Emperor's Rants and Observations

Our spending problem is the bloated Military Budget, Corporate Subsidies, tax advantages for the rich, and preferential treatment of some types of income over income earned by labor.

We also have an income problem. We have the lowest federal tax rates since 1950. Tax cuts made the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class in insurmountable debt. Lower taxes didn’t create jobs or strengthen the economy, at least not in the U.S. We need new tax brackets for each millionaires and billionaires.

The rabid right is willing to destroy the economy, push us into default on our debt in order to further their political goal of preventing election of Obama to a second term. That has been their sole goal from day one, at any cost to America or Americans.

Cutting government spending now will be disastrous for the private sector. “Why cutting government spending now would be disastrous.” http://bit.ly/bvTEuS

There are other alternatives as well: Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus: Fiscal Year 2012: Read the People’s Budget http://bit.ly/g7aep8 and my own 2 cents Nobody asked me, but here’s my solutions. http://bit.ly/bvTEuS

The best way to solve our debit and deficit problems is to revitalize the economy and create good living wage jobs. What has this congress done to improve the economy or create private sector jobs? Nothing, because that’s not in GOP’s best political interest. Our unemployment is high because the rabid right wants it that way.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:8aaff7272ea0fbbf}
One criticism I often have of others is that they critique ideas without offering any of their own. It’s easy to take pot shots at others or to simply say no on philosophical grounds without any other justifications.

Some people talk about government being too big, we have too many regulations, government is the problem – not the solution, they say. They are willing to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. They see government as corrupt, evil and fundamentally flawed. While very few will offer specific examples.

Others, like myself, recognize that there are serious problems with our government, as there is with any government. But there is a proper place and role that government is necessary for a functioning society based on the rule of law and compassion for our fellow man.

Our country is divided in so many other ways; right vs left, urban vs rural, haves vs have nots, old vs young, religious vs secular, and many more less obvious and stark. But we are all Americans and we’re in this thing together. We can either rip this country apart because of our differences, or we can come together to make this country greater than ever.

We’re facing a lot of problems, unemployment, the deficit, the economy as a whole, immigration, the war against terrorism, the war on drugs, crisis in education and healthcare – it’s easy to get overwhelmed by them all. I think many people are scared, angry, confused, frustrated, they are looking for someone to blame, looking for quick and easy solutions. There are those that are capitalizing on that to benefit and enrich themselves. Others are using it to attack and destroy others.

There is a saying that “Money is the root of all evil”. When we look at our most pressing problems we can see that money is certainly a major component of them all in one way or another. So it would make sense that if money is the problem, money is also the solution.

Right now the problems are being approached independently of one another. The solutions offered are limited. Raise or lower taxes. Cut or increase government spending. Basically its fighting over a finite amount of pie. We need to change our focus, we need to bake a bigger pie.

In a previous post I asked the question: “What Kind Of Country Do We Want?“. Much of it was written based on the finite pie scenario. However, no matter how large the pie, we’re going to need to have priorities, certain values that are non-negotiable. For me, and for the purposes of this discussion that means we take care of our elderly, disabled, sick, unemployed and veterans. We value eduction, equal opportunity, self reliance, entrepreneurship, personal liberty, independence and freedom.

Each of my proposals will, save money or increase revenue and adhere to the values and priorities above.

1. Remove the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. It may be possible to lower the rate, which would lessen the impact on upper income earners, and provide some relief for lower incomer earners and the self employed who have to pay both the employer and employee portions of the tax.
2. Add a Public Option for health care that will allow anyone to buy into a health insurance plan on a sliding scale. This would virtually eliminate society cost of the uninsured using the most expensive health care, emergency rooms, for routine health care that could have been averted with preventative care, or taking care of at a less expensive medical provider, such as a doctor’s office or clinic.
3. Remove most restrictions to enter the country legally for the purpose of work. Would have to pass criminal background check. Would not be eligible for public assistance. Required to buy into public option health insurance, if not covered by employer. Would be required to pay all taxes. Persons already in the country would be eligible if they clear criminal background check.
4. Employers to be held strictly accountable to ensure all of their employees were eligible to work legally in the country. Requirement would include having picture ID issued by the State or Federal Government on file at all times. Immigrant employees must be paid the same, have same benefits, same working conditions and hours as citizen employees. Violations would result in heavy fines and jail time for employers.
5. End all corporate and farm subsidies for products or services to be sold overseas. Subsidies may still provided on in country sales to value added companies. Also end all subsidies and incentives for outsourcing jobs.
6. Remove Hemp from the list of controlled substances. Ban the export of non-value added Hemp. Then get out of the way and let American entrepreneurial spirit take hold to create new products from this natural renewable resource.
7. Transfer the federal regulation of Marijuana to the ATF to be renamed MATF. License, regulate and tax similar to existing Tobacco and Alcohol operations. States would have the same rights to license, regulate and tax in their jurisdictions.
8. Pardon and release all persons currently being held for simple marijuana possession.
9. Expand Job Corps with funds saved from not arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana users. Add training needed in the manufacturing of the 1000′s of products being made from Hemp.
10. Make child support payments tax deductible. The more non-custodial parents pay the less dependent single parents will be on State benefits.
11. End the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% income earners. Tax all income the same regardless of the source. End the Hedge Fund “carried interest” windfall loophole

So there you go. Have at it. Rip up my ideas, but come with your own. I’m prepared to defend my ideas, so be prepared to defend your criticisms and your ideas.

There are two generally accepted tenets of the conservative’s view of government economic policy.

1) Lower taxes encourage private sector investment and economic growth.
2) Government spending are resources that are taking what would otherwise be left to the private economy.

First let me address the obvious; both of these beliefs definitely favor the rich over the poor. The rich benefit more from lower taxes and they rely less on government spending in general. Particularly when it comes to retirement and health care.

Taxes have been cut to the lowest level since 1950 which has failed to stimulate the economy for the last decade. In addition a plethora of tax incentives have been offered to encourage private investment, job creation and economic growth. As near as I can tell, that worked only to ship American jobs off shore.

So now we are told that tax cuts aren’t enough, we need to cut government spending too. That’s why the tax cuts didn’t work they say, because we didn’t cut spending at the same time. Perhaps I’m just too dense to grasp complicated math, but I don’t see how the government not spending a dollar makes that dollar suddenly and magically appear in the private sector where it will be spent better.

But we’ll leave that alone for now and tackle the task at hand, cutting government spending and it’s affect on the economy in general.

Government cuts in spending come in three areas, jobs, purchases and benefits. That’s it, now it’s just a decision about what jobs, purchases or benefits should be cut. For the purposes of this discussion it really doesn’t matter what is going to be cut as far as the budget is concerned.

When the government pays an employee, that employee takes the money and spends it in the private sector economy. They make house and car payments. They buy groceries, perhaps eat out, go to the movie or donate to the local little league. When that job is cut, we’ve added to the number of unemployed. Perhaps they lose their house in foreclosure, driving prices down further. Maybe they can’t afford their car anymore, so it goes back to the dealer or maybe sell it themselves if they can get what they owe on it. The little league and local restaurant will have to do without their support.

Maybe this is a job we could really do without, working in a department that shouldn’t even exist, getting paid more than they would in the private sector and with better benefits. There’s approximately 2.15 million federal employees, so to make any kind of significant spending cuts we’d have to get rid of 200,000 jobs to make any kind of serious impact on spending. What is the effect of losing 200,000 jobs on the economy? 200,000 more people competing for jobs where there are five applicants for every job opening. How many more foreclosures, bankruptcies, repossessions would there be? Not just those whose jobs got cut, but the small businesses they help support with their government payroll checks. But hey,they’re just government employees right. They don’t actually add anything to the economy, so they won’t be missed.

The government doesn’t actually build, produce or create anything. They do however buy a lot of things though. From paper clips to Aircraft Carriers. They pay for new roads, bridges, airports, ports and all kinds of other products and services. Billions of dollars paid to private companies and contractors, who employ hundreds of thousands of people. So how many private sector jobs will be loss when we cut government spending on any of these products and services? When a company like Boeing has to lay people off because a government contract was cut or cancelled, what are the down river consequences of that? How many small businesses are put at risk of closing, foreclosures, and bankruptcies. Then you have the impacts on the local, county and state governments who are also receiving less income because of the cutbacks and employee layoffs. They have to layoff public safety employees and teachers. Perhaps cut back on services like libraries and health clinics.

Then there is the target du jour – Entitlements. Yes, those horrible socialistic entitlements. As an aside, the reason they are called entitlements is because people have EARNED them. They worked for them, they contributed financially to them. These aren’t freebies given away to everyone. But I digress, what happens when we cut benefits and entitlements? Again, this is money that is put back into the economy purchasing goods and services, paying local taxes, supporting the community.

With the exception of foreign aid those are our choices for making government spending cuts. There are other factors to be considered with foreign aid other than the economic impact here at home. We may need to consider trade agreements that depend on providing aid.

At this point I’m sure there are many that think I’m just a big government liberal that never saw a government program I didn’t like. That’s not the case at all. I want the least amount of government we can have, with the lowest possible tax rates from top to bottom of the economic totem pole. I know people are concerned about the deficit, but I think it’s important to understand where these deficits came from. The largest amount is due to tax cuts, the next largest part are the waging of two wars. The Health Care Reform bill will help cut the deficit over time, but not nearly enough, fast enough. We can make additional progress by continuing to find and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. But the best and surest way is by expanding our economy. Get more people back to work building things. Promote new industries, new technologies and new products. Do what America does best, innovate.

What we can’t do is anything that will increase unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcies or business closures, which is exactly what cutting government spending would do. It would be disastrous.

For those of us that haven’t already voted, we have a clear and fundamental choice to make on November 2, 2010 when we step into the voting booth.

Do we want a country that turns it’s back on the elderly, disabled, sick, poor, unemployed and our Veterans?

Do we want a country where the top 2% of Americans have record increases in their wealth while the middle class disappears and the poor are getting poorer?

Do we want a country where we give tax incentives for American companies to outsource jobs?

Do we want a country led by people who are more concerned about winning the 2012 election than they are concerned about fixing what’s wrong with our country today?

Do we want a country that is governed by hate, fear, anger, distrust and intolerance of others based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin and/or sexual orientation?

Do we want a country where groups fight against one another over slices of an ever decreasing economic pie?

Do we want a country with leaders that would turn back civil rights and dodge questions from the media?

Do we want a country that believes deficit spending is ok to fight wars but not ok to help our own?

Do we want a country where our government protects and defends multi-national corporations despoiling our air and water? Even going so far as to apologize to them when we try to hold them responsible?

Do we want a country that believes health care should be rationed to those that can afford it?

Do we want a country that would make children born in the US criminals?

Do we want a country that would require everyone to carry and present papers on demand of law enforcement officers to prove our legal right be here?

Do we want a country where financial institutions can act with impunity, gambling with other peoples money?

Do we want a country where unlimited amounts of corporate and foreign money flow into elections undisclosed?

Do we want a country that won’t invest in education?

Do we want a country that won’t provide funding for teachers, police and fire fighters.

Do we want a country that legislation is held hostage by minority representation for simple partisan reasons.

Do we want a country that will cut spending and jobs at a time when we are already experiencing high unemployment.

If we want that kind of country then all we have to do is vote for Republicans (or not vote), because that’s what they have promised to deliver if elected.

If that’s not the kind of country we want then we better show up to vote. We better talk to our friends and family and make sure they go vote. This is about what kind of country we want to have and it’s up to us to decide.

Below is part of post from 2007.

Make no mistake about it, nothing but radical and sweeping changes at all levels of government will be sufficient to fix what is wrong and return the power to the people.

Whats wrong.

* The current practice of using seniority as the method for making committee and leadership assignments effectively shut out new ideas and new perspectives.
* Incumbents have an unfair advantage over their challengers. There is no way that a challenger can compete with an incumbents ability to raise campaign funds. An office holder has the ability to help now whereas a challenger may only help in the future.
* Campaign contributions from businesses, groups and political parties dwarf those of individuals. Whether they admit it or not, politicians are influenced by those that support their campaigns. Businesses, groups, and political parties don’t donate huge amounts of cash out of any sense of civic duty, they do it because they want something from the politician, namely their support in return.
* Political Parties have usurped power by restricting ballot access making it much more difficult for third party or independent candidates with their new ideas to get elected.
* Campaigns have become so expensive that candidates (particularly challengers) must spend a good amount of time and effort into obtaining contributions from those with the deepest pockets. This eliminates many potential candidates that find this practice distasteful.
* Too often voters are presented with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The Fixes. Ten points of change.

* If the President of the United States is limited to two consecutive terms, every office holder at any level should have the same term limits.
* Campaign contributions restricted to individuals eligible to vote for the candidate. No cash or in kind contributions from ineligible to vote individuals or any entity including businesses, organizations, political action committees or political parties.
* Remove political party designations from ballots, registrations and voter information pamphlets.
* Make ballot access the same for every candidate for office. Nomination by petition with 1% of the registered voters in the election district the candidate is running for.
* Replace primary elections with instant runoff.
* Prohibit candidates from accepting campaign donations prior to one year of the date of their election.
* Campaign contributions left over from a campaign must be converted to personal income or donated to charity, not held over to the next campaign.
* Add “None Of The Above” as a ballot option.
* Change election cycles so that 25% of every legislative body is up for election each year.
* Bar politicians from working as a lobbyist for two years after they leave office.

There is no chance of these changes being made as long as we keep electing candidates that benefit from the current system. You can bet the political parties and political action committees will fight till their last dying breath anyone that would dare propose such sweeping changes that would eliminate their ability to buy elections and politicians. Any organization that was created to further these ideas by supporting candidates would run afoul of the very idea of returning the power to the individuals, not groups.

So what to do? We act as individuals and ask candidates to check off yes or no on each of the ten points of change. For myself, I’ll simply write in “none of the above” if there isn’t a candidate that supports all ten points of change. Others may choose to decide to vote for whichever candidate supports the most, or perhaps there are some “must have” points for others.

The bottom line is that each of us can be a catalyst for change, but we have to be willing to turn our backs on the existing power structure. That will take real courage of conviction to vote against short term benefits that status quo offers.

I was only eleven years old in the summer of 1969. A half a million Hippies showed up for “Three Days of Peace and Music” at a 600 acre dairy farm in northern New York state. This is a touchstone moment in the lives of people of my generation. It was remarkable not only for the music, but for the total lack of violence.

Three babies were born, and two deaths had occurred-about the statistical average for a city of half a million. But a city of that size also would have had a predictable number of violent crimes in a three-day period, and this simply didn’t happen.

Also consider the amount of drugs used and it’s even more remarkable. It stands in stark contrast to people that contend that drugs are the cause of violence in our society. It’s not drugs that cause violence, it’s our war on drugs that cause violence.

In many ways Woodstock represents the very best of America. A standing testimony to true individual freedom and liberty. Not the faux freedom and liberty of Conservatives and Tea Party, who can only equate those values as it applies to their pocketbook. Woodstock also serves as an example of people reaching out to help one another, generosity of spirit and acceptance. Something I would like to see much more of not only from individuals, and groups of individuals, but from our Government as well.

It would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that during this time protesters against the war in Viet Nam treated our military men and women with a great deal of disrespect and hostility – undeservedly so. They were right about the war, but very wrong about their misguided anger at individual returning Viet Nam veterans. Thankfully, since that time, we as a country have honored those veterans and expressed our gratitude for their service.

Once again, we find ourselves deeply divided as a country about wars without end, civil rights and economic justice. A schism deeper and wider than anytime perhaps since 1969. But at the end of the day, we are all still Americans. It’s OUR country. It’s nobody’s country to “take back”, despite the rhetoric of those that wish to advance an agenda of hate, bigotry and greed.

Here is my salute to fellow Americans. Also a thank you to our veterans and those that are serving in the military here at home and abroad.

Sunday, family and friends gathered at a popular Anchorage city park to celebrate my Daughter’s Birthday for a cook out and a game of American Field Crumpets. That’s us in the background of the picture. We’re at the back of the park, furthest from the road and parking lot, but as it turned out, right in the line of fire.

Out of nowhere our beautiful Sunday was interrupted by the unmistakable sound of small arms fire. I looked up to see a man running straight at us about thirty yards away as several shots hit the ground around him, then a couple of more and the man was down, bleeding from his torso, shot in the back. Then I heard the screams, saw people running away and running to the action. Tires squealing in the parking lot as the assailants sped away in two vehicles.

What I missed before the gunshots was that it started with a confrontation out in the parking lot between two groups that moved our way, until someone decided to escalate the conflict pulling a weapon. It was apparent that this was gang related, which since has been confirmed.

At this point you may think I’m going to launch into a rant about the evils of guns in society. I’m not. In fact, I wish I had been armed because if the conflict had moved closer to endanger myself and others I would have taken out the assailant myself.

You may think this is going to be a rant about needing to crack down on “Gang Bangers” with draconian solutions like “stop and frisk”, mandatory sentencing or military style boot camps. It’s not. In fact, I think those types of things just exasperate the problem by further alienating a whole generation.

No, this is about the interaction between people and the police. We watched the police systematically take care of the victim, secure the crime scene, and begin interviewing witnesses. They moved quickly, but thoroughly and with professionalism. When they came to me they asked for my name, address, birth date and phone number which I gave them (even though there is no legal requirement for me to do so). Everyone in my group did. Then asked me what I saw, which wasn’t very helpful since I only saw the end and not the shooter. What they didn’t do is ask me for any kind of identification. In fact, they didn’t ask to see anyone’s ID that I’m aware of, certainly no one among my group.

This made me wonder what would have happened had this event occurred in Arizona with the new Immigration law. Would police be required to ask for everyone’s ID? Would everyone be required to prove they are legally in the US. Certainly this would qualify as a “lawful contact”. Perhaps witnesses that could positively identify the assailant would leave without speaking to the police in fear of being asked for their papers. This is one of the reasons law enforcement officials in Arizona and around the United States are speaking out against this atrocious law.

Below is the text of the new Arizona law I find offensive and unconstitutional.

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

1) What is a lawful “lawful contact stop, detention”? A witness to a traffic accident? Simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does anyone think that an officer can’t find an excuse to make a “lawful contact” any time they wish?

2) What is “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States”? Is being brown and speaking with an accent constitute “reasonable suspicion”? If you’re looking for day labor work outside of Home Depot is that grounds for reasonable suspicion that you are unlawfully present in the United States?

3)”Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” So basically you can be held indefinitely unless you can prove you are lawfully in the US. So you better have your papers on you or you’ll sit in jail until the authorities prove your innocence.

If you’re a young Hispanic man, in the wrong place at the wrong time could be detained indefinitely if you fail to provide proper documentation even if you are natural born American citizen. If you think this can’t or won’t happen, you’re wrong, it will and already has. If you think this isn’t about race, you’re wrong it is. A middle aged white guy without ID is not going to be treated the same way as that young Hispanic man.

Do we really want to live in a country where you better be caring your documents or risk being subjected to indefinite detention? Do you understand now why even some Arizona law enforcement officials are against this law?

This law violates both the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution.

As far as boycotting States go, it’s just another form a free speech. Alaska has been a target of it for shooting wolves from helicopters, I’d say Arizona being boycotted for violating the US Constitution and basic human rights should be fair. They have the same choice Alaska does, change the policy or live with the consequences.

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate.

If you can’t vote, you can’t donate. It’s really that simple.

In political campaigns, money is more akin to a vote than it is to speech.

Corporations can’t vote. Unions can’t vote. Political Parties can’t vote. All the various groups, committees, foundations, think tanks, etc can’t vote. Foreigners can’t vote. Non-citizens can’t vote. Lobbyist can only vote where they are registered and eligible.

With that as a the standard, anything that promotes a candidate would be considered a contribution to the candidate and can only be done, paid for, provided by, a registered voter eligible to vote for the candidate. Individual rights to free speech are protected, playing field is level, and the rules are uniform across the board.

The result of this single one line change would be:

• Lower cost of campaigns
• Less TV, Radio and Print advertising
• Encourage more debates and town halls
• More use of the Internet
• Reduced lobbyist influence
• Improved quality of candidates
• More citizen involvement
• More accountability to voters
• Reduced interference from outsiders
• Increase voter registration and voting

Makes sense. Sounds good. But like a lot of sensible, good ideas, probably won’t happen. Because nobody wants to give up their exception to the rule. The power brokers would lose their power. Control would revert to the people and thats the last thing that anyone vested in the current system wants.

Want to test my theory that this idea will be attacked from all sides? Click the link below to post it to your Twitter status

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate. http://bit.ly/cHOPYV

Bill Moyers Journal Watch and Listen

BILL MOYERS: Why is the industry so powerful on both sides of the aisle?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, money and relationships, ideology. The relationships– an insurance company can hire and does hire many different lobbying firms. And they hire firms that are predominantly Republican and predominantly Democrat. And they do this because they know they need to reach influential members of Congress like Max Baucus. So there are people who used to work for Max Baucus who are in lobbying firms or on the staff of companies like Cigna or the association itself.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus’s staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus’s former chiefs of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they’re back with an insider status. They get an access, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists’ ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.

Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she’s married to Tony Podesta, who’s a brother of John Podesta.

BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right. Right. And they’re Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for–

BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that’s hard to do. That’s hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn’t possibly.

BILL MOYERS: So it’s money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It’s the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they’ve done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn’t want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don’t want any more competition period. They certainly don’t want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry’s–

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don’t want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

The need for radical reform of our campaign finance and election laws is a recurring theme for this blog. I’ve posted many times about the need to eliminate the undue influence that special interest groups, lobbyists and political action groups have on legislation and policy. This candid interview is a perfect example of the kinds of things that happen routinely at every level of government from all kinds of different groups. None are any better or worse than any other in my view. The only people that should be able to influence our elected officials are the ones that can vote for them. Period. If a group wants to state their case, they can do so publicly at hearings. There is no need or justification for any group to have a private audience with any elected official at any level. (That includes Prevo and our local assembly members and mayor.)

This interview also points out why Health Insurance Reform and Health Care Reform MUST include regulation of the health insurance industry and a public option. The industry can’t and won’t regulate themselves. That is the rightful place for government intervention. They’re not going to change their practices until and unless they are forced to. That means regulation and competition. The government is the only entity capable of competing with the insurance industry.

Everything we are hearing from the obstructionists to reform is part of a well thought out and executed game plan. Down to the very words and phrases that we hear repeated ad nauseum.

During the interview, Bill Moyers read from confidential documents drafted by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) in May and June of 2007. The documents outline a unified strategy for AHIP members to prepare for the release of Michael Moore’s documentary, SICKO on June 29, 2007.

You can download and read the full AHIP documents by clicking here and here (PDFs).

The Language of Health Care 2009 (PDF)
The Frank Luntz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview.

GOP Health Care Strategy (PDF)
Strategy memo by Alex Castellanos dated July 7, 2009.

These are evil people who don’t care about the average American. They will do anything to make a buck and to remain, regain, expand their political power. They are lying and manipulating the system to further their selfish goals at the expense of Americans. The sad and disturbing part is that there are so many Americans that sincerely believe that these people and entities actually have our collective best interest at heart. They don’t. In fact they are actively working against our best interests.

Watch the video or read the whole transcript between Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter here.

Read more on Wendell Potter and Profits Before Patients here.

Read the Testimony of Wendell Potter, Philadelphia, PA Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation June 24, 2009 here. Or view it online here.

Trace campaign contributions, ad spending and the revolving door between industry and government here.

We can defeat the lies, the misrepresentation and the willful ignorance of the obstructionists on the right. We can do it by not giving in, not giving up, and shining a bright light on those that are pulling their strings. Now is the time.