Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission opens the door for a lot more political advertisements in upcoming elections. And there's already a lot. In 2008, the total cost for US Federal government campaigns was 5.3 Billion dollars. (roughly half was the Presidential campaign, half for others) A decent chunk of this is advertising. For example. President Obama and Senator McCain spent about 20% of their funds, 500 Million, on advertisements. State contests cost money too. Here in California, Meg Whitman will spend millions of her own money, and Democrats are responding.
In my opinion, this massive spending, and the fund-raising required to compete in a race, is a corrupting influence. However, as a vaguely Libertarian, and a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, a lot of this involves Speech, and especially political speech, which should have the highest protection. So, I'm torn. (I'd support a reasonable Amendment that corporations are not persons). But, frankly, my opinion doesn't matter. Attempts to control this spending have all failed miserably. If you will, government imposed "price controls" and "regulations" have failed, as they often do. Let's apply a more traditional government approach, especially in this time of fiscal problems.
Let's tax the heck out of political advertisements.
I'd set a low floor, under which there is no taxation. Say, $25,000. So those running for School Board, small town sheriffs, etc. aren't affected. (I hope, not sure what gets spent on those campaigns!) Above that, a steeply progressive scale, topping out at 50%. So, for the big races, for each dollar spent on a political ad, the people get a dollar. Ads for federal offices would pay taxes to the feds, ads for state office pay the states.
Now, part of me was worried that this just makes the glad-handing and lobbyists more powerful, cause politicians will have to raise twice as much money. I am no longer concerned. We already know what the politicians are. We are just haggling over price. Let's get a cut of the action.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Why Canada is better than the USA
In Canada, they don't have the USA-Canada hockey game on a cable channel in low def! Pestering us between periods with ads for their political talk shows.
Come on NBC/MSNBC, this is a big game, why isn't it in hi-def on a real channel? What kind of weak crap is that?
As for why the USA is better than Canada, we don't have that cheap-shot punk Scott Niedermeyer throwing opposition players into the boards way after the period is over. And right now we are leading 3-2, but there's still a period to go.
Here's wishing a cold Molson for all the Canadian fans anxiously watching. Good luck, and congratulations on a well-run Olympics in a fabulously supernaturally beautiful area of the world. BTW, the Czech-USSR game was great.
Come on NBC/MSNBC, this is a big game, why isn't it in hi-def on a real channel? What kind of weak crap is that?
As for why the USA is better than Canada, we don't have that cheap-shot punk Scott Niedermeyer throwing opposition players into the boards way after the period is over. And right now we are leading 3-2, but there's still a period to go.
Here's wishing a cold Molson for all the Canadian fans anxiously watching. Good luck, and congratulations on a well-run Olympics in a fabulously supernaturally beautiful area of the world. BTW, the Czech-USSR game was great.
Friday, February 19, 2010
More Depressing Goldman Sachs News
One could have an entire blog devoted to depressing Goldman Sachs news, but here's a recent snippet. According to a New York Times article, "Wall Street" (mainly represented by Goldman Sachs) helped mask or obscure the true extent of Greece's debt problem.
Now, these deals were apparently perfectly legal, and most of the blame, IMO, rests with the overspending politicians and those who elected them. And the accounting rules that don't count these future liabilities as "debts" are silly too. But still, the banks profited from the addictions of countries like Greece and Italy.
In related news, Mark Pittman, an investigative reporter, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in September 2008 with the Fed for details of the bank bailout. He was rebuffed - the Fed didn't even bother to answer. Mark Pittman died in November 2009. Unfortunately for would be conspiracy fans, there seems to be no conspiracy, which probably convinces them that there is one. :-)
Fortunately for the rest of us, Bloomberg News has taken up the mantle with a lawsuit, Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Last summer, District Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled in favor of Bloomberg, but the ruling was appealed by a consortium of banks to protect “the substantial interests of its members in confidential information that they provided to the Federal Reserve.” They argue that if people knew which banks were taking loans from the Fed, there could be a run on the bank, or that it's reputation would be damaged. Yeah, sure, banks are held in such high regard, it would be terrible if they were stigmatized. The Fed did bring up one interesting argument:
If the bailout were truly needed, and did save banks and the American (and world) economy from a disastrous collapse, one would think that The Fed would want us to know the facts. Ex-President Bush, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President Obama et. al. would want us to know. Because it would make them look good, proving that they were rapid responders who risked public disapproval to save the economy, and they are not dupes nor tools of Wall Street. Since they haven't provided these facts, I conclude that the bailout was a scam or a panic.
Perhaps there will soon be a book with hard facts about the bailout. Anybody know of one? From what most can see, it rewarded bad behavior, and the banks are going back to the same bad habits, with no shame or remorse. Not sure what anybody can really do about it. For my extremely small part, Tim Geithner went to my Alma mater, Dartmouth College. This year they will get no alumni donation from me. Take that!
"...financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere. ...
Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities."
Now, these deals were apparently perfectly legal, and most of the blame, IMO, rests with the overspending politicians and those who elected them. And the accounting rules that don't count these future liabilities as "debts" are silly too. But still, the banks profited from the addictions of countries like Greece and Italy.
In related news, Mark Pittman, an investigative reporter, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in September 2008 with the Fed for details of the bank bailout. He was rebuffed - the Fed didn't even bother to answer. Mark Pittman died in November 2009. Unfortunately for would be conspiracy fans, there seems to be no conspiracy, which probably convinces them that there is one. :-)
Fortunately for the rest of us, Bloomberg News has taken up the mantle with a lawsuit, Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Last summer, District Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled in favor of Bloomberg, but the ruling was appealed by a consortium of banks to protect “the substantial interests of its members in confidential information that they provided to the Federal Reserve.” They argue that if people knew which banks were taking loans from the Fed, there could be a run on the bank, or that it's reputation would be damaged. Yeah, sure, banks are held in such high regard, it would be terrible if they were stigmatized. The Fed did bring up one interesting argument:
"The Fed, meanwhile, has worried that if the appeals court rules for Bloomberg, then savvy traders could quickly get their hands on such data in the future and use it to their advantage even as the government was trying to stabilize the markets."People everywhere are very skeptical of the bank bailout. No need for me to cite any links even for that one. It seems to have saved greedy institutions who took huge risks in order to make huge bonus payouts. I'm no wild-eyed socialist or populist, and I believe that those who truly create something useful for society deserve ample compensation, but I find it hard to believe that bankers truly create all that much. I usually disagree with Paul Krugman, but I completely agree with him that banking should be boring.
If the bailout were truly needed, and did save banks and the American (and world) economy from a disastrous collapse, one would think that The Fed would want us to know the facts. Ex-President Bush, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President Obama et. al. would want us to know. Because it would make them look good, proving that they were rapid responders who risked public disapproval to save the economy, and they are not dupes nor tools of Wall Street. Since they haven't provided these facts, I conclude that the bailout was a scam or a panic.
Perhaps there will soon be a book with hard facts about the bailout. Anybody know of one? From what most can see, it rewarded bad behavior, and the banks are going back to the same bad habits, with no shame or remorse. Not sure what anybody can really do about it. For my extremely small part, Tim Geithner went to my Alma mater, Dartmouth College. This year they will get no alumni donation from me. Take that!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
A Followup on the Rachel Maddow Post
Today's (Feb 10th) San Francisco Chronicle has a front page article about the upcoming Heath Care Summit. The second paragraph is
Sorry for harping on Rachel Maddow. She's one of the liberal commentators (along with Alan Colmes and Thom Hartmann) that I generally respect and enjoy. There's a lot of raving nuts on the left and the right, so I enjoy finding commentators that are logical and reasonable and willing to have intelligent debates and discussions.
Here is the transcript from the Maddow show.
BTW, she also claimed that it's "in the bill" to accept the republican idea of allowing insurance to be bought across state lines. She stretches the truth here too. Here's an MSNBC (hardly a right-wing group) analysis of the complexities. In any case, the bill does not mandate allowing sales across state lines, it just allows states to consider it.
Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House pressroom and compared his hopes for the summit with the give-and-take of marriage. He said he is willing to consider medical malpractice reform, a key GOP demand, but said bipartisanship doesn't mean Democrats abandon everything they believe in.More proof that Rachel Maddow was wrong stating that tort reform was "in the bill". If it were already "in the bill", President Obama wouldn't be making a key and important point that he is willing to consider tort reform as part of a bipartisan compromise.
Sorry for harping on Rachel Maddow. She's one of the liberal commentators (along with Alan Colmes and Thom Hartmann) that I generally respect and enjoy. There's a lot of raving nuts on the left and the right, so I enjoy finding commentators that are logical and reasonable and willing to have intelligent debates and discussions.
Here is the transcript from the Maddow show.
BTW, she also claimed that it's "in the bill" to accept the republican idea of allowing insurance to be bought across state lines. She stretches the truth here too. Here's an MSNBC (hardly a right-wing group) analysis of the complexities. In any case, the bill does not mandate allowing sales across state lines, it just allows states to consider it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Rachel Maddow lies straight to your face
I caught glimpses of tonight's (Feb 9 2010) Rachel Maddow Show. One part was her interviewing Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), about health care reform. While he continually tried to extend an olive branch to Republicans, repeatedly saying that they had some good ideas and quoting some specifically (his bill, is bipartisan, co-sponsored by a republican) , her response was to repeatedly ignore his comments and bash Republicans for obstructionism. It was comical and Wyden looked flustered, though he gamely smiled through it all. Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the video. Anyway, we aren't going to reach any compromise / bi-partisanship by watching MSNBC (and maybe not by Fox either).
In a followup segment, Maddow blasted Republicans for complaining about wanting things in the health care reform bill that were already "in the bill". Implying that they were hypocritical obstructionists. She said "in the bill" slowly and loudly, so it must be true.
But, in the one example I saw, (there were a few I missed) she lied straight to your face. Republicans are well known for wanting medical malpractice reform, i.e. tort reform. This may bring down the cost of doing medicine and lower fees. She said it was "in the bill". She then paraphrased the bill. You could see on screen that the actual text was different, but her paraphrase was essentially correct.
Even if the "Sense of the Senate" were a legally binding statute, what does it call for? The "world's greatest deliberative body" passes the buck. It calls for states to develop the actual plans. With, from what I saw, no time-line, no definitions, no nothing. A burger flipper has more structure and guidance than that. If this is all it takes to accomplish tort reform , health care reform would be easy. Pass a bill saying that the "Sense of the Senate" is that "states should develop new ways to deal with health care reform." Declare victory and withdraw.
By any possible analysis this bill does not include tort reform and Rachel Maddow knows it. But she'd prefer to lie straight to your face, not even bothering to present any facts that support her case. In fact, she presents facts that directly contradict her claim.
.
In a followup segment, Maddow blasted Republicans for complaining about wanting things in the health care reform bill that were already "in the bill". Implying that they were hypocritical obstructionists. She said "in the bill" slowly and loudly, so it must be true.
But, in the one example I saw, (there were a few I missed) she lied straight to your face. Republicans are well known for wanting medical malpractice reform, i.e. tort reform. This may bring down the cost of doing medicine and lower fees. She said it was "in the bill". She then paraphrased the bill. You could see on screen that the actual text was different, but her paraphrase was essentially correct.
It was the "Sense of the Senate" that it "calls upon individual states to develop new ways to deal with malpractice lawsuits"There is absolutely no way that this represents tort reform. First of all, the "Sense of the Senate" is meaningless. It takes 10 seconds of Googling to learn that this is not a statute or regulation. It is an opinion, it is "we would like this to happen please". Actually, it's probably more like "we are claiming that we would like this to happen because it sounds good, but we really don't because then the Trial Lawyers will stop giving us money". It's probably also the "Sense of the Senate" that the deficit should go down, the Dow should hit 20,000 by the end of this year, and there should be a chicken in every pot. Doesn't mean doodly.
Even if the "Sense of the Senate" were a legally binding statute, what does it call for? The "world's greatest deliberative body" passes the buck. It calls for states to develop the actual plans. With, from what I saw, no time-line, no definitions, no nothing. A burger flipper has more structure and guidance than that. If this is all it takes to accomplish tort reform , health care reform would be easy. Pass a bill saying that the "Sense of the Senate" is that "states should develop new ways to deal with health care reform." Declare victory and withdraw.
By any possible analysis this bill does not include tort reform and Rachel Maddow knows it. But she'd prefer to lie straight to your face, not even bothering to present any facts that support her case. In fact, she presents facts that directly contradict her claim.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
