailing the Pentagon gravy train. One of the two chief reasons for the ballooning federal deficit during the 2000s was George Bush's $1.3 trillion in tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the already obscenely wealthy. Obama plans to allow these tax breaks to expire next year, as they were supposed to under existing legislation. But what's really needed is to raise taxes on the rich- to get back the billions they made off tax cuts for the last decade. The other chief reason for the deficit is military spending, whether in the form of the Pentagon budget, the hundreds of billions for U.S. wars and occupations, or the construction of the national security state. But Obama has exempted every part of this spending from the freeze. The Obama budget underscores the steady rightward shift of his administration. The president has made his priorities clear. Those who want a different agenda are going to have to fight for it.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Can Obama deliver the goods for working Americans?
To the activists Obama promised a timely end to the war in Iraq, an easing of tensions with Latin America and immigration reform; to the unions he promised the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA); to millions of Americans without coverage, he promised health care reform. But above all, he promised social stability and the continuation of business as usual to the capitalist class. So what promises has he kept? US troops remain in Iraq and even more are being sent to Afghanistan; the democratically-elected government of Honduras has been overthrown, more US troops are to be sent to Colombia, and the embargo on Cuba remains; the plight of immigrant workers is worse than ever and some 250 Mexicans have died crossing the border in just the first few months of this year. EFCA and single-payer health care are off the table. And as for job creation and saving people’s homes, forget about it. Millions more jobs have been lost since he came to power and hundreds of thousands have been thrown out on the streets. The only promise he has kept is to Big Business, with billions in handouts to the biggest and greediest corporations of them all and a continuation of the wars in the Middle East. Merrill Lynch, one of the main culprits in the crisis, awarding of $3.6 billion of bonuses last year, as it tries to persuade a federal judge to approve a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over its own disclosures. The White House forecasts that the 10-year federal deficit will top $9 trillion; more than the total of all previous deficits since the USA was founded.
By 2020 the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire US economy. And what do we have to show for it? The question answers itself. The geopolitical intelligence analysts at Stratfor clearly and frankly described Obama’s policies: “Presidents -- all presidents -- run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity.” That “necessity” is the defense of the interests of Big Business at home and abroad. In other words, the vast majority of Americans have yet to see any real change whatsoever. Obama was swept into power on a wave of enthusiasm and hope, but it’s crystal clear whose side he’s on despite all the pretty sounding words. No wonder a majority of Americans are now against the war in Afghanistan and his approval rating has fallen 12% since April. Long gone are lofty speeches implying the promise of fundamental change. Also quickly fading are people’s sincere illusions that change could come from yet another big business politician.
The battle over health care is a perfect example. It has simmered beneath the surface for decades as literally millions have suffered illness and death in the richest country on earth for lack of basic health care. Most union contract struggles in recent years have revolved around the question of heath benefits. 7 in 10 personal bankruptcies in recent years have been the result of astronomical medical expenses. Now that Obama has attempted even the most modest of reforms, all the pent up contradictions are bursting on to the surface. On the one hand is the hysteria against Obama’s “socialism,” on the other are millions of bewildered but increasingly frustrated Americans who want a real solution now. Violence has broken out at Town Hall meetings as the growing polarization of society is expressed in an often confused manner. As has been the case for nearly a century, socialized health care advocates are being red-baited, intimidated and even assaulted. Obama is no socialist and his health care proposal has nothing to do with single payer. But if fighting for genuine universal health care, getting rid of the HMOs and the medical and pharmaceutical industries whose profits are squeezed from the health of working people and the poor is “socialism,” then what is the problem with socialism?
The problem is that it would take control over our health out of the hands of a tiny minority and put it into the hands of the majority. There are big bucks at stake. According to Harper’s Index, the percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies was +87%. The percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies was +428%. No wonder the health care industry is spending nearly two million dollars a day lobbying Congress against single payer or anything remotely like it! The universal health care in Europe and other countries around the world did not fall from the sky. The right to medical care was fought for in mass struggles by the workers of these countries. Just as the right to the eight-hour day had to be fought for tooth and nail, so too the right to live a healthy life had to be wrenched from the ruling class. The right to benefit from the marvelous medical knowledge and technology humanity has developed over the last few centuries is a class issue. The rich and their politicians all have excellent heath care coverage. The 47-plus million Americans without coverage are the workers and poor. Millions of others who do have coverage are a job loss or even just a single premium payment away from total economic disaster should there be a medical emergency.
The record is clear: the health care crisis cannot be solved within the limits of the profit system. The debate over health care in Congress has been bogged down and restricted to the narrowest possible limits. But there is a way out of this impasse. Despite the attacks and setbacks of the last few decades, the over 15 million-strong US Labour Movement remains a powerful force in society. If just these workers were to go on strike, hardly a truck, airplane or train would move, not to mention public school, universities, and city, county, municipal, state, and federal services. That, combined with massive mobilizations on the streets, would put real pressure to bear on Washington! Richard Trumka, the former United Mine Workers’ leader and heir apparent to the leadership to the AFL-CIO has come out in favour of single payer. Now is the time to put these words into action. Organized labour spent millions and mobilized the rank and file to elect Obama. We believe this money and energy would have been better used building a mass party of labor and running labor candidates. The AFL-CIO national convention will be held in September, presenting a tremendous opportunity to change course. The leadership should mobilize the millions of rank and file organized workers and reach out to the unorganized and unemployed to fight for a national health care system for all.
The Democrats have had their chance. They have no more excuses now that they control the White House and have a large majority in Congress. And yet they couldn’t even pass a basic reform like EFCA. It’s high time the Labour Movement broke with them and took up the question of a mass labour party, a party of, by and for working people. If the AFL-CIO leadership showed the way, breaking with the policy of “partnership” with the bosses, and their political parties it would open the floodgates for working class organization and mobilization on a scale not seen since the 1930s. The capitalists’ response to the crisis is to carry out a vicious wave of layoffs, cuts and closures. Living standards are being driven ever lower for the majority, while the rich literally get richer and the poor get poorer. The Labour Movement needs its own response: organization, mobilization, factory occupations under workers’ control to prevent closures, and a clean break from the pro-Big Business parties. There indications that some aspects of the economy are stabilizing. But we have to ask ourselves: who will benefit from the recovery? Will it be another “jobless” recovery? How long will the recovery last before the inevitable next recession? Why do we have to live in fear of losing our homes, jobs, and health care even during the “good times?” The capitalist system operates on a boom bust cycle, and the workers are exploited whether there is a boom or a recession -- things just get even worse during a downturn.
Although the majority opposed the Iraq War, Bush continued it. Although the majority now oppose the war in Afghanistan, Obama is expanding it. The majority want universal health care, and yet single payer is not even “on the table.” Why is this? If this is truly a democracy, then the majority should have genuine decision-making power. This is why we believe that socialism, in which the majority will democratically determine economic and government policies, is the only way forward for humanity. Just one year ago, in the midst of the meltdown on Wall Street, millions of Americans, many of whom had never voted before, came out for Barack Obama, energized by his message of hope and change. His victory marked a turning point in U.S. politics, a clear rejection of Bush’s blatantly anti-worker and imperialist policies. The streets overflowed with joy and the promise of a new era. Around the world, cries of “yes we can!” could be heard as a collective sigh of relief swept the planet. The Bush years were over! Surely things would now get better! But what is the reality? The fact is, things are actually worse than they were under Bush. Despite a much ballyhooed 3.5% growth in GDP in the third quarter of 2009, the economic picture is grim for working people. The unemployment rate has now surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983, and is likely to rise further. In some states, such as foreclosure-battered Ohio and Michigan, it is already substantially higher. If those working part time or no longer looking for work were included, the real rate would be closer to 17.5%.
So sure, the recession is “over” according to the official figures, but can it last? And what kind of recovery is it when nearly 16 million people can’t find work? In October alone, 61,000 manufacturing and 62,000 construction jobs evaporated. Jobs have now been lost for 22 months in a row, a steeper fall than during the Great Depression. Also in October, the average work week remained at just 33 hours, giving employers plenty of room to extend existing employee’s hours, not to mention to expand usage of existing industrial capacity before adding new workers or building new factories. Those unable to find work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, or 35.6%, a new record. For workers, the so-called “jobless recovery” is no recovery at all. But how can this be? How can the GDP rebound when there are 7.3 million fewer jobs than there were less than two years ago? The answer is simple: the capitalists are making fewer workers do more work for less pay. Hence, profits are up for many companies such as Ford. According to the Department of Labor, productivity — the amount produced per worker per hour — rose by an incredible 9.5% in the 3rd quarter, after rising 6.9% in the 2nd. In other words, they are squeezing more out of us than ever, all while lining their pockets with federal bailout money. A very convenient situation for them, but not so appealing for the rest of us!
Workers are willing to take this for the time being. They hope that the worst is indeed over, that they have made it through the storm to relative shelter. They are willing to “wait and see,” and hope for real change from Obama. But this has its limits; the worst is far from over. The immediate shock of last year’s crisis may have subsided, but now the reality is gradually creeping in: Americans are going to be forced to accept a new, lower standard of living, and there will be no rapid bounceback of jobs. Millions of the jobs lost are gone forever, to be replaced by fewer jobs offering lower wages, no benefits, and no union protections. As for Obama’s foreign policy, although he won the Nobel Prize simply for the “hope” he has generated internationally, the year since his election has provided many harsh realities for those who expected something new under the sun. The coup in Honduras against the democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya has in effect been legitimated by Obama’s State Department — with the help of U.S.-trained officers and the brutal use of U.S. made weapons. U.S. troops are to remain in Iraq for years to come, and the war in Afghanistan has been expanded by tens of thousands of troops and extended into Pakistan. In short, Bush’s wars continue despite the “changing of the guard.” The reason for this is also easily explained: like Bush, Obama defends the fundamental interests of the capitalists and imperialists, and “political realism.” Like Bush before him, his policies flow from this reality.
His expansion of the military budget to $680 billion — an amount only dreamed of by Reagan and the Bushes — speaks for itself. “Defense” spending now consumes 35-42% of estimated tax revenues. Add to that the billions handed out without any accountability whatsoever to the already-absurdly rich, and it’s no wonder there is “not enough” money for job creation, schools or health care. Obama has boasted that his stimulus package will create or save 650,000 jobs; but it’s not even enough to make up for the jobs lost in a single month earlier this year. The new leadership of the AFL-CIO is an indication of the slowly changing mood in the Labor Movement. At least in words, Trumka is a reflection of the growing pressure from the rank and file, which is tired of cuts and concessions. The off-year election results were another indication of what is to come. Most incumbents were thrown out, and those who remained, did so at tremendous financial expense. Upcoming electoral contests will be interesting to say the least, as American voters reject the “status quo” in their own distorted way and look for a way out. In the final analysis, only the creation of a mass party of labor based on the unions can lay the basis for addressing the workers’ problems. Before then, however, more life experience will be necessary.
There are no direct historical parallels, and comparisons between epochs must of necessity take into account the many changes and differences that have taken place in the intervening decades. It is useful, however, to keep in mind that between the Crash of 1929 and the first mass stirrings of the working class in the mid-1930s, some five years or more elapsed. In the interim, even the large, well-established left-wing parties such as the SP and CP did not experience an immediate surge in growth. Today, as then, mass consciousness has not yet caught up with objective reality. But it will catch up, and with a bang. It would be a mistake to mistake today’s apparent passivity in the face of such an unprecedented crisis for “the end of history.” In fact, the real history of humanity is only just beginning. We must not be caught unawares or unprepared! For those of us who can see the correctness of our perspectives confirmed and the potential for the socialist transformation of society all around us, it can be frustrating to watch the molasses-like development of events in the U.S. and internationally. However, the Marxists and labor activists must not succumb to moods of impatience or spend time searching for panacaeas or shortcuts: there are none. Patience, hard work, discussion, theoretical clarity and dedication are the only way forward. History is on our side. We must have confidence in the working class, in the ideas of revolutionary Marxism as a guide to action, and in our perspectives for a socialist future.
By 2020 the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire US economy. And what do we have to show for it? The question answers itself. The geopolitical intelligence analysts at Stratfor clearly and frankly described Obama’s policies: “Presidents -- all presidents -- run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity.” That “necessity” is the defense of the interests of Big Business at home and abroad. In other words, the vast majority of Americans have yet to see any real change whatsoever. Obama was swept into power on a wave of enthusiasm and hope, but it’s crystal clear whose side he’s on despite all the pretty sounding words. No wonder a majority of Americans are now against the war in Afghanistan and his approval rating has fallen 12% since April. Long gone are lofty speeches implying the promise of fundamental change. Also quickly fading are people’s sincere illusions that change could come from yet another big business politician.
The battle over health care is a perfect example. It has simmered beneath the surface for decades as literally millions have suffered illness and death in the richest country on earth for lack of basic health care. Most union contract struggles in recent years have revolved around the question of heath benefits. 7 in 10 personal bankruptcies in recent years have been the result of astronomical medical expenses. Now that Obama has attempted even the most modest of reforms, all the pent up contradictions are bursting on to the surface. On the one hand is the hysteria against Obama’s “socialism,” on the other are millions of bewildered but increasingly frustrated Americans who want a real solution now. Violence has broken out at Town Hall meetings as the growing polarization of society is expressed in an often confused manner. As has been the case for nearly a century, socialized health care advocates are being red-baited, intimidated and even assaulted. Obama is no socialist and his health care proposal has nothing to do with single payer. But if fighting for genuine universal health care, getting rid of the HMOs and the medical and pharmaceutical industries whose profits are squeezed from the health of working people and the poor is “socialism,” then what is the problem with socialism?
The problem is that it would take control over our health out of the hands of a tiny minority and put it into the hands of the majority. There are big bucks at stake. According to Harper’s Index, the percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies was +87%. The percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies was +428%. No wonder the health care industry is spending nearly two million dollars a day lobbying Congress against single payer or anything remotely like it! The universal health care in Europe and other countries around the world did not fall from the sky. The right to medical care was fought for in mass struggles by the workers of these countries. Just as the right to the eight-hour day had to be fought for tooth and nail, so too the right to live a healthy life had to be wrenched from the ruling class. The right to benefit from the marvelous medical knowledge and technology humanity has developed over the last few centuries is a class issue. The rich and their politicians all have excellent heath care coverage. The 47-plus million Americans without coverage are the workers and poor. Millions of others who do have coverage are a job loss or even just a single premium payment away from total economic disaster should there be a medical emergency.
The record is clear: the health care crisis cannot be solved within the limits of the profit system. The debate over health care in Congress has been bogged down and restricted to the narrowest possible limits. But there is a way out of this impasse. Despite the attacks and setbacks of the last few decades, the over 15 million-strong US Labour Movement remains a powerful force in society. If just these workers were to go on strike, hardly a truck, airplane or train would move, not to mention public school, universities, and city, county, municipal, state, and federal services. That, combined with massive mobilizations on the streets, would put real pressure to bear on Washington! Richard Trumka, the former United Mine Workers’ leader and heir apparent to the leadership to the AFL-CIO has come out in favour of single payer. Now is the time to put these words into action. Organized labour spent millions and mobilized the rank and file to elect Obama. We believe this money and energy would have been better used building a mass party of labor and running labor candidates. The AFL-CIO national convention will be held in September, presenting a tremendous opportunity to change course. The leadership should mobilize the millions of rank and file organized workers and reach out to the unorganized and unemployed to fight for a national health care system for all.
The Democrats have had their chance. They have no more excuses now that they control the White House and have a large majority in Congress. And yet they couldn’t even pass a basic reform like EFCA. It’s high time the Labour Movement broke with them and took up the question of a mass labour party, a party of, by and for working people. If the AFL-CIO leadership showed the way, breaking with the policy of “partnership” with the bosses, and their political parties it would open the floodgates for working class organization and mobilization on a scale not seen since the 1930s. The capitalists’ response to the crisis is to carry out a vicious wave of layoffs, cuts and closures. Living standards are being driven ever lower for the majority, while the rich literally get richer and the poor get poorer. The Labour Movement needs its own response: organization, mobilization, factory occupations under workers’ control to prevent closures, and a clean break from the pro-Big Business parties. There indications that some aspects of the economy are stabilizing. But we have to ask ourselves: who will benefit from the recovery? Will it be another “jobless” recovery? How long will the recovery last before the inevitable next recession? Why do we have to live in fear of losing our homes, jobs, and health care even during the “good times?” The capitalist system operates on a boom bust cycle, and the workers are exploited whether there is a boom or a recession -- things just get even worse during a downturn.
Although the majority opposed the Iraq War, Bush continued it. Although the majority now oppose the war in Afghanistan, Obama is expanding it. The majority want universal health care, and yet single payer is not even “on the table.” Why is this? If this is truly a democracy, then the majority should have genuine decision-making power. This is why we believe that socialism, in which the majority will democratically determine economic and government policies, is the only way forward for humanity. Just one year ago, in the midst of the meltdown on Wall Street, millions of Americans, many of whom had never voted before, came out for Barack Obama, energized by his message of hope and change. His victory marked a turning point in U.S. politics, a clear rejection of Bush’s blatantly anti-worker and imperialist policies. The streets overflowed with joy and the promise of a new era. Around the world, cries of “yes we can!” could be heard as a collective sigh of relief swept the planet. The Bush years were over! Surely things would now get better! But what is the reality? The fact is, things are actually worse than they were under Bush. Despite a much ballyhooed 3.5% growth in GDP in the third quarter of 2009, the economic picture is grim for working people. The unemployment rate has now surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983, and is likely to rise further. In some states, such as foreclosure-battered Ohio and Michigan, it is already substantially higher. If those working part time or no longer looking for work were included, the real rate would be closer to 17.5%.
So sure, the recession is “over” according to the official figures, but can it last? And what kind of recovery is it when nearly 16 million people can’t find work? In October alone, 61,000 manufacturing and 62,000 construction jobs evaporated. Jobs have now been lost for 22 months in a row, a steeper fall than during the Great Depression. Also in October, the average work week remained at just 33 hours, giving employers plenty of room to extend existing employee’s hours, not to mention to expand usage of existing industrial capacity before adding new workers or building new factories. Those unable to find work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, or 35.6%, a new record. For workers, the so-called “jobless recovery” is no recovery at all. But how can this be? How can the GDP rebound when there are 7.3 million fewer jobs than there were less than two years ago? The answer is simple: the capitalists are making fewer workers do more work for less pay. Hence, profits are up for many companies such as Ford. According to the Department of Labor, productivity — the amount produced per worker per hour — rose by an incredible 9.5% in the 3rd quarter, after rising 6.9% in the 2nd. In other words, they are squeezing more out of us than ever, all while lining their pockets with federal bailout money. A very convenient situation for them, but not so appealing for the rest of us!
Workers are willing to take this for the time being. They hope that the worst is indeed over, that they have made it through the storm to relative shelter. They are willing to “wait and see,” and hope for real change from Obama. But this has its limits; the worst is far from over. The immediate shock of last year’s crisis may have subsided, but now the reality is gradually creeping in: Americans are going to be forced to accept a new, lower standard of living, and there will be no rapid bounceback of jobs. Millions of the jobs lost are gone forever, to be replaced by fewer jobs offering lower wages, no benefits, and no union protections. As for Obama’s foreign policy, although he won the Nobel Prize simply for the “hope” he has generated internationally, the year since his election has provided many harsh realities for those who expected something new under the sun. The coup in Honduras against the democratically elected president Manuel Zelaya has in effect been legitimated by Obama’s State Department — with the help of U.S.-trained officers and the brutal use of U.S. made weapons. U.S. troops are to remain in Iraq for years to come, and the war in Afghanistan has been expanded by tens of thousands of troops and extended into Pakistan. In short, Bush’s wars continue despite the “changing of the guard.” The reason for this is also easily explained: like Bush, Obama defends the fundamental interests of the capitalists and imperialists, and “political realism.” Like Bush before him, his policies flow from this reality.
His expansion of the military budget to $680 billion — an amount only dreamed of by Reagan and the Bushes — speaks for itself. “Defense” spending now consumes 35-42% of estimated tax revenues. Add to that the billions handed out without any accountability whatsoever to the already-absurdly rich, and it’s no wonder there is “not enough” money for job creation, schools or health care. Obama has boasted that his stimulus package will create or save 650,000 jobs; but it’s not even enough to make up for the jobs lost in a single month earlier this year. The new leadership of the AFL-CIO is an indication of the slowly changing mood in the Labor Movement. At least in words, Trumka is a reflection of the growing pressure from the rank and file, which is tired of cuts and concessions. The off-year election results were another indication of what is to come. Most incumbents were thrown out, and those who remained, did so at tremendous financial expense. Upcoming electoral contests will be interesting to say the least, as American voters reject the “status quo” in their own distorted way and look for a way out. In the final analysis, only the creation of a mass party of labor based on the unions can lay the basis for addressing the workers’ problems. Before then, however, more life experience will be necessary.
There are no direct historical parallels, and comparisons between epochs must of necessity take into account the many changes and differences that have taken place in the intervening decades. It is useful, however, to keep in mind that between the Crash of 1929 and the first mass stirrings of the working class in the mid-1930s, some five years or more elapsed. In the interim, even the large, well-established left-wing parties such as the SP and CP did not experience an immediate surge in growth. Today, as then, mass consciousness has not yet caught up with objective reality. But it will catch up, and with a bang. It would be a mistake to mistake today’s apparent passivity in the face of such an unprecedented crisis for “the end of history.” In fact, the real history of humanity is only just beginning. We must not be caught unawares or unprepared! For those of us who can see the correctness of our perspectives confirmed and the potential for the socialist transformation of society all around us, it can be frustrating to watch the molasses-like development of events in the U.S. and internationally. However, the Marxists and labor activists must not succumb to moods of impatience or spend time searching for panacaeas or shortcuts: there are none. Patience, hard work, discussion, theoretical clarity and dedication are the only way forward. History is on our side. We must have confidence in the working class, in the ideas of revolutionary Marxism as a guide to action, and in our perspectives for a socialist future.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Cynical America
Cynicism is a very useful tool for those in power. Although it inherently expresses a sense of dissatisfaction, it offers nothing as a way out. The charade of the two-party system has done a lot of damage to American workers’ perception of politics in general, and created a situation where cynicism and apparent apathy is widespread. What is needed in the US is a party that represents working people. Such a party would go far in combatting the cynical and apathetic attitudes of many toward politics, as there would finally be a force led by workers in the interests of workers. Sadly Maher’s sentiment finds echoes among many who identify themselves as “liberal” and “progressive.” Paradoxically it is a view that is utterly reactionary, unscientific, and elitist to its core. After all, like everyone else in the mainstream media, Bill is no Marxist. As he once put it, “Of course Capitalism is good, I am not a Communist.”
Cynicism is a very useful tool for those in power. Although it inherently expresses a sense of dissatisfaction, it offers nothing as a way out. The charade of the two-party system has done a lot of damage to American workers’ perception of politics in general, and created a situation where cynicism and apparent apathy is widespread. Just listen to a little bit of the late, great, George Carlin and you’ll see just how deep-rooted it has become. The two-corporate-party setup in the US tends to churn up a lot of political confusion. The lack of a fundamental difference between the two parties reduces much of the political discussion to extremely petty issues. Writer Gore Vidal expressed this quite well when he said: “We only have one political party in the US, and that is the property party, which essentially is corporate America, which has two right wings, one called Republican and one called Democrat. I can’t say I like either of them.” We couldn’t have said it better - no wonder most American workers are alienated from politics!
When the elections roll around, the decision as to which politician to support often boils down to their personality traits rather than their platform. Incredibly, polls show that Americans have consistently elected the presidential candidates that they would rather have a beer with since Reagan. In the case of Sarah Palin this is all too true. Being the first woman and “regular hockey mom” to come so close to the Presidency, she is of serious symbolic importance to many women, who rightly are disgusted by the glass ceiling for women under this system. The same is true of Barack Obama. What he symbolizes for millions of poor and working class Americans, and especially minorities, is extraordinary and cannot be underestimated. If the mainstream narrative is to be believed, his Presidency ushers in a “post-racial” era in US politics. But has there really been any fundamental stray from the policies of Bush? The fact is, despite the color of Obama’s skin, he and the Democratic Party represent the very same people behind the Bush presidency.
One major reason for the current apathy is that millions of people feel that they have nothing to vote “for.” After all, as Michael Moore once put it, the lesser evil is still evil! Many people have given up on simply voting “against” the “other” party. What is needed in the US is a party that represents working people. Such a party could be the political expression of the labor movement to combat the attacks of both the Republicans and Democrats. Such a party would go far in combatting the cynical and apathetic attitudes of many toward politics, as there would finally be a force led by workers in the interests of workers, particularly the most exploited sections of society, minorities, immigrants and women.
Cynicism is a very useful tool for those in power. Although it inherently expresses a sense of dissatisfaction, it offers nothing as a way out. The charade of the two-party system has done a lot of damage to American workers’ perception of politics in general, and created a situation where cynicism and apparent apathy is widespread. Just listen to a little bit of the late, great, George Carlin and you’ll see just how deep-rooted it has become. The two-corporate-party setup in the US tends to churn up a lot of political confusion. The lack of a fundamental difference between the two parties reduces much of the political discussion to extremely petty issues. Writer Gore Vidal expressed this quite well when he said: “We only have one political party in the US, and that is the property party, which essentially is corporate America, which has two right wings, one called Republican and one called Democrat. I can’t say I like either of them.” We couldn’t have said it better - no wonder most American workers are alienated from politics!
When the elections roll around, the decision as to which politician to support often boils down to their personality traits rather than their platform. Incredibly, polls show that Americans have consistently elected the presidential candidates that they would rather have a beer with since Reagan. In the case of Sarah Palin this is all too true. Being the first woman and “regular hockey mom” to come so close to the Presidency, she is of serious symbolic importance to many women, who rightly are disgusted by the glass ceiling for women under this system. The same is true of Barack Obama. What he symbolizes for millions of poor and working class Americans, and especially minorities, is extraordinary and cannot be underestimated. If the mainstream narrative is to be believed, his Presidency ushers in a “post-racial” era in US politics. But has there really been any fundamental stray from the policies of Bush? The fact is, despite the color of Obama’s skin, he and the Democratic Party represent the very same people behind the Bush presidency.
One major reason for the current apathy is that millions of people feel that they have nothing to vote “for.” After all, as Michael Moore once put it, the lesser evil is still evil! Many people have given up on simply voting “against” the “other” party. What is needed in the US is a party that represents working people. Such a party could be the political expression of the labor movement to combat the attacks of both the Republicans and Democrats. Such a party would go far in combatting the cynical and apathetic attitudes of many toward politics, as there would finally be a force led by workers in the interests of workers, particularly the most exploited sections of society, minorities, immigrants and women.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Health Reform Makes America Stronger
In a nationally televised news conference dominated by the health care issue, Obama delivered lengthy statements in response to Republican attacks on proposals he favors. He also attempted to ease the concerns of people left confused by the fierce debate in Washington. He repeatedly emphasized that the spiraling costs of the current system would bankrupt the nation while denying coverage to millions more Americans. Asked directly if he could guarantee that an overhauled health care system won't change how people receive treatment, Obama said no. "The whole point of this is to try to encourage what works," Obama said, addressing concerns that reform would take away the ability of people to choose their doctors and treatment. "The government is already making some of these decisions," Obama said. "Insurance companies are making some of these decisions."
The reform proposals he backs would have experts make decisions based on the best medical treatment, not accountants attempting to save money or doctors prescribing treatments that bring the highest fees, Obama said. "This will require patients ... to be more discriminating consumers," he said. "I think that's a good thing. Ultimately ... we just can't afford what's happening right now." Republican opponents of Democratic bills in the House and Senate said earlier that most Americans like the current system, which they said must be made less expensive and more accessible. Republican opponents of Democratic bills in the House and Senate said earlier that most Americans like the current system, which they said must be made less expensive and more accessible. Obama and Democratic leaders say the problems are deeper and systemic, and the president spent all of his seven-minute opening statement at the 52-minute news conference outlining the challenges and his proposed solutions. "Even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before -- and health insurance reform is central to that effort," Obama said. "If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket."
As he laid out the list of benefits that health care reform offers, he dropped a direct reference to a government-funded public health insurance option. Until now, Obama has consistently touted the government-funded public option as competition for private insurers in expanding access to health coverage.
It was unclear if Obama changed the wording to avoid a label opposed by Republican supporters, or if he was signaling a policy shift toward a compromise being negotiated by the Senate Finance Committee to have health insurance cooperatives rather than a government-funded public option. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa claimed on Wednesday that the Finance Committee was not considering a public option. Later in the news conference, Obama responded to a question about the public option by saying it was intended to "keep the insurance companies honest." He noted that some insurance companies recently reported record profits, and said offering a competing government-funded health plan would require private insurers to offer less-expensive coverage. Speaking about the benefits of his plan, he said it would offer "security" and "stability" to sick and healthy Americans. "It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, move, or change your job, you will still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money," he said.
He also said his program would not add to the deficit over the next decade, addressing concerns from Republican opponents and fiscally conservative Democrats over the costs of the program. "Already, we have estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health care programs. This includes over $100 billion in unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors," he said. Obama also chided opponents of his health care reform push for making the issue purely political. "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me," he said. "Let me be clear: This isn't about me," Obama said, noting that he and every member of Congress -- including those trying to scuttle health care reform legislation -- "have great health insurance." Instead, he said, the debate is about people lacking health insurance because they can't afford rising costs, get denied due to a pre-existing condition, or lose their jobs. "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer."
Obama also confirmed an agreement with fiscally conservative Democrats to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare. Obama said he backed adding such a panel to health care reform legislation. Such a panel could both save money and "ensure the long-term financial health of Medicare," Obama said. So-called "Blue Dog" Democrats questioning the costs of initial health care bills said Obama gave a "verbal agreement" Tuesday to including the independent panel in health care reform legislation.Earlier Wednesday, Obama worked the phones, urging lawmakers to embrace health care reform, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Wednesday. It follows the president's Tuesday meeting with Democrats at the White House, dubbed a "serious working session" where "major progress" was made, Dunn said. Officials said Obama will be taking a more hands-on approach with members of Congress in the days and weeks to come regarding the health care debate.
White House aides say the administration is concerned about three centers of serious opposition from House Democrats: the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are worried about the cost of a public health care plan; the freshmen and other Democrats from high-income districts who are concerned about taxes for high-income Democrats, and the anti-abortion Democrats who are concerned about federal funding going for abortion services, and whether health care providers can opt out of certain procedures. One official said the administration is aware that "if any of these three groups abandon the effort the bill would be impossible to get out of committee, much less pass."Aides say the president and lawmakers also discussed the public option versus a co-op option.
Conservatives may scoff at the outlined plans and accuse Obama yet again of attempting to build a "socialist utopia" but they know deep in their hearts that their fear and loathing for modern politics has lost them their dignity. The faith has gone in right-wing Republicans who hate abortion yet adore the death penalty; the types who are strongly against this egalitarian institution because all they wish to do is look out for themselves and big business. If Barack Obama keeps doing his job right whilst irritating the regressive Republicans, he gets my backing for life.
The reform proposals he backs would have experts make decisions based on the best medical treatment, not accountants attempting to save money or doctors prescribing treatments that bring the highest fees, Obama said. "This will require patients ... to be more discriminating consumers," he said. "I think that's a good thing. Ultimately ... we just can't afford what's happening right now." Republican opponents of Democratic bills in the House and Senate said earlier that most Americans like the current system, which they said must be made less expensive and more accessible. Republican opponents of Democratic bills in the House and Senate said earlier that most Americans like the current system, which they said must be made less expensive and more accessible. Obama and Democratic leaders say the problems are deeper and systemic, and the president spent all of his seven-minute opening statement at the 52-minute news conference outlining the challenges and his proposed solutions. "Even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before -- and health insurance reform is central to that effort," Obama said. "If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket."
As he laid out the list of benefits that health care reform offers, he dropped a direct reference to a government-funded public health insurance option. Until now, Obama has consistently touted the government-funded public option as competition for private insurers in expanding access to health coverage.
It was unclear if Obama changed the wording to avoid a label opposed by Republican supporters, or if he was signaling a policy shift toward a compromise being negotiated by the Senate Finance Committee to have health insurance cooperatives rather than a government-funded public option. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa claimed on Wednesday that the Finance Committee was not considering a public option. Later in the news conference, Obama responded to a question about the public option by saying it was intended to "keep the insurance companies honest." He noted that some insurance companies recently reported record profits, and said offering a competing government-funded health plan would require private insurers to offer less-expensive coverage. Speaking about the benefits of his plan, he said it would offer "security" and "stability" to sick and healthy Americans. "It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, move, or change your job, you will still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money," he said.
He also said his program would not add to the deficit over the next decade, addressing concerns from Republican opponents and fiscally conservative Democrats over the costs of the program. "Already, we have estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health care programs. This includes over $100 billion in unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors," he said. Obama also chided opponents of his health care reform push for making the issue purely political. "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me," he said. "Let me be clear: This isn't about me," Obama said, noting that he and every member of Congress -- including those trying to scuttle health care reform legislation -- "have great health insurance." Instead, he said, the debate is about people lacking health insurance because they can't afford rising costs, get denied due to a pre-existing condition, or lose their jobs. "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer."
Obama also confirmed an agreement with fiscally conservative Democrats to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare. Obama said he backed adding such a panel to health care reform legislation. Such a panel could both save money and "ensure the long-term financial health of Medicare," Obama said. So-called "Blue Dog" Democrats questioning the costs of initial health care bills said Obama gave a "verbal agreement" Tuesday to including the independent panel in health care reform legislation.Earlier Wednesday, Obama worked the phones, urging lawmakers to embrace health care reform, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Wednesday. It follows the president's Tuesday meeting with Democrats at the White House, dubbed a "serious working session" where "major progress" was made, Dunn said. Officials said Obama will be taking a more hands-on approach with members of Congress in the days and weeks to come regarding the health care debate.
White House aides say the administration is concerned about three centers of serious opposition from House Democrats: the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are worried about the cost of a public health care plan; the freshmen and other Democrats from high-income districts who are concerned about taxes for high-income Democrats, and the anti-abortion Democrats who are concerned about federal funding going for abortion services, and whether health care providers can opt out of certain procedures. One official said the administration is aware that "if any of these three groups abandon the effort the bill would be impossible to get out of committee, much less pass."Aides say the president and lawmakers also discussed the public option versus a co-op option.
Conservatives may scoff at the outlined plans and accuse Obama yet again of attempting to build a "socialist utopia" but they know deep in their hearts that their fear and loathing for modern politics has lost them their dignity. The faith has gone in right-wing Republicans who hate abortion yet adore the death penalty; the types who are strongly against this egalitarian institution because all they wish to do is look out for themselves and big business. If Barack Obama keeps doing his job right whilst irritating the regressive Republicans, he gets my backing for life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
