Trust Us!

The more I read about the health insurance reform going on in Congress the more confused and worried I get. This isn't supposed to be the way it works -- like in the public service annoucement, its supposed to be The More You Know.
This process is so complex its no wonder nothing has ever passed. In addition, in the current environment, there is no trust that the people's interest is what is driving the compromises. Incremental progress is now a Republican concept to derail health reform. I'm really concerned that whatever comes out of Congress is going to make things worse rather than better, both politically and about health care. As I read the bills in both the Senate and House, there seems to be some good things in them. And after reading them, or summaries, I generally thought this would work. But then upon reading criiques of them and the Massachusetts bill and seeing the cost to a middle class American family, I'm astonished that some of this is being proposed. I'm talking especially about the individual mandate coupled with the skimpy subsidies.

The Congress seems to be unwilling to take back the windfalls to the rich from the tax breaks earlier in the decade to help pay for this. These windfalls resulted in some of the most revolting excess of conspicuous consumption witnessed since the Gilded Age and by some of the same types of people who were called Robber Barons in the late 19th Century. The filthy rich involved in Enron, World Com, Tyco and plenty of other dot coms earlier this decade have been replaced by the filthy rich from AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, B of A, among the survivors; and, Countrywide, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers among those who did not. Whether the people who reaped the benefits from the demise of any these organizations landed on their feet hasn't bee analyzed in any depth as far as I know, but in their heydays, they walked away with billions.

Because of this unwillingness to tax any of this "wealth", the individual mandate may end up costing a family of four $9K or more for a health insurance policy. And given that it costs over $13K for many policies one wonders if they will get even minimal protection for that price. If one cannot or does not wish to pay this amount [unless the government agrees with a hardship exemption] the family will be fined up to $3800 for not having insurance. There is also no employer mandate and this may result in either poor quality choices from an employer or incentives to dump employees into the Excange Market. These provisions are in the Baucus bill which is currently the media favorite for passing the Senate. A question was posed on the Sunday talk shows to Obama about whether this was a tax. He denied that it was because we know "tax" is a four letter word in politics. However, it is hard to see how someone with a family making $66000 would refuse to pay for insurance if it was what they considered affordable. They likely uninsured because they consider the premiums unaffordable given the many demands on a family budget. Many people just don't have that much available for something they can do without if they are lucky. Yet, this bill will require they pay these sums to private companies who have been denigrated in this battle for being anti-patient and greedy, uncaring behemoths who owe their allegiance to the bottom line and their stockholders. It is unlikely that these companies will lower their premiums without some outside force. Yet that outside force, if available is about as capable of exercising any pressure as an ant facing an anteater. This bill would also set up a mechanism for enforcing this mandate, further siphoning off government dollars that would be better spent for health care or deficit reduction.

The Massachusetts experiment provides a picture of just how difficult this process is. While the program has dropped the level of uninsured to less than 3%, it has substantially smaller penalties and higher subsidies than the Baucus bill. And yet, there are many anomalies of coverage such as a 40% dropout rate on some policies after 5 months. Enforcement has not been easy and premiums and penalties are increasing as costs balloon out of control. Can the federal government do any better? Are the enforcement mechanisms against the insurance companies for keeping their part of the bargain as good as those against individuals through the tax code.

This is also just one example of why the bills are so long and complex. Each item they take up brings forth all kinds of permutations that have to be addressed less they create loopholes which imperil the bill's purposes. Reading the bills seldom explains anything in clear language because so much is an amendment of an existing law or a change to a procedure or regulation in another Title or section.

All of this is being done in an atmosphere of severe distrust of our leaders that has seldom been so evident. It is also being done without the transparency that was promised in the campaign. Every "deal" behind the scenes with the medical industry raised scepticism as to who's benefit these are done, since medical industry contributions and lobbyists are at an all time high. People who have been burned by other government reform efforts are feeling very unsure about this one as well. With 80% of the people insured through their employer and only uneasy about its potential loss, any bill that does not make things better could be viewed as a disaster for those who are insured.

All these concerns I have are juxtaposed against a personal desire to finally see us commit to making health care a basic right in this country. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or do we wake up to find the baby was poisoned to death by the bath water? I know legislating is ugly and difficult. I know compromise is the only way to pass something, but I fear the Democrats is their efforts to compromise the heart of the effort away may be setting themselves up for a terrible backlash. And the Republicans who have opposed any reform may end up being the winners because their names won't be on any legislation when the bills for premiums or penalties, and the complaints about problems with the bills start rolling in.

Brothers in Murder

On Sunday night, I watched a Dateline piece on Alex and Derrick King, two brothers who, when they were 12 and 13, killed their father with a baseball bat and set fire to their home. I have since read a couple of articles and the comments to a HuffPo piece. The comments are divided between those who think that they should have been locked away for good or executed and those who support the apparent rehabilitation of the boys, now young men, by people caring about them while they were in prison. I tend to the latter as I cannot understand how a country who will not trust the judgment of an 18 year old to drink would put a 12 or 13 year old on trial as an adult. I also know that few people ever come out of our adult prison system better than they went in. The men seem to have made an exceptional adjustment to life on the outside and have a tremendous support system that may bode well for their full re-entry into society. I certainly hope so.

I had not planned on watching Dateline as I find it often lurid and showy. I watched an excellent piece on a woman in Pakistan and stayed to watch this. After watching, I am struck by several feelings. One is why these men were willing to go on national TV and thereby subject themselves to millions of people knowing who they are now and thereby unleashing the kind of vitriol I saw in so many of the comments. The interview provided no insight into the crime and was basically a waste of my time. However, I was struck by their absolute lack of acceptance of the enormity of their crime and the need to acknowledge what they did before they can move forward. They were oddly calm and reserved about their past and were at a loss to even explain what they had been imprisoned for. They were upbeat and looking forward to moving on. They were in a supportive adopted family with other strangers who had become friends after having rallied around them after the crime. All this gives one great hope that they in fact can put this behind them.

However, I am still bothered by this fairly innocuous and partly uplifting interview, because there was a feeling that the rage that had been unleashed the night they killed their father has not been vanquished but fully repressed. The piece provided no information on their life in Florida juvenile facilities, except one mention of the younger Alex's attempt to escape for which he fortunately escaped severe punishment. The piece said his adopted Mother has not discussed the murder with Alex and everyone seems content to pretend the past never happened. Alex, at the urging of Depak Chopra, is speaking to children about the evils of violence at a variety of events. When one was filmed, the student asked Alex why he had been in prison and he replied that he had made some bad decisions. I hardly think murder of your father and arson qualifies as just bad decisions.

Almost all serial killers were physically and mentally abused as children. Most pedophiles are repeating the crime that was done against them. These children were in foster homes from a very early age, abandoned by their mother, and perhaps abused by a father who was apparently pushed to take them in, when a foster home sent Derrick away because of his behavior. The father was a low wage worker who apparently was strict and unavailable emotionally and could provide little in the way of material goods the boys wanted. He allowed a convicted sex offender to befriend the boys and become a very important force in their lives. Alex was abused by this man; and its never been stated whether Derrick was or was not. These events in their lives do not mean they should have been thrown away in an adult prison for life, but they do suggest that these children needed extensive counseling. Growing up in a detention center has to be an emotionally difficult process even without their history. Since Florida has a criminal justice system which promotes law and order over everything else, I can't imagine they received the type of help they most likely needed. Perhaps I'm wrong and I hope I am.

The caring that the people who came to their side while they were in prison is a wonderful statement about how people can behave and how love can make a difference in people's lives; but it doesn't erase the scars that were created by their lives up to and including prison. I admire the woman who took Alex in and is now helping Derrick establish himself. Perhaps if I knew them I would feel more sanguine. But I hope this incredible act of charity [St. Paul's definition] doesn't come back to haunt them.

The interview left many questions and few answers.

Two Realities

I started this post a week or so ago and then decided not to write it. I'm back to try and sort through the feelings that prompted it so I can get on with my life. I feel I live in two worlds. One is the news world where so much is at risk, there seems to be so little progress and people are generally unkind or unforgiving or angry. The other is the everyday world inhabited by most of my friends and the rest of the world. It's the mundane, everyday life that most of us share. We sleep, work, read, travel or whatever suits us. Days pass and life goes on. Many people see no conflict with these two worlds, primarily by spending little time in the first. I find the two almost opposite in nature and find I need to choose one or the other. I hope I'm wrong.

The News Reality: I read a variety of articles, mostly on the internet - NYT, WAPO, blogs, and local news. I've been drawn in by the Health Care "debate"; the financial meltdown; global warming; extinction of species; in Afganistan and Iraq; humanitarian crises in Darfur, Congo, Pakistan, Somalia, New Orleans among others; and the extreme partisanship and anger in the country. I feel this stuff passionately and personally but feel powerless in its face. I'm impressed by those who move forward in little steps to save a child, a school, a refugee population, or those hit by a natural disaster, among many things. But for me, I feel little steps are too small and big steps are beyond me. The bad news paralizes. A friend tells me I get too upset - that the world has gone on for eons and it will go on. I find that the only way to come even close to that equanimity is to ignore the news completely, almost like an alcoholic refraining from alcohol.

The Real World Reality: The withdrawal from news works wonders for this world and it makes me realize why so many people decline to be activists. My life isn't exciting, I go through it without much awareness of days and weeks passing until another milestone appears and I realize another year has gone. I claim that in this world my mantra is "Do no harm". I try to contribute to charity, live a fairly green life, try to be polite to strangers and kind to friends and acquaintances. I don't know if I succeed but I do try. The only problem is I feel guilty. I feel like I have contributed nothing to the world. I used to repeat a quotation that 99% of the people were born to fill graves and I didn't want to be one of them. I can't find any references to that quotation so now, I'm not even sure it exists. Perhaps that is a sign that it is alright to move on and become one with the 99%.

Remembering Senator Kennedy

I am conflicted about the Kennedys. I shy away from the deification of the clan and the public longing for "Camelot". I find our continued fascination with everything Kennedy to be the first example of the celebritization of public life. Also, squaring the weaknesses of many of the individuals in the clan with the presumption of leadership because they are named Kennedy drives me nuts. But then, one looks at the incredible body of work which owes its existence to Senator Kennedy and one has to be impressed. Despite his many personal failings, he served this country and the public very well. Many of the programs and laws he was responsible for will live long after him. Perhaps what this teaches us is a sense of balance. Without denying his private foibles, perhaps it is not our place to stand in judgment. The people wronged by his actions should be the ones with that right. We should judge him mostly on his public life and in that regard he has made a formidable contribution to the nation. As some have said, his body of work will outshine that of either of his brothers, who attained the status of myths because of their deaths, not their lives. He has done the opposite. He will be missed.

No Public Option is NO REFORM

At the same time I'm blogging for a saner middle in our discourse, I'm extremely disappointed in the apparent fall back. A pretend competition between multi-billion dollar insurance companies and the authorization for medical cooperatives is a serious blow to health reform. The government is the only entity strong enough to provide a serious competitor to the for-profit insurance companies. I'm all for coops as another option in the exchanges, but they are not a substitute for a public option to provide competition. Without another option for people to CHOOSE, this bill will FORCE 50 million people onto the rolls of United Health, Cigna, etc. Why isn't this a meme in the media. No one seems to question the individual mandate and yet, the mandate was supposed to be accompanied by providing a public option which the uninsured could CHOOSE. Instead, without the public option, we are providing the insurance companies with 50 million new customers to gouge.

Because of a few improvements envisioned by this bill, in the system we now have, I don't want to see a bill go down to complete defeat even without a public option but I strongly disagree that this is only a sliver of the reform we were promised and therefore not all that important. Congress failed to give single payer even a minimal hearing and instead dispensed with the argument with this proposal in favor of a limited public option. Now they pretend that compromise between a limited public option and no change is the only way to get "reform". This compromise may represent a small improvement over the status quo, but it in NO way represents reform.

Ramblings on a Polarized America

I wish there were trustworthy statistics that outlined where the actual American people stand on the issue of reform. I fear most would be in the uninformed category. When I read the comments on news articles, it is clear the people who follow the news seem to be either progressive or liberal and Conservative or libertarian. [following the news doesn't make you an honest arbiter of the facts though] Little wonder Obama's polls are suffering. He can't get anything right as far as those of us who comment and read the news are concerned. Those who don't comment are the ones who often don't know that Hawaii is a state, or that there are three branches of government. They are often completely manipulated by the mainstream media [MSM]. While conservatives say that the media has a liberal bias, I would think that would be really hard to prove. The only people ever provided a a platform in most MSM are either moderates, centrists, pragmatists, mildly liberal or right wingers. Only recently have three fairly liberal programs on cable TV been added to the noise. Otherwise, its mostly conventional thought peppered with the incredibly ubiquitous and noisy right-wing. As an aside, I'm always amazed at the percentage of black right wing pundits vs. white who are given a platform considering the makeup of the Republican party is about 2% non-white.

This lack of an informed citizenry may be the end of hope for democracy. Because there is such polarization, the vast middle need to wake up and take sides. But they need to take sides as a result of becoming informed, not as a result of media manipulation. There was a HuffPo video of a women over 65 outside the CO town hall saying all of these totally factually inaccurate things about the proposals currently in Congress. The questioner asked her how she knew these things and she said Fox news because that is the only factual source of news and she claimed to have carefully researched all this information on the web. And yet, she still didn't seem to realize that her Medicare, supplemented by BC/BS which she said couldn't survive without, was government-run.

Meanwhile, many of the people I know, who would fully support a public option or even a single payer system are not inclined to do anything to make it happen except vote for President once every four years.

We have a political system that is completely in corporate hands thanks to the hundreds of thousands of lobbyists and we have a citizenry which is either uninformed, misinformed, or apathetic to the political realities of our system. We have millions of people, almost all of whom are of modest means, willing to vote and protest against their economic interests in the political belief, fostered by the right, that government [not monopolistic corporate America] is the problem. Even when we see what complete lack of good government controls over the last eight years can do to the economy, to the environment, to health care, to labor relations, and to most other aspects of American life it doesn't seem to make a difference. Folks don't seem to understand that government is the only bulwark against corporate America. People are sheep before them. Money and organization can effect anything corporate America wants, especially if there is no government to stand in the way. Our commitment to individualism becomes self defeating when faced with a cohesive and entrenched corporate political system. It becomes a way of polarizing us and defeating meaningful reform of anything.

I don't doubt a large proportion of Americans are angry. We've seen enough stuff in the last few years to make a saint angry. Unfortunately, amorphous anger without adequate and accurate information becomes a chaotic mob which can be manipulated by extremists to accomplish the agenda of the leaders rather than change for the people following.

Hitler knew this in the late 20's and 30's; Lenin and Trotsky in 1917; France in 1780's and others throughtout history which have taken advantage of people's righteous anger to overthrow the status quo. However, this can be a very dangerous road to travel as these examples would show. Hitler = holocaust and WWII; L&T = white revolution and Stalin's purges; and France = Reign of Terror. In the 1930's, Huey Long of LA was bringing together a coalition of white and black poor people and was shot and killed. History suggests he was a demagogue, but his death just led to a deepening of the polarization between poor white and black southerners and stopped them from seeing that economics should have brought them together instead of allowing racism to drive them apart. FDR is credited with preserving capitalism in the US because he made significant economic changes in response to the cataclysmic Great Depression. He used the government to make these changes because it was the only entity that could. Failure to push through these changes would likely have led to either fascism or communism becoming the dominant system in this country during that time, circumstances were that dire.

I believe there are a small percentage of extreme radicals, left and right, in this country who do not care if the current system survives or not as long as their side prevails. There are another small percentage of people who will support these groups because of their perceived self interest. I count among them many of the Republican Congressional leaders. I really believe that they do not care about consequences as long as they remain in office and can find a way back to mainstream power. How else can you explain reasonably informed human beings spreading incredible distortions and lies with a perfectly straight face. I don't discount that there are plenty of Democrats who also care more about staying in office than about trying to do the right thing. However, these Democrats are not aligning themselves with the radical fringe like the Republicans are. Even the most leftist of the Democrats in Congress want the basic political system to remain. The changes they support are mostly at the margins of the status quo rather than really fundamental. Most so-called leftists in Congress and across the land really just want a more compassionate economic system that promotes the interests of people over corporations so that most can thrive instead of just the few. This seems hardly radical. Yet, often this "leftist" view is equated with the extreme right wing when it comes judging political options.

This is a very rambling post but my point is that the polarization of our political discourse is very dangerous and may lead to scary unintended consequences. The failure to recognize that we have a lot of people who can be swayed one way or another because they tend to be the low information voters and non voters and the failure to prevent the extremes from doing the swaying will leave us on a dangerous precipice facing real chaos.

Sebelius: Public Health Care Option "Not The Essential Element"

I wanted a real public option, but the limited public option available to the uninsured and some small business, is unlikely to make much of a difference anyway. At yesterday's town hall, it was clear Obama is signalling that the public option is expendable - the deal has probably already been struck behind closed doors. This was to give the people who wanted a publc option time to rant and rave until October when the tiny sliver gets thrown under a bus to be renamed coop. We will get modified insurance reform, where the government will pretend that insurance companies cannot discriminate and cannot rescind, we will have an individual but not an employer mandate. we will have some subsidies to make it more affordable and that's it.

Health care reform isn't coming anytime soon. Are baby steps better than none? I don't know, but probably. I did read an intriguing article in Atlantic called health care killed my father that made some really interesting points about the employer based insurance system and the idea that comprehensive, unlimited care can ever be affordable. Frankly, with the moderate changes likely to be the end result, I don't see why I should get excited trying to get my representatives to pass something that barely resembles reform. I have to remind myself that this is administration is better than the alternative but was never going to be revolutionary or truly progressive. And I also have to remind myself that the President isn't able to make these changes uniliaterally and having to work with this Congress which may be Democratic in name but in reality milk toast, moderate change is all you can probably hope for. As Donald Rumsfeld might have said, you go with the Congress you have not the Congress you want.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Public Option vs Non Profit Coops

Well, the insurance industry has come up with a new clean way to shut down the public option. We are not against robust competition, we just don't want it to come from the government. Therefore, we will support non-profit coops as an alternative that you, chicken hearted Democrats can vote for.

Why would the insurance industrial complex support coops. Because they know they would be toothless weak shells that could be run over by the insurance industry. They also know that it sounds so democratic to support coops as viable competition. These coops will take years if not decades to even organize and begin to service people. They do not resolve any of the overhead issues [where most savings might lie] costing health care so much money in the current situation - rather they will be saddled with as much or more because they will lack economy of scale that either most major insurance companies or govenrment health plans would have. They will be denied financing by the same industry that they are supposed to compete against and they will either eventually do ok and then become for profit insurance companies ala Blue Cross, or they will go out of business like so many coops do. The insurance companies will be no worse the wear.

Furthermore, as part of their support, they have succeeded in obtaining an individual mandate [but not an employer mandate] in the bill. This means that the insurance companies can expect another 40 million lambs for them to slaughter. What's not to love?

Thirty to fourty percent of our health care dollar is paid for administrative overhead. This includes profit, marketing, huge salaries and other benefits for the executive class, denial of coverage specialists, state and federal lobbying expenses, underwriting to reduce claims, along with some necessary expenses such as salaries, benefits, rent, and supplies. One of the main goals of a public option is to save money by getting rid of the first five items. By being able to streamline the claims process because only one entity will be processing the claims, further savings will occur. Medicare for example has only a 3% overhead. This is not money for medical care, this is money for conserving and promoting the insurance industrial complex. On the other hand, this is also the best reason for single payer because all this fat is sliced from the budget [estimated at 400 Billion dollars]. However, since a mini public option is viciously attacked by so many as socialized medicine, there is not hope that a single payer program could be passed. However, a public option would provide much of this benefit for the people receiving the coverage, thus allowing an affordable insurance program for the currently uninsured and perhaps demonstrating where the waste is in the system we now have. That demonstration is what the insurance companies so fear that they and their allies will say anything, do anything to ensure that it does not pass. Unfortunately, with their lies and distortions, they seem to be able to scare enough uninformed, low information voters about the program that the weak-kneed well greased Blue Dog Democrats and others in the Senate seem prepared to scuttle the public option so that nothing will change, except our premiums, which will of course go up.

This is what will pass as health reform, until the country either goes broke or wakes up to its puppet masters.

Bacon vs. Pork

A blog [can't remember which one] had a game where you could vote bacon or pork on various earmarks contained in last year's budget bill. I started to vote when I realized that all of what was listed was pork [defined as a specific allocation by a Congressman for a specific project, often run by a specific entity]. What is missed in the discussion of these projects is not whether or not they have merit but whether or not this is an adequate way to make policy. Removing gang tatoos is a worthwhile project, building an interchange to improve traffic flow is also, even research into mitigating odor from hog farms. What makes all of these projects pork is that the decision to fund these "worthwhile" projects is not made by any rational, fairly based system, but rather to line the pockets of a legislator with campaign contributions, benefit a friend or ally, or to curry favor at home with a constituent group. These decisions are made without regard to the priority of the project on a state or national basis, without regard to the competence of the entity to perform the task, or the wishes of the locality that is the recipient of the largess.

Most federal grants are required by Congress to be competitive, as are almost all contracts that carry out the project or program being awarded. They require the applicant to demonstrate why its project is better vis-a-vis another project. They require some demonstration of capactity to perform. The priorities are set by Congress by their allocation of a set amount of money to the program and presumably as a result incorporate a priority setting process for what's important and essential. None of this applies to earmarks. Some of these projects are worthwhile, some may even be essential to the well being of an area, but none of this really matters because of the manner in which the earmarks are made.

Earmarks are perhaps the most corrupting practice in Congress outside campaign contributions. They are often repayments for those contributions, but even when they are unsullied by such, they are allowed to skew priorities and, based on a lawmakers standing, allowed to reward projects and places that may not need or be able to use the money effectively and efficiently. But that is ok with the lawmakers because of the political rewards they see such earmarks providing. One lawmaker bristled at the idea that such decisions should be made by faceless bureacrats [who are making decisions on criteria established by Congress and attempting to carry out Congressional intent in a fair and equitable manner] instead of a lawmaker who has his pulse on the local people. However, any benefit of having the pulse of the people is lost by the failure to have a systematic and transparent way of evaluating the projects which might result in effective priority setting, efficient use of funds, and ensuring that money is spent where it is most needed in a way that isn't designed to make some lawmakers friends and supporters rich.

I doubt that we will ever get rid of earmarks because politicians value their political capital. However, would it be so unreasonable that earmarks be less than a set percentage of discretionary funds? Would it be unreasonable that they compete with all the other earmarks sought for a particular bill? Would it be unreasonable that Congress figures out someway to more fairly and openly evaluate the earmark other than the seniority or influence of the lawmakers?

The arrogance of success

I read the comments to so many articles and there is such a disdain for poor people, or people who have fallen on hard times and find themselves and their children homeless or hungry. "If they weren't so lazy they'd get a job; if they hadn't bought more house than they could afford, they'd be okay; if they didn't spend so much they'd have money; its their fault they don't have more, aren't better parents, don't become rich." I wonder if people ever wonder if they are here in good or okay shape because they have just been lucky. They may have a supportive family, a good education, health, community to help them through these hard times. They aren't depressed because they've been laid off or have cancer or are losing their home.

And yet, a significant minority of people on these comment boards have an air of self-righteousness that I don't understand. Walk in the shoes of the people who are not succeeding in life before you declare they are no good or don't deserve better. Think about how it would feel to have been born in Somalia, or Peru, or Yemen. Do you think you would have been as successful as you are now? Do you really think its all because you are so special and so talented that you are surviving without help from government or other sources of support. Do you really think most millionaires or even hundred thousandaires are that way because they just worked harder than the rest? I don't. I think most of us were just lucky, either in birth, genetics, education, breaks along the way, or the right contacts. I think the people who are not succeeding, for the most part, aren't for the very same reasons. Would help along the way change it for them, perhaps, perhaps not, but don't all people deserve a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, and some path to a better future. Why assume you know they are worthless because of where they are and that they don't deserve anything because of that.

Let's try compassionate goverment for a change and just see what happens. We need a smaller gap between rich and the rest of us. We need to spend some tax money on jobs, health care, schools, infrastructure, green industry, and to get us out of this financial hole we are in. Lets just pay our share and hope it makes a better country, instead of worrying about someone getting something they don't deserve.

Is the world collapsing?

I read where the American woman on trial in Italy for a horrific murder is number one woman of the year in the Italian press.

A fugitive US Marshall is gunned down in mexico, but CNN reports it as a U.S. Marshall making it sound like an American law enforcement officer was killed.

For the second time in the last few years, the Red River in the Dakotas is reaching record heights, but we continue to futz around on climate change.

Is the Economy Starting to Recover? Or Just Less Bad?
Nope, no real chance of that.

The economy continues to limp along in a downward spiral and battles with and among special interests over a financial reform bill likely leaves very little intact for the American people.

Dozens Dead in Pakistan Bombing: Pakistanis can't even go to a mosque without being blown to smithereens.

Does anything make much sense anymore?

Give Me a Break - I Quit!

To NY Times Op-Ed writer:

Give me a break. You really don't understand how the mere mortals live, do you? I too didn't do anything wrong, have little debt except an underwater mortgage, and will be alright as long as Wall Street doesn't bring down the entire country. But so many others are not alright through no fault of their own. Most don't have the luxury of giving their employers the five finger salute. Many already had that done to them, and others are holding on by their fingernails to house, feed and clothe their families. In what other universe does a company that loses $60B in one quarter pay huge bonuses negotiated when it was clear the company was going down. Thanks to the U.S. taxpayers, which will be paying for this debacle for many years, AIG is still a company instead of a bankrupt shell and you still have your stocks and they may someday be worth something, unlike Lehmann employees. I'm glad you will still be able to get another job at another firm that will pay what you think you are worth. Perhaps one of those unemployed traders in the other firms that have collapsed or cut back can be hired to do your now vacant job.

Unfortunately, thanks to your company and others, many people can't even get a job that pays the rent, others pay their rent and still get evicted because the banks foreclosed on someone else. Other people, too, are working 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week to pull us out of this mess and aren't getting paid $700K to do it. They seem to think its their duty to their country or their colleagues to do the right thing. Others are taking pay cuts so their colleagues won't get laid off. Others are losing their life savings in businesses they have poured their hearts and treasure into, only to have the bank call the credit line because of all the bad investment decisions their bank made.

I'm sure whatever charities you donate your "bonus" to will be able to put it to good use, since donations are down, while need has skyrocketed for social service agencies. However, I doubt you would be donating your bonus if scorn had not been heaped upon AIG. This isn't personal to you or me - its a terrible economic crisis that has lots of losers, most of whom had nothing to do with its cause. Life isn't fair - I can't cry crocodile tears that this unfairness caught up with you this one time. I don't think many others will either.

Wakefulness

I seem only driven to blog when I wake early thinking about the state of the world. I just need to get the stuff off my mind so I can go back to living in my world. The finance debacle woke me this morning. I just can't get over the failure of the supposed systems that were in place supposedly to prevent the financial rape that has occurred. Where were the mutual funds and pension funds, the biggest stockholders of these companies when the Boards of Directors and senior executives were plundering their companies and the savings of America.

A story about AIG's Board of Directors was the precipitating factor in my wakefulness. These people voted themselves $240,000 each per year while allowing the CEO and other executives to run the company into the ground and with it the American economy. Is their any price to be paid? Apparently not, since they continue to receive their stipends and go on as though nothing happened. Where were they when the bonuses were paid? Didn't any of them see how this would be perceived and raise an alarm. Guess not, since they didn't see how these payments would be perceived. They were too busy taking their own payments for 9 days work last year. CNN says we won't know how much they were paid until the SEC filings in April, but doesn't the government have access to this information. This will fall on the "rescue" effort just as the righteous and deserved anger over these bonuses begins to dissipate. Are they out in front of this or is their concern only after it becomes public.

Citigroup and the CEO's $38M bonus didn't seem to get the traction that AIG did. Perhaps its because we only own 36% and guarantee only $300B of their bad debt. It's time for some wholesale housecleaning. No one is indispensible. Perhaps the former banker on the front page of the NY Times who has been reduced to begging for a job on Craigslist could be hired to replace a couple of those bonus babies. But then, he probably can't teach the Chairman of the Board bridge, so he may not qualify, since this is apparently how some Executives were chosen, according to the author of House of Cards.

All this news is so disheartening. Other than watching my networth collapse I'm not really affected by this mess day to day. Unless the country goes bankrupt I'll be okay, but it doesn't help me sleep. It's all so unfair to all the people who go to work everyday, try and raise kids or live a decent life, not causing harm to the country and their community. I know life isn't fair, but this is out of sight. We can't continue to allow this rape and pillage to continue. We need to break up the companies which are too big to fail. We need to bring back real stockholder suits that can hold executives and Boards of Directors accountable for breaches of their fiduciary duty; we need to bring back serious taxation to the rich [not this asinine use of the tax code to punish AIG, but real taxation for those "earning" over $1M]; we need to beef up the anti-trust unit of DOJ and give them a backbone; we need to hold Congress's feet to the fire. When real anger reaches the halls of power they can move so quickly, albeit thoughtlessly. We need to keep the pressure on them when it comes to the legislation to really address these ills - no let them quietly serve the masters who pay their campaign bills.

The anger we feel towards AIG for the bonuses should also be directed towards the campaign contributions to the very Senators and Congressmen who will be writing the legislation trying to fix the system. The anger towards companies for their lavish parties and conferences should be directed toward the tax system and the people who write it that make these efforts so worthwhile to their bottom lines. We need to demand real reform, not the faux reform of the last week, trying to slake the fallout from the AIG bonus mess. We need to let them know we are watching their legislative response not just their words.