“No Faggots Allowed” Policy
The Army's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy is one in a long line of Orwellian PR slogans. Like “separate but equal,” it is nothing more than rhetorical shine to cover government-sponsored discrimination. It is time to stop referring to the Army's anti-homosexual discrimination rules by its sanatized name “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”.
It is important that all Americans, politicians, and members of the media alike to call a spade a spade. The policy should bare a name reflecting its malicious intent. A more appropriate name is the “No Faggots Allowed” policy. It accurately describes the official policy of the Army and the level of respect it shows many who have or would be willing serve our country.
Thousands of homosexuals have proudly served and died for their country even though our country's official policy is that we don't want or respect their sacrifice. The current “No Faggots Allowed” policy has resulted in the Army expelling thousands of loyal soldiers and has cost millions in wasted training.
There is no logical reason to maintain the current “No Faggots Allowed” policy. The sole excuse offered is that heterosexuals would feel uncomfortable serving with homosexuals. By this logic, the Army should also have a “No Minorities Allowed” policy because some white racist might feel uncomfortable serving with minorities.
The Army is currently desperate for new recruits. Incentives have been increased and standards lowered. The Army is now giving waivers to high school dropouts and ex-criminals. At the same time, officers who have served with distinction and with valuable training are being dismissed because of private sexual habits. The government's behavior is clear. It feels that these homosexuals are less than worthless. This is the essence of our “No Faggots Allowed” policy.
Health Care Reform = A Stimulus Every Year
Much of the criticism against the recently-signed economic stimulus package focused on the cost. At roughly $800 billion, the package was worth 5% of the country's whole GDP last year. Surprisingly, that is less than what America overpays every year on health care. As a nation, we literally waste over $800 billion every year. If we adopt any one of the health care systems used by the dozens of first world nations with universal health care, we would save the equivalent of one stimulus package a year.
What do Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have in common?
They all have longer life expectancies than the United States. They all have lower infant mortality rates than the United States. They all have universal health care, and they all pay dramatically less for health care.
In 2005, the United States spent 15.2% of its GDP on health care-- the most of any industrialized world. Switzerland (the second highest among industrialized nations) spend only 11.4% of its GDP on health care. The industrialized nations listed above spent on average 9.3% of their GDP on health care. That is 6% less than in the United States-- or the equivalent $830 billion. If our health care costs were in line with the rest of the first world, we would save the equivalent of one stimulus package a year. Because of the scale of our country, we may never be able to make our health care system as efficient as Luxembourg or Finland. We should be able to at least reduce our spending to match that of Germany, France, or Switzerland. Even achieving that modest goal would save our country over half a trillion dollars a year.
Truth About Value
Members of the media are artificially distorting the debate about bank nationalization. Recently articles have claimed that discussions about possible bank nationalization are depressing the stock prices of several troubled financial institutions. While technically correct, this view point is very misleading.
Several big banks (Citigroup, Bank of America, etc...) are currently in terrible shape. Even after huge capital injections from the federal government they are still in trouble. If the government had not used TARP and other tools to prop up some of the worst-managed banks, they would have gone bankrupt months ago. Without a new round of bailouts (through direct capital injections or indirect injections by purchasing toxic assets for more than they are worth) most of these banks will go bankrupt.
Millions Suffering, Obama Fails to Act
President Obama made many promises during his presidential campaign, but to me there were none more important than his promise to relieve the physical suffering of Americans. On this front, his two biggest promises were to create a universal health care system and to overturn George Bush's misguided executive order restricting stem cell research.
I'm disappointed that Obama has yet to begin addressing our nation's health care crisis. The delay in naming a new HHS Secretary and/or health care czar could set back much needed reforms by months or even years. But I understand that necessary reform will be a serious and time consuming political fight.
What is unconscionable is Obama's failure to fulfill his promise on stem cell research. The Obama campaign promised to immediately overturn Bush's order restricting research. Unlike with legislation, there is nothing preventing Obama from taking action on an executive order. The stem cell research ban could literally be overturned in a matter of hours.
Stem cell research holds the possibility of finding a treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and a host of physical disabilities. It may eventually improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from debilitating illnesses. Some may say that it has "only" been a month and we should be patient. But if it is you, your parents, or your children suffering, a month can be a very long time.
I'm disappointed that Obama has yet to begin addressing our nation's health care crisis. The delay in naming a new HHS Secretary and/or health care czar could set back much needed reforms by months or even years. But I understand that necessary reform will be a serious and time consuming political fight.
What is unconscionable is Obama's failure to fulfill his promise on stem cell research. The Obama campaign promised to immediately overturn Bush's order restricting research. Unlike with legislation, there is nothing preventing Obama from taking action on an executive order. The stem cell research ban could literally be overturned in a matter of hours.
Stem cell research holds the possibility of finding a treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and a host of physical disabilities. It may eventually improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from debilitating illnesses. Some may say that it has "only" been a month and we should be patient. But if it is you, your parents, or your children suffering, a month can be a very long time.
Would Nationalize By Any Other Name Not Sound So Scary?
Never have I seen an idea move so quickly from the fringe to the mainstream. While three months ago only a few people were even discussing the possibility of nationalizing some of the failed banks, it is now getting serious coverage. Some Republican lawmakers and publications like the Economist and Newsweek have started to openly talk about the possibility.
The fact that at least a few of the worst banks will be nationalized now seems inevitable. Already some banks have received more TARP money than they are now worth. President Obama has even acknowledged that Sweden's nationalization of their banks in the 90's is so far the best model for how to deal with the problem.
It seems that the greatest obstacle to nationalizing the banks is the term nationalization. For decades, the right has turned both socialism and nationalization into four letter words in American politics. This means that Obama's most important objective in dealing with bank crisis is to invent a new name for nationalization. Below is a list of my favorites. Do not be surprised to see one of these names (or something similar) picked up by the White House in the coming weeks:
Structured Bankruptcy
Managed Bankruptcy
Managed Restructuring
Receivership
FDIC Takeover
Temporary FDIC Directorship
Temporary FDIC Management
FDIC Directed Reorganization
FDIC Restructuring
Reorganization
Managed Reorganization
Forced Reorganization
Managed Liquidation
Directed Management Reorganization
Time to End Conservatives' Tax Propaganda
I've noticed that many conservatives have recently increased their efforts to spread confusion, distortion, and outright propaganda about America's tax code. Instead of trying to have a real debate about our tax structure, a large group of conservatives have decided it is better to extol disinformation. A dramatic increase in disinformation during the stimulus debate has led me to suspect that the Republican party is hoping to make the tax code an issue in 2010. The heart of their propaganda is based on the technical definition of America's "income tax". If the Democrats are smart, they should change the tax code to redefine any money taken out of an individual's paycheck as "income tax".
In the United States, it is very important to know the difference between the "individual income tax" and the amount of people's income which is taxed. The conservative movement has repeatedly tried to exploit this linguistic nuance. The United States taxes individual's income using two systems: One is the progressive "income tax" and the other is the regressive payroll or FICA tax. Regardless of their official names, both are income taxes by definition because they are taxes on income. While the payroll tax is technically supposed to pay for Social Security and Medicare, this is fiction. The money collected by the federal government all goes to the same place. For years, the government has been raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for other programs.
The individual "income tax" and the payroll tax generate roughly the same amount of revenue for the federal government. The "income tax" accounts for approximately 45% and the payroll tax approximately 35% of revenue. The payroll tax in fact generates over twice as much money as the corporate income tax.
The two most common tax propaganda points expressed by conservatives exploit that fact that the name "income tax" is only one part of the overall taxation on an individual's income. First there is the claim that "Democrats want to give tax breaks (or refunds) to people who don't pay 'income tax'." While true, this is a blatant attempt to deceive. They are trying to make people think that individuals not paying taxes are going to get money from the government. In reality, low-income workers have been paying taxes on their income, just not the "income tax". The tax breaks won't "give" money to people who don't pay taxes but would reduce the amount of their income which is being taxed.
The other common point of propaganda is that the rich are carrying a huge share of the "income tax" burden. Again conservatives use the modifier "income tax" in an attempt to spread disinformation. Conservatives claim that the top 1% of individuals pay 40% of the "income tax" burden and the bottom 50% pay only 3%. Once again, this is only true if you use the modifier "income tax". If you count all taxes, the top 1% of individuals pay only 28% of the tax burden. While one can argue this number is still too high, it is important to argue the facts and not propaganda.
These two talking points have become standard go-to attacks for many conservatives. Both exploit a simple linguistics problem with our tax code. The Democrats should use their new majority to disarm this source of misinformation. There would be no need to change the tax code, just simply rename the "income tax" to something else (my vote is for the "Structured Multiple-Bracket Tax") and define all taxes on an individual's income as the "income tax".
In the United States, it is very important to know the difference between the "individual income tax" and the amount of people's income which is taxed. The conservative movement has repeatedly tried to exploit this linguistic nuance. The United States taxes individual's income using two systems: One is the progressive "income tax" and the other is the regressive payroll or FICA tax. Regardless of their official names, both are income taxes by definition because they are taxes on income. While the payroll tax is technically supposed to pay for Social Security and Medicare, this is fiction. The money collected by the federal government all goes to the same place. For years, the government has been raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for other programs.
The individual "income tax" and the payroll tax generate roughly the same amount of revenue for the federal government. The "income tax" accounts for approximately 45% and the payroll tax approximately 35% of revenue. The payroll tax in fact generates over twice as much money as the corporate income tax.
The two most common tax propaganda points expressed by conservatives exploit that fact that the name "income tax" is only one part of the overall taxation on an individual's income. First there is the claim that "Democrats want to give tax breaks (or refunds) to people who don't pay 'income tax'." While true, this is a blatant attempt to deceive. They are trying to make people think that individuals not paying taxes are going to get money from the government. In reality, low-income workers have been paying taxes on their income, just not the "income tax". The tax breaks won't "give" money to people who don't pay taxes but would reduce the amount of their income which is being taxed.
The other common point of propaganda is that the rich are carrying a huge share of the "income tax" burden. Again conservatives use the modifier "income tax" in an attempt to spread disinformation. Conservatives claim that the top 1% of individuals pay 40% of the "income tax" burden and the bottom 50% pay only 3%. Once again, this is only true if you use the modifier "income tax". If you count all taxes, the top 1% of individuals pay only 28% of the tax burden. While one can argue this number is still too high, it is important to argue the facts and not propaganda.
These two talking points have become standard go-to attacks for many conservatives. Both exploit a simple linguistics problem with our tax code. The Democrats should use their new majority to disarm this source of misinformation. There would be no need to change the tax code, just simply rename the "income tax" to something else (my vote is for the "Structured Multiple-Bracket Tax") and define all taxes on an individual's income as the "income tax".
Wall Street No Longer Believes in Capitalism
It is amazing to see that Wall Street is so willing to throw ideals of capitalism under the bus. We are being told that the problem with the current financial sector is that there is about a $1-3 trillion worth of "toxic assets" on their books. But "toxic assets" is only a fancy propaganda way of saying bad investments. The toxic assets are simply assets that the banks paid too much money for and now can't sell for a good price.
The foundation of capitalism was summed up by Adam Smith as "Everything is worth what its purchasers will pay for it". Yet America is being told to now ignore that principal. The market is willing to purchase these "toxic assets" at about 25 cents on the dollar. By definition that is their true value. The banks don't want to sell their "toxic assets," not because they honestly think they are worth more than 25 cents on the dollar because if they did, they would be forced to acknowledge that they are bankrupt.
The banks want us to ignore the principles of capitalism now that they are no longer working to their advantage. Their hope is that the government will allow itself to be ripped off by purchasing the "toxic assets" for more than they are worth (by the definition of free market economics: what the market is willing to pay for them). Or by insuring a pricing floor individuals willing to purchase the "toxic assets." People who buy the "toxic assets" would make a profit if the assets gained value, and the government would pay them if they lost value. This would only perpetuate the tails-you-win, heads-we-lose mentality which ruined the market.
The simple problem with the major banks is that they are already bankrupt, but neither the banks, Wall Street, Barack Obama, or Tim Geithner want to admit it. Any plan put forward to deal with the "toxic assets" without taking over the banks involves the American tax payers absorbing their trillions of dollars in losses for them. There is no such thing as a "toxic asset," only a bad investment. The banks made plenty on them, and now they want the government to buy them at twice their real value.
Nancy Pelosi is a Traitor to Progressives
Nancy Pelosi has said that she will likely not be able to pass a universal health bill this year. Her refusal to use this rare moment to move on one of the fundamental promises of the Democratic party is shocking. The Democrats control both houses of Congress by large margins and the White House. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to provide universal health care. If they were able to find trillions to bailout the banks and a trillion on a questionable stimulus package it is unacceptable to claim there is no longer enough money or political will to pass health care reform.
46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and the number will likely grow by several million in the next year. The Democratic party won this election with the promise of health care and they were delivered the votes to make it happen. If the Democrats are unwilling to move NOW on health care reform, what is the point in ever electing a Democrat?
46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and the number will likely grow by several million in the next year. The Democratic party won this election with the promise of health care and they were delivered the votes to make it happen. If the Democrats are unwilling to move NOW on health care reform, what is the point in ever electing a Democrat?
A-ROD and the Banks
During the 90's, performance enhancing drug use was rampant in Major League Baseball. With the revelation that A-ROD used performance enhancers, it appears that almost every important player was cheating. There are two main reasons for why performance enhancing drugs were so prevalent in baseball: A lack of oversight and a lack of moral hazard. Both are problems with our current banking system.
For a long time, drug testing was incredibly rare in baseball. The players' union fought random testing for years and only allowed it after the Congress threatened to pass a law mandating it. Although using steroids or other substances was against the rules, there was almost no risk that a player would be caught. Since no one was checking to see if players were cheating, they cheated.
The other major problem was a lack of moral hazard. Even if a player did test positive for the use of a banned substance, the punishment was incredibly minor. A first time offense result only in "treatment". Some argue that the new rules are still too lenient. Even now it takes a minimum of five positive tests for a player to receive a lifetime ban. For many players, using steroids could make the small difference which pays big dividends. A slightly higher batting average or on base percentage could equal millions more. Using a banned substance carried very little risk yet offered huge rewards.
Addressing only one of these problems (oversight or moral hazard) could have prevented the scandal in baseball. A lifetime ban for a first time offender could have easily scared most players even while testing was very rare. On the other hand, random and pervasive testing may also have deterred many players even with the minor penalties. Unfortunately, the game lacked both, and the result was predictable.
We have seen the problem of oversight in baseball play out on the macro level in our financial sector. The government's regulatory agencies and the private market were both asleep on the job. Bernie Madoff perfectly personifies the lack of proper oversight and the incompetence of the SEC. The private market was no better. Banks directly paid credit rating agencies to rate there exotic and mysterious financial products. The result was far too favorable ratings. This would be like mandating drug testing but allowing players to choose when and which laboratory to perform the testing.
We know there was a lack of oversight in the financial system, and now we are seeing the lack of moral hazard. The CEO's and traders who ruined their companies have not been made to pay back their bonuses or their golden parachutes. Many of them still haven't even lost their jobs. The government bailout of the finance sector has used trillions of dollars in taxpayer money to prevent the banks from collapsing and artificially inflate the stock value. The bailout only continues the "heads I win, tails I break even" system of risks and rewards that crippled our economy. Some have claimed that nationalizing the banks, firing the management, and wiping out the shareholders (like the FDIC has done for years to insolvent banks) would destroy trust in the financial system. But the lack of moral hazard has. Until oversight and moral hazard is returned, trust won't.
The Economy
A recession deepens quickly
Over 600,000 jobs lost in one month
Unemployment jumped to 7.6%
Another million become uninsured
Health care reform no where insight
The stimulus bill is delayed for months
The bank bailout was past in record time
Over 600,000 jobs lost in one month
Unemployment jumped to 7.6%
Another million become uninsured
Health care reform no where insight
The stimulus bill is delayed for months
The bank bailout was past in record time
Phelps, Clinton, Bush, Obama
What do these four men have in common? They are all very successful, and they all used illegal drugs while in their twenties. We now have our third straight president with past drug use. If they had been arrested, their criminal records could have prevented them from civil service work. However, drug use did not prevent them from becoming the head of that same government that would have incarcerated them.
Even though we have been led for 17 years by former drug users, there has been unfortunately little change to our insane drug laws. Hopefully, this country will use our current economic crisis to reevaluate our war on drugs. While many Democrats are still focused on the cost of the war in Iraq, they seem to ignore the far more expensive war at home. The cost of DEA agents, SWAT teams, millions of prisoners, lost wages, and international eradication programs easily dwarfs the cost of the trillion dollar economic stimulus package.
Give it All Back
President Obama called the $18 billion in bonuses that were paid out to employees of bailed out financial institutions “shameful.” I have a different word for it: criminal. In effect, these bonuses were paid completely with taxpayers' money. If most of the banks had not received billions in government money, they would have gone bankrupt and been unable to pay bonuses.
Obama's anger is part moral and part political. He knows that he will soon be asking Congress for trillions of more dollars to further aid financial institutions. Before these companies receive another dime, Obama should demand a “Give it All Back” clause.
The “Give it All Back” clause would not allow any company that gave out bonuses at the end of last year to receive any government assistance until all the bonuses are paid back. If an employee is unwilling to give back their bonuses, they must be fired and can't be hired by any other company that received government aid.
So far the government has thrown trillions of dollars at Wall Street and has received nothing in return. The banks still act like they are profitable and spend like it is raining money (taxpayers money). The American people are rightfully furious. If Obama doesn't move strongly and forcefully to punish the bad actors, he will lose the support of the people.
Obama's anger is part moral and part political. He knows that he will soon be asking Congress for trillions of more dollars to further aid financial institutions. Before these companies receive another dime, Obama should demand a “Give it All Back” clause.
The “Give it All Back” clause would not allow any company that gave out bonuses at the end of last year to receive any government assistance until all the bonuses are paid back. If an employee is unwilling to give back their bonuses, they must be fired and can't be hired by any other company that received government aid.
So far the government has thrown trillions of dollars at Wall Street and has received nothing in return. The banks still act like they are profitable and spend like it is raining money (taxpayers money). The American people are rightfully furious. If Obama doesn't move strongly and forcefully to punish the bad actors, he will lose the support of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
