Jon Stewart does Glenn Beck

This is truly hilarious, esp. if you've ever seen Glenn Beck. Enjoy.

Climate Change

Yesterday was Blog Action Day--ok, I missed it by a few hours, so sue me. More than 13,000 blogs from 155 countries participated, reaching over 17 million readers. That's impressive. What will be even more impressive is if we actually do something. Lots of interesting articles and suggestions were posted, I just hope the "average Joe" can actually make the lifestyle changes that could truly help mitigate the problem. One blogger wrote that we can reduce carbon emissions 70% by doing 2 things: 1. Buy Green Power (click here for a map to see if your utility offers it) and 2. Stop eating meat (or at least reduce your meat consumption).

Another blogger (at the Nature Conservancy) suggested that a big change could be in energy conservation, something many of us recall from the 70's. Small changes can be: a) don't print; read everything online. b) If available, use public transportation instead of driving. c) recycle & buy recycled d) plant native trees, shrubs and fruits e) compost instead of trashing vegatable waste f) buy locally grown food whenever possible g) keep car tires fully inflated. Daily Blog Tips added: 1) recognize that we do have a problem & should do something about it 2) buy energy-efficient products whenever possible.

Big changes should be made, but small ones on our part can certainly have an affect--and show business & govt the intent of the people. The "world" is meeting in Copenhagen in Dec; go here and, in the upper right, tell 'em you're ready.

If the US Healthcare System is so Great...

...why are 47 million people not covered?

Who comes between you and your doctor? Answer: Your Insurance Company.

Can the US Govt do a better job with healthcare? They didn't do too bad with Medicare.

We protested the Detroit auto executives flying corporate jets to ask for a loan; what protests do we hear about this obscene pay structure for insurance CEO's?

Just the Facts on Healthcare

When you hear the folks on Fox News and others cite The Lewin Group as a source, realize that this is a subsidiary of UnitedHealthCare, one of the biggest healthcare companies in the world. It is not an unbiased source (as they falsely claim).



If you're against "socialized" medicine, then you're against Medicare & Medicaid and the VA system. Tell that to your retired parent or military vet. We have socialized education and police/fire departments. I guess we should eliminate those too. After all, the dumber the population, the more demogogues can run the country--and no police force to stop 'em.

If you're against the "public option", know what it means--you get to opt in if you want. It's simply one of many options, most of which are still private. This is the gist of the possible legislation being discussed in Congress. So, why don't we take the 20% overhead costs insurance companies now stick us with (besides telling us and our doctors how to care for us) and put those savings into the public option? And, btw, have this option run by a non-profit--the way insurance used to be.

Most countries on the planet have universal healthcare--and it works. So, if the US can't do it, doesn't that say the US a) isn't as good as other countries b) doesn't care about its workers c) doesn't care about businesses staying in the US.

Did you know that, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, treaties become the law of the land. In several US treaties, the right to healthcare has been among them. Go to http://www.righttohealthcare.org/index.htm for more info. So, in essence, it's already a right which we are being denied.

Physicians for Healthcare Change

450,000 Doctors are signed on to improve healthcare; 6 senators may be derailing it. Click the header to see a video from healhealthcarenow. Then call and email the infamous six who are listed in this article. I'd much rather have a non-profit running my healthcare than any of the existing insurance companies.

Check out Bernie Sanders' healthcare comments at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgERFqZglw.

10 Outrageous Claims About Climate Change

10 Outrageous Claims (from Environmental Defense Fund):

10) "Wake up, America. There hasn't been any global warming, which is what we heard over and over and over again – there hasn't been any global warming for 10 years." – Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA)
No warming for 10 years? Well, not exactly true. 1998 was the 2nd hottest year on record while 2008 was only the 8th hottest. So, if you only look at those two years, you might assume there hasn't been any warming. But, 2005 was the hottest year on record and the warmest decade on record is 1998 through 2008. The trends are clear. The planet is warming. Period.
9) "You want to talk about a massive new welfare program for energy? It's in here too… It's a whole new welfare program for energy." – Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
If you want to talk welfare, what about the hundreds of billions the oil, gas and coal industries have received in subsidies and tax breaks over the years?
8) "God has put us on this Earth as responsible stewards of these resources, and we ought to use them responsibly. This bill does not do it. In fact, it does nothing good. The only meaningful thing that it might do is provide a relatively meaningless photo op for our President in December in Copenhagen as he stands to brag about what America has done while the leaders of India and China laugh at us behind his back." – Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
We look forward to working with Rep. Conaway to strengthen this bill and to fight for the strongest possible international global warming treaty later this year.
7) "Energy producing states like Oklahoma will be economically punished and devastated." – Rep Tom Cole (R-OK)
Rep. Cole should have a look at climate models showing that Oklahoma could spend nearly the entire summer with 100+ temperatures by the end of the century. Talk about devastating.
6) "We should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff." – Rep. Doc Hasting (R-WA)
That's an interesting point given that the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world that never ratified the Kyoto global warming treaty and that much of Europe is operating under a carbon cap right now.
5) "[For some, this bill is an] economic death sentence." – Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
As opposed to the current economy in which we are held hostage by our reliance on foreign oil and in which only last summer we saw gas prices exceed $4/gallon.
4) "The whole point of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels, or 85 percent of the energy we consume, more expensive." – Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
No, the point of this bill is to cap global warming pollution, put Americans back to work building out our clean energy future, and free us from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
3) "Do you want to throw away the economic prosperity for nothing, because that's what this bill does. And for what, to satisfy the twisted desires of radical environmentalists." – Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
With millions of Americans out of work and the economy in recession, it might not be the best time to talk about "throwing away our economic prosperity" or to support the status quo.
2) "[This will bring us back to] hunting and gathering." – Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Yeah, when we look at solar panels, hybrids and windmills, that's exactly what comes to mind – hunting and gathering societies.
1) "The idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax… We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax!" – Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
A global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists taking tens of thousands of measurements on everything ranging from ice core samples to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to sea level rise, hundreds of governments around the world working to address global warming pollution, dozens of science academies that have endorsed the reality of global warming and urged action, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world who have joined the movement to promote global warming action.
And, we're all coordinating our activities to push this hoax because…?

Who Really Benefits from Tax Cuts?

"While campaigning for Harry Truman in 1948, [Ronald] Reagan attacked corporate greed, defended the common man, and lambasted the Republican Congress for tax cuts that he charged were skewed toward the wealthy." 1

In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips discusses the inequality enjoyed by the uberwealthy. "As aggravating as Phillips finds this 'morphing of politics into a marketplace,' he is more concerned that the corporate elite makes most of its money off finance, tax avoidance and shifty speculation, adding little to the true wealth of the nation. 'Market theology and unelected leadership,' he concludes, 'have been displacing politics and elections. Either democracy must be renewed, with politics brought back to life, or wealth is likely to cement a new and less democratic regime -- plutocracy by some other name." 2

A little history lesson about US Taxation & Tax Rates: 3

1. During Colonial Times, most of the Federal Govt's tax revenue came from tarifs, excise taxes, and custom duties. States taxed using a variety of methods: import/export taxes, property taxes and "head" taxes.
2. In the Post Revolutionary Era, the new govt had few responsibilities & no nationwide tax. States could levy taxes as they pleased. By 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no govt could function if it relied solely on other governments for its resources. The Constitution included the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The collection of taxes was the responsibility of the states. Thus, Congress levied excise taxes on liquor, tobacco, sugar, carriages, etc. to pay for the war.
3. From 1817 until the Civil War, Congress imposed no internal revenue, relying instead on high customs duties & the sale of public land.
4. When the Civil War erupted, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861. This was a combination excise tax and a tax on personal income (3% of all incomes higher than $800/yr.). A year later, due to high war costs, they added more items to the excise tax & set up a two-tiered tax rate: Incomes up to $10,000 were taxed at 3% and higher incomes at 5%. A $600 standard deduction as well as a few other deductions were also added. For the first time, taxes were deducted at the source--by employers. After the war, most taxes were repealed. From 1868-1913, nearly 90% of all revenue was collected from excise taxes.
5. 1913 & the 16th Amendment. Congress passed an excise tax on business income and 36 states ratified the Amendment to allow the Feds to impose taxes on individuals' income. Rates were progressive, from 1-7%, the highest being for incomes in excess of $500,000. (Note: less than 1% of the population paid income taxes at this time).
6. WWW1 & the 1920's caused a need for more money. The tax rate in 1918 went to 6-77%, the highest for taxpayers earning over $1.5 million (Note: 5% of the population paid income taxes). During the booming 20's, tax rates fell back down, with the highest income earners down to 25%.
7. The Great Depression saw federal revenue drop from $6.6 billion to $2.7 billion, so Congress passed the Tax Act of 1932, dramatically increasing tax rates again. Another tax increase in 1936 saw the lowest tax rate at 4% and the highest at 79%. The Social Security Act in 1935 was financed by a 2% tax (1/2 from a worker's paycheck, the other 1/2 from employers on behalf of their employees).
8. WWW2 saw the need for big defense spending & support of anti-axis programs; the bottom $500 income earners now faced a tax rate of 23% while incomes over $1 million paid 94% tax rates. (Note: 4 million paid taxes in 1939; 43 million did so in 1945).
9. Post WW2: the maximum tax rate in 1954 remained at 87% of taxable income. The economy remained subject to frequent boom and bust cycles, so policy makers continued a pattern of raising & lowering taxes and adjusting aggregate demand thru spending.
10. The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 offered a 25% reduction in individual tax brackets, with the top tax rate at 50%. Businesses also enjoyed a tax depreciation change as well as a 10% investment tax credit. The new theory was that by reducing marginal tax rates, businesses would put more money into new opportunities instead of pocketing the profits. The other change was that of shifting away from income taxation and toward taxing consumption. The Federal Reserve altered monetary policy and the economy fell into a deep recession in 1982 and produced high budget deficits. In 1984, some of the cuts were pared back, esp. on the business side.
11. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 tried to simplify the tax system but resulted in a downturn in the economy and played a significant role in the collapse of the Savings & Loan industry. The top individual tax rate was now 28% and taxes once again shifted back to income taxation. From 1986-1990, high levels of govt spending with their resulting deficits created higher pressures to increase taxes. In 1990, the top tax rate shifted up to 31%; in 1993 it rose to 36% w/a 10% surcharge (thus the real rate was 39.6%).
12. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided a modest tax cut by offering a tax cut for certain families with children. It was the first tax change that provided refundable credits. The system also shifted back to consumption taxes. Despite higher tax rates in the 90's, the economy performed strongly.
13. Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 halted the $281 billion budget surplus, with a tax rate drop back to 33%. The tax cut was almost devoid of business tax provisions and continued the move toward a consumption tax. In 2004, 60% of the tax cuts went to the top 20% of income earners and over 25% going to the top 1% of income earners. 4
14. The 2009 Economic Stimulus Bill introduced the biggest tax cut ever: $282 billion over 2 years. These are short term refunds paid to working and middle class families. Remember, in 2007, the average American household paid $22,100 in federal taxes; in 1965, after adjusting for inflation, the average was $10,800.

The current tax code contains over 5.6 million words--seven times as many words as the Bible. 5 Talk has occured for years that the code should be simplified by a flat tax rate, where, for instance, everyone pays 19%--everyone, rich, poor, middle class. A progressive flat tax might be more fair because I believe this simply isn't enough to cover the deficits which the last administration saddled us with. The rich can afford to pay taxes; the poor cannot.

Economist Paul Krugman wrote an article last month about the Reagan years. He points out that the rich got richer, working families saw meager gains, and for the first time during a non-war period, the govt went on a spending spree. The S&L crisis, fueled by deregulation, ended up costing taxpayers over $130 billion--that was when this was a lot of money. New Deal restrictions were eliminated, fueling increased debt by Americans. This explosion of debt made the US economy weak. Who benefits? I guess it must be the financial institutions. If you recall, George & Jeb Bush owned a Colorado S&L back in the 80's which we bailed out; Tim Geitner was president of the NY Federal Reserve, which probably means close ties to Wall Street, which we've bailed out. Go figure.


Sources:
1. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/5/8/0/p65800_index.html
2. SF Chronicle book review by Theodore Roszak, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/02/RV207386.DTL.
3. http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
4. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016863.php
5. http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17442454.html
6. http://www.sodahead.com/blog/85527/reagan-did-it/

Healthcare Reform Brought to it's Knees--By Democrats?!?

In today's NYT, Paul Krugman berates "centrist" Democrats who are fighting healthcare reform, particularly the public option, despite the fact that public option has overwhelming support of the American public. 1

Examples:

1. Sen. Ben Nelson (NB) initially declared public option "dead". Why? Because then private insurers couldn't compete. Duh. Are we protecting American citizens or insurance companies?
   
2. Sen. Kent Conrad (ND) says we can't get a public option because no Republicans will go for it. Guess what? No Republicans went for Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. They have a nearly perfect track record of voting against any sort of national healthcare since the 1930's. 2
   

Could it be that special interest lobbying (by healthcare companies) has been part of the problem? FiveThirtyEight.com 3 has some interesting statistics of which this graph is one:

Senate rankings and PAC money taken:

The Republican response to healthcare? From USA Today:

The GOP plan relies on...replacing the current unlimited exemption from taxes of
employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit of $5,700 for a family,
or $2,300 for an individual, that people get regardless of whether their health
coverage comes through an employer. The idea is to introduce market forces
into health care to hold down costs that are soaring unsustainably. Here's how
it would work: The government would essentially pay for the first $5,700 in
coverage for a family through the credit, and the family would pay the rest out
of pocket. With the average family plan costing $12,700 now, that is a major cost. An employer could contribute, but with workers having to pay tax on the benefit, the employer might as well convert it to pay. The upside is that having Americans pay for more of their medical needs with their own money would give people incentive to shop around when looking for insurance or having procedures done, putting
pressure on providers to control costs. The downside is that millions of people who are now covered through their employers could be left on their own. 4

I'll say. What a great deal for companies! They're the only ones who benefit. So, suddenly millions of American workers will no longer have health care, along with the 44+ million who currently don't have any. This is an improvement? What are they smoking?!?! And forget about pre-existing conditions; I could shop 'til I drop and still be unable to find any insurer who would cover me for breast cancer. And if I had had to pay for my previous care, I too would be in foreclosure and homeless....

Sources:

1. See NYT/CBS poll at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?fta=y

2. NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22krugman.html

3. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html

4. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/05/on-health-care-republicans-move-beyond-just-say-no.html

Thoreau's Legacy

A new interactive book is available (http://www.ucsusa.org/americanstories/) containing real person accounts regarding climate change. The TOC includes Open Spaces, Tales from Urban America, Faith and Convictions, etc. It's a joint project by the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) & Penguin Books. The House of Representatives is voting this week on a bill that could start to set us on the right path, so be sure to call your rep today!

Healthcare Options

Why do Americans think universal healthcare leads to socialism? Is universal health care part of the Communist Manifesto and, if so, is that a bad thing? Is healthcare a Right or a Privilege to the rich? Should healthcare be a profit-run industry or non-profit?

Have Americans been sold a bill of goods? During the last 50 years, Americans have been educated (re-educated?) to abhor socialism, marxism, liberalism--pretty much all "isms". We learned to crouch under our school desks in case of a nuclear attack, to "just say no", to learn the color-coded alert system for terrorism. In the meantime, we lost sight of the real issues surrounding our lives: the environment, energy, good-paying jobs, election finance reform, corporate monopolies, healthcare, education. We allowed companies & municipalities to pollute, did very little to change our use of fossil fuels, and did nothing about the last 5 in the above list. Americans have been "dumbed down." (For an interesting study on declining schooling, go to YourDictionary.com.)

According to Online Journal, "...people who read to begin with, newspapers in particular, are already higher on the intelligence chart, because they’re looking for information, i.e., the truth in print, a proactive not passive medium. As newspapers dumb down the truth, they may gain a transitory readership. In the long run, though, it’s the kiss of death. Many of those kinds of readers will abandon them at some point for something even dumber."

But I digress. I just read The Communist Manifesto and I didn't find any mention of national healthcare. This document talks about the abolition of private property and about free education for all children in public schools. But nothing about healthcare.

Is healthcare a Right or a Privilege? If you read the Constitution, you won't find anything about health care in it. Until you get to the 8th Amendment, where, as part of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, the Supreme Court affirmed that POWs were guaranteed a right to health care. Currently, prisoners are the only group specifically granted a right to health care. So, should it be a privilege to only those who can buy it? An interesting point on this was made by Laura Knoy of NHPR:


"Here at home, medical statistics have shown that degraded diet, water, and air quality are responsible for billions of dollars in AVOIDABLE health care costs. That degradation has happened largely without citizen involvement in the decisions that brought it about."

200 years ago, most Americans lived shorter lives, rarely saw a doctor, and, when they did, could often barter for the treatment. Fast-forward to today and you see that, were the Founding Fathers around, they'd be aghast. We have a government run highway system, a government run education system, but we can't keep our family healthy in order to get
to school? Now, universal healthcare doesn't have to be government run. It could be run by a non-profit organization, for example. Why should we pay insurance companies
over 30% admin costs while Medicare does the same on 3%? I believe it's France where
doctors are paid a bonus to keep their patients well. What an idea!

So, instead of thinking of this as a Right vs. a Privilege, how about looking at it from a cost analysis position?


1. The U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation (and health care costs continue to soar): $2.4 trillion dollars (18 percent of our GDP).
2. More than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses
because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This impacts where they
work & their capacity for spending.
3. The average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care.
4. General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel
5. Despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations.
6. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians.
7. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent.
8. CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.
9. Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world.
10. In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.
11. Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

I've heard all sorts of ideas, of which these are the latest:

1. The Single-payer option. According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP),"Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains
largely private."
2. The Public Option. A government run health care program. This could mean extending Medicare to the under-65 crowd. A new study by the Commonwealth Fund reports that Medicare recipients are more satisfied with their coverage, have better access, and fewer problems paying their bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans.
3. Member-run Health Cooperatives. According to Bloomberg news, "It would allow non-profits to negotiate directly with health-care providers for low-cost rates. The plans they offer would be sold, like private plans, through Internet-based exchanges where consumers could buy insurance at lower-cost, group rates....the cooperatives could be chartered by either the federal government or the states, and that they could receive federal seed money."


Sources:
1. YDC, YourDictionary.com on grade level declines since 1858.
2. PNHP on Single-Payer Options.
3. Clark & Amiot, The impact of the Reagan Administration on Federal Education
Policy.
4. Online Journal, http://onlinejournal.com
5. Bernie Sanders at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/health-care-is-a-right-no_b_212770.html.
6. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
7. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/US_healthcare/Executive_Summary.asp

8. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2009/May/Meeting-Enrollees-Needs.aspx

An Inconvenient House

In March, 2007, the big news story was that Al Gore, famous for travelling the world preaching environmentalism and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, himself owned one of the least energy-efficient homes in Nashville. What was not reported was the fact that it was under renovations at the time and, by Dec. of the same year, had a LEED-rated Gold house (see US Green Building Rates). He installed solar panels, a rain-water collection system, and geothermal heating. His 80-year old home is now one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

So what's YOUR environmental footprint?

Sure, you don't have Al's millions, but what have you done to try to reduce, reuse & recycle? Energy conservation is the fastest way to reduce waste. Some examples:

1. If every American reduced the amount of animal products eaten by half, we'd use 645 million fewer global acres.
2. If every American reduced their purchasing to products with less packaging or were made from 100% post consumer content, we'd use 521 million fewer global acres.
3. If every American took a local vacation instead of flying, we'd use 63 million fewer global acres.
4. If every American used less paper, it could reduce landfill waste by 30-40%.

"Making your ecological footprint smaller can also be greatly assisted by the three R's: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Try to reduce the amount of resources you use by purchasing items with minimal packaging, and avoiding products you do not use. Reuse empty containers, take advantage of thrift stores, and find creative ways to bring new life to old belongings. Finally, recycle unwanted items, either in curbside recycling or in the form of donations to thrift stores.

To reduce your ecological footprint even further, think about more extreme lifestyle changes. Live in a smaller house, or share the space in your house with more people. Change your diet: animal products are far less efficient than plant products and require far more energy to produce. Fly less; commercial airplanes are a huge source of carbon emissions damaging our environment. Start growing a garden, and encourage others to do the same."1

Food Suggestions:

Eat less beef, pork, and lamb
Eat out at restaurants less often
Eat fewer dairy products
Drink fewer soft drinks
Eat seasonal and local fruits and vegetables
Eat fewer packaged snacks and junk food
Upgrade to an energy efficient refrigerator
Eat wild fish that are not endangered
Drink less bottled water
Walk to your local farmers market or grocery store

2


Sources:
1. http://www.wisegeek.com/how-can-i-reduce-my-ecological-footprint.htm
2. http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/06/10-ways-to-reduce-your-environmental-footprint-through-food-choices/

Mistruth & Misinformation

Can you really believe what you see with your own eyes? Apparently not.



And this:

Health Insurance & History

We should learn from history, but do we? Do we listen to possible misinformation from a select number of sources, or do we actively seek knowledge? Do we really try to understand, or refuse to change once forming an opinion?


Take the issue of universal health care in America. Did you know:

1. American health insurance, until the last couple of decades, used to be non-profit?
2. Around 1920, the chief cost associated with illness was not the cost of medical care, but the loss of time from work
3. Compulsory, nationalized health insurance, first proposed in the 1920's, failed mostly because of opposition by commercial insurance companies, pharmacists, and physicians.
4. Medical costs in the US began to rise significantly due to stricter requirements, licensing, and medical education--proposed by the AMA and ACS. Stricter requirements caused fewer schools to meet those requirements and restricted physician supply.
5. Medical expenses from hospitalization increased dramatically, so that, by 1934 they had risen to nearly 40% of a family's medical bill.
6. Blue Cross was the first pre-paid insurance plan for hospital care, founded by a group of Dallas teachers and Baylor University Hospital.
7. Physicians, alarmed that Blue Cross would move into the area of physician services, created a series of plans that finally merged into Blue Shield; they could retain their power to price discriminate by charging different prices to different patients.
8. Commercial companies saw that the non-profits were working and jumped on the bandwagon; since they weren't non-profit, they could charge sicker people higher premiums and healthy people lower premiums. They undercut the non-profits and grew swiftly.
9. In 1942, Congress limited wage increases in the Stabilization Act, but permitted the adoption of employer-provided insurance plans. Two major rulings reinforced this type of system in 1945 & 1949.
10. In 1958, nearly 75% of Americans had some form of private health insurance coverage.
11. Between 2001 & 2003, the percent of employers offering health insurance fell from 67% to 63%.
12. The drop in retiree benefits has gone from 70% in 1985 to 36% in 2000.
13. In percentage of one-year-old children fully immunized against polio, we are number seventeen.
14. There are lower rates of low birth weight babies born in Egypt and Jordan than here at home.

The AMA has consistently opposed any form of national health care, suggesting that such proposals were socialistic, would interfere with physician income, and affect the doctor-patient relationship. It fought against proposals in 1935 (under the Social Security Act) & helped defeat the Murray-Wagner-Dingell Bill in 1949 (which would have provided health insurance to all Americans). To help defeat the latter, they charged every physician who was a member $25 for their lobbying efforts!

It would not be until 1965 that Medicare was passed, a program automatically enrolling anyone 65 and over (Part A) & subsidized insurance for physicians services (Part B). Medicaid was enacted to provide medical resources for the indigent. Until 1983, Medicare reimbursements were done by what was "usual and customary." This changed to a set fee schedule by the government. Medicaid expenditures remained fairly constant until eligibility requirements were changed in the 1990's.

The US spends 16% of its gross domestic product on health care, but more than 46 million people are without coverage (at a time when only two other countries, Switzerland and Germany, put out more than 10 percent). 1 in 4 Americans have trouble paying for medical care. The US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but is ranked 37th in a WHO report (France ranked #1).

Averaging over the first years of the new millennium, the United States spends circa $5,200 per person on healthcare. Canada $2,900; Germany $2,800; Switzerland $2,600; Britain $2,200. Yet, each of them boasts of a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and better U5MRs than we. All have a national healthcare service that covers all their people.

The United States has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 residents compared with 3.7 beds/1,000 in the average OECD nation; 2.4 physicians per 1,000 people compared to 3.1/1,000; 7.9 nurses/1,000 compared to 8.9/1,000 among the others. The U.S. has 12.9 CT scanners per one million population compared with 13.3 elsewhere in the developed world. We do have more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines than the other OECD nations listed, but ours are only in use ten hours daily, compared to fourteen in the others.

A common misconception among Americans is that European systems are similar to each other but vastly different from the US. They are all different. "In fact, the Americans and the French both distrust “socialized medicine.” Both peoples cherish patient choice, independent physicians, medical practice freedoms, and private insurers in a qualitatively different way than the Canadians, the British, and many others." 2

"The European countries' systems are actually all very different, and they're not all single-payer models," Stoll says. (Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy at Families USA)

"It isn't just European countries, however, that have employed diverse methods for financing universal healthcare. In addition to the U.K., Canada, Japan and Taiwan also have opted for single-payer systems. Australia joins Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland on a list of countries that have adopted a multipayer approach to funding universal healthcare.

"Under single-payer models, taxpayers and employers pay into a national healthcare fund, and money from that fund is used to pay for every citizen's primary care, hospitalization and, in most cases, prescriptions. The fund compensates medical providers and hospitals and pays for medical technology, including, typically, a shared electronic health-record database. Coverage may or may not require patient copayments.

Pluralistic or multipayer models use a mixture of private and public funds to create a system that guarantees coverage to all citizens. Employers have the option to provide free or subsidized coverage for their workers or pay into a government healthcare fund that will provide free or subsidized coverage. Tax dollars are also used to create or subsidize insurance plans for workers who are not covered by their employers. Those workers as well as self-employed citizens can select and buy into affordable plans, while low-income or unemployed residents receive subsidized or free coverage similar to the way Medicaid operates in the U.S.

Healthcare policy analysts interviewed by Modern Healthcare mostly agreed that a single-payer system would be a more challenging approach to universal healthcare in the U.S. given the entrenched nature of for-profit insurance companies and the existence of a well-established and complex multipayer system. What's more, the U.S.' population is more than 4.5 times the size of Germany, the next most-populated nation examined in the Commonwealth Fund's report, so system size alone will have a great bearing on the effectiveness of a financing approach. But experts say there are lessons to be gleaned about price controls, care coordination and quality-improvement mechanism from each approach." 6

Countries such as Switzerland & the Netherlands have established universal healthcare systems where 100% of citizens are covered by private insurance providers--debunking the idea that all healthcare must be government run. Citizens in these countries can choose between private & government-employed providers. In the Netherlands, employers pay 50% of monthly costs & employees 50%. Tax credits help citizens finance premiums & low-income citizens receive subsidies. Swiss citizens get tax & pension-fund subsidies; low-income citizens get additional subsidies.

Why does the US still not have universal health care? The one constant (besides antisocialist propaganda, a weak labor union, & racial politics) throughout all this is that powerful interest groups have used every weapon possible to fight it. For the first 1/2 of the 20th century it was physicians groups, allied with hospital administrators, large manufacturers, and insurers. By the 1970's, it was the insurance industry lobbying against national healthcare and controlling key Congressional committees.

• The former chief executive of HCA Inc. unveiled a $20 million campaign to pressure Democrats to enact health-care legislation based on free-market principles 7
• Health Care Industry Spent $445M on Federal Lobbying in 2007 8
  
• Since 2006, the health sector has spent more money on lobbying than any other sector of the economy 9
• Billy Tauzin, a Republican congressman from Louisiana and chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, played a key role in the passage of an industry-friendly Medicare prescription drug bill. His payoff was to trade his seat in Congress for the lucrative role of leadership of PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. 10
• Finance Committee Chair, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) was also key in brokering 2003 Medicare reform. Named "K Street's Favorite Democrat", perhaps it was a Freudian slip when Sen. Baucus explained, "Merck is not ready for single pay. I mean, America." (between 2003-2008 Baucus was the recipient of $588,185 from the insurance industry & $523,313 from the pharmaceutical/health product industry - in fact, the leading Democratic recipient of corporate largesse).11

Guess what healthcare benefits the 535 members of the U.S. Congress and the few hundred in the upper executive and judicial branches of government get?

• unlimited doctor office visits of your choosing
• covers all accidents, routine exams, physical therapy, labs and X-rays
• unlimited hospital visits and stays
• certain chronic care and rehab
• full prescription coverage
• unlimited specialty consultations.
• There are no deductibles, no co-pays, and only a $35 monthly fee taken from an annual salary of $158,000.
• For the employee and the entire family.
• full pension and continued coverage until their deaths

And who retired with a $1.6 billion option package at a time when more than 40 million Americans lack health insurance? CEO William McGuire from UnitedHealth Group.
Or who received an $83 million pension plan in 2008? CEO Hank McKinnell, Pfizer.

Sources:
1. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us
2. http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4724
3. One Nation, Uninsured, by Jill S. Quadagno, Oxford Univ Press, 2005, pg 202.
4. Practicing Medicine Without a License, Don Sloan, M.D., 2007.
5. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1481
6. Why over there isn't over here, Rhea, Shawn, Modern Healthcare; 3/31/2008, Vol. 38 Issue 13, p32-34.
7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561083268377547.html
8. http://www.healthfreedom.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=437&Itemid=
9. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/13/1313
10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/dems-repubs-on-health-car_b_179668.html

Is Nuclear the Bomb?

Once the price of oil started to affect the economy, the nuclear energy folks started seeing light at the end of the tunnel. "Hey," they pointed out,"why don't we switch from oil to nuclear? It's cheaper, safer, and keeps jobs in the good ole US of A." So, let's look at the nuclear option as an alternative. The graphic to the left shows the location of plants today. I'm sure this post misses some issues, so don't hesitate to let me know. I was surprised by what I found in my research already!

1. Costs ($ varies since some references are a few years old; figure higher)

• Stockpile of Potassium Iodide pills for the entire population (a drug capable of preventing radioactive iodine from lodging in the thyroid.)
• Transport or reprocessing of spent fuel rods--costs unknown, since the US has never reprocessed spent fuel rods.
• Building of nuclear plant itself--takes 7-12 years to build at a cost of $8 billion
  
• Operating Costs of plant have decreased but profits risen; includes cost to hire, train & manage employees (couldn't find this online but assuming 1600 employees averaging $40k= $64 million (and that's not including bonuses, high-paid CEO's, lobbyists & advertising).
  
• Decommissioning the plant--$300 million
• Mining, processing & transport of uranium. The price of uranium has jumped and the world currently produces about 100 million pounds a year. In order to supply new plants alone, we'd need 135 million pounds a year.
  
• Water usage--didn't think about this one, did you? All energy-generating stations require massive amounts of water; water is a valuable resource and costs money to pump in & out. Nuclear power currently uses the most.
• Enrichment facilities--just one of these, in Paducah, KY, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants. These plants emit a ton of carbon dioxide which is the gas responsible for much of our problems regarding climate change.
  

2. Safety

• The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) doesn't know--even today--how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island.
• At the time, the public was told there was no meltdown in the core; a large portion of the fuel did melt.
• The government promised meticulous studies on the health impact after the accident at TMI; in fact, the state of PA did it's best to hide data & the feds failed to track the health histories of residents. Why would we think differently today?
• Ongoing research by radiologist Dr. Ernest Sternglass & statistician Jay Gould indicates that releases of radiation far less than those at TMI would have catastrophic impacts on local populations
• Transport accidents can and will happen.
• Michigan's Fermi 2 just closed for a month because of vibrations
  

3. Job Creation

• Construction workers to build the plant--~2300, depending on size. Though this is questionable given the new modular building techniques--they could be shipped from China.
• Engineers to plan the project--and there's a shortage of these
• Employees on the job= ~800-1600/plant

4. Security

• A terrorist attack on any nuclear plant would be like the meltdown at Chernobyl.
• Imagine a terrorist attack while nuclear materials are in transport in a major city.

5. Waste

• Spent Fuel Rods--4 options for spent rods exist: transport, store, vitrify or reprocess. Chicago alone is sitting on 1000 tons of highly radioactive fuel from the scuttled Zion Nuclear Power Station. Spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are the most radioactive of all nuclear wastes. U-238 has a half-life of 4.6 billion years; the half-life of plutonium is about 24,000 years.
• Industry waste--paper, gloves, equipment, etc. that needs to be disposed. One problem: they're radioactive.

6. Transport
Transporting of construction equipment, employees, radioactive materials, spent rods, etc., has a myriad of costs, environmental, and safety issues. Just to build Yucca Mountain is estimated by the DOE at about $96 billion. Under the current administration's budget cuts, Yucca may be all but killed. So that means the expense of local containment or reprocessing.

(Data at left from USA Today, 3/30/09)

Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and other 'isms'

Over the past 8 years, if you paid any attention to the news and politics at all, you soon realized that the "response du jour" was "if anyone criticizes us, let's do a character assassination." Let's not show evidence of our actions, but attack the person who dares to question them. Some examples:

Joe Wilson (found no evidence of "yellowcake" from Niger which the admin. ignored)1
Valerie Plame (wife to Joe Wilson & a CIA operative, outed by Libby & Cheney) 2
Cindy Sheehan (populist protester villified by the right) 3
Dan Rather (for accusing bush of being a deserter) 4
Michael Moore (for going to Cuba even though journalists are allowed to) 5
Saddam Hussein (accused of WMD's & involvement in 9/11, none of which was true)6
Jimmy Carter (opposed to the Iraqi War) 7
Keith Olbermann (on just about any topic) 8

There are so many, the list seems endless. So now the tables are turned and the right-wing dominated media 9 is on the attack against liberals. Some examples:

• Hannity falsely asserted Dems "voted for those bonuses" while GOP did not
• Limbaugh defends AIG bonuses following attacks on "insane" UAW benefits
• Beck says it is "absolutely wrong" that AIG bonuses are "wildly unpopular"
• Limbaugh thinks it's "hilarious"that three "idiots" are about to die in the North Pole looking for evidence of climate change
• Savage claims the "radical left" including Obama, dreams of a "Maoist revolution" with "death camps" 10

The conservative media is accusing Obama, his administration, and anyone else in support of the administration, of "McCarthyism, socialism, ponzi-scheming, political grand-standing, and class warfare" to name just a few. 11 And horror of horrors, when actual clips are replayed later from these "talking heads" in the media, they freak out and attack those who replay their clips! Like Media Matters' president Eric Burns. 12 Heaven forbid someone airs their lies and misinformation! Now that the White House no longer replies to its critics with personal attacks, the media has apparently taken up the gauntlet.



Sources:
1. http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
2.http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
3. http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/politics/002059.php
4. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/19-2
5. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/27/subpoena-moore/
6. http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
7. abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2513387&page=1
8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/
9. http://media.eriposte.com/2-8.htm
10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzQR2nfMSI
11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPzQR2nfMSI
12. http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903190037?lid=951962&rid=24477954

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

As we send additional troops into Afghanistan (55,000 total), what will they do? When the US first went into this country, it was for the purpose of finding Osama bin Laden (responsible for 9/11) and for eliminating the extremist Taliban. The population is over 70% illiterate, over 60% of its children are born malnourished, and they provide about 90% of the world's opium. The country is a poor country with a mix of clans where rival militias vie for influence.

In Sept of 1994, Pakistan appointed the Taliban (Sunnis) to protect trade convoys. Two years later, the Taliban is strong enough to take over the city of Kabul & order a strict interpretation of Islamic rule. They also offer shelter to Osama bin Laden. After 9/11, the Taliban are scattered, but not eliminated. Many reside along the Afghan-Pakistan border and, once the US is distracted by the illegal Iraqi invasion, began to expand its influence again.

Many in the Taliban are trained in religious schools in Pakistan. A large part of their support comes from the Pashtun community (where most hail from) and because of early successes stamping out corruption in the country. Their biggest goal, however, was to set up the world's purest Islamic state. This meant banning television & music, forbidding girls from going to school or working, eliminating women's access to healthcare (in a country where a large percentage of healthcare workers were women) and reinstating public executions & amputations for crime control.

Despite this, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia continued to support the Taliban. After 9/11, they halted their official support. Additionally, Iran is suspected of helping the Taliban, though experts disagree on the amount of involvement.

You can check out a couple short videos about the situation in Afghanistan at YouTube. Frontline also did a series in 2006 (credit them with the photo on this post).



You can view Part 2 here:


Sources:
1. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html
2. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm
4. http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/
5. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/

Did you know?

It's Friday the 13th, one of my favorite days. Since Friday's are when politicians & certain news folks usually release the Big News of the day or week (so no one will see it because everyone has moved into weekend mode), let's do a recap.

Did you know...

1. That the US imported 339 million barrels of oil in Feb. '09, 62% of it from foreign countries, sending $13 billion overseas?
2. That the wealthiest Americans now have 35% tax rate (soon to be upped to 39.6%) while under Ronald Reagan they had 50%, under Nixon 70% and under Ike 91%?
3. That buildings in the US are responsible for 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions and 72% of all electricity use?
4. That Citigroup spent some of the $50 billion bailout money to organize big companies to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act (a bill that makes it easier for employees to form unions & bargain for higher wages)?
5. That the health care industry (insurance companies, etc.) has spent nearly $1 billion over the last 2 years just in lobbying?
6. That one in six homeowners will face foreclosure over the next 4 years?
7. That 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, or both were found in over 1/2 the samples tested for infant bubble bath & shampoo.
8. That coal plants are the single largest source of airborne mercury emissions in the world?
9. That US unemployment rose from 7.6 to 8.1% in February, with payrolls declining by 2.6 million in the past 4 months?
10. That over 1,180,207 hectares of arable land is lost due to soil erosion this year (the data keeps changing as the year progresses)?
11. That the US spent $2.4 trillion on health care (about $1928 per person) in 2006--that's 2.5 times more per person than any other developed country, yet the health of Americans lags behind those nations?

Sources:
1. The Pickens Plan at http://www.pickensplan.com/oilimports/.
2. The Washington Monthly, March 8, 2009.
3. Repower America, http://www.repoweramerica.org/plan/energy-efficiency/.
4. Credo Action via Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/12/citigroup-enters-union-fr_n_174106.html.
5. The Washington Post, March 8, 2009.
6. Credo Action, 3/10/09.
7. The Washington Post, 3/13/09.
8. Kansas Chapter Sierra Club, http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Coal-MercuryFactSheet.htm
9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
10. Worldometers, world statistics updated in real time, http://www.worldometers.info/.
11. Reported by AP from Business Roundtable, 3/14/09 (ok I cheated a few hours on this one).

Key Features of the Jobs (Stimulus) Bill

You can find information (including the actual bill) at recovery.gov. The above was posted (w/sources) by Daniel Mintz at moveon.org (click on the post title to go straight to the full article).

The Middle Class Task Force

Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/StrongMiddleClass/ to see what Joe Biden is doing on this task force. You can also submit ideas.

Two Santa Clauses and "Voodoo" Ecomomics

Thom Hartmann wrote an excellent article detailing the economic maneuvers by Republicans over the last 30 years (click title link to see full article). He takes us from supply-side theorist Jude Wanniski thru George W. Bush, and how his theories propelled the Republicans into office for 30 years. Some facts that should make you stop & think:

1. To promise tax cuts in order to get elected (15% maximum on the rich under Bush)
2. To focus on the capital gains tax (rich folks plow their extra money in stocks, not jobs)
3. To ignore federal budget deficits (it was under a trillion dollars in 1980, but almost 3 trillion by 1988)
4. To cut the power of labor unions (represented 25% of the workplace in 1980 to about 8% today)

According to Hartmann, "In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people."

Sources:
Thom Hartmann,Two Santa Clauses or How the Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

Who Watches the Watchmen?

So, what does the Warner Bros movie, coming out next month, have to do with politics? If you have Rorschach or Ozymandias on your butt, who do you go for protection? These DC Comics comic books took the comic world by storm around the early 90's. 10 years later, we all fell asleep while our fearless leaders played havoc with the Constitution. Don't repeat history. Start watching the "watchmen."

Track your Senator and House Rep votes, so you're better informed.

Jobs and More Jobs

The headlines have blared about it; the Senate and the White House phone lines have been jammed because of it. It's called a Stimulus Plan, but the common term should be a JOBS PLAN.



The way to improve the economy, as nearly every economist will tell you, is to sustain and create jobs. They'll also agree that "government spending is stimulative." 1 In January alone, over 1/2 million jobs were lost. That's 1/2 million folks now going on unemployment, facing foreclosure, and many without healthcare. This is not a bailout for big-salaried CEO's and, in fact, once the Jobs Bill is passed, you can go to a new Recovery website to see where your tax dollars are being spent.

The tax breaks (multi-millionaire Warren Buffett pays 18% while his receptionist pays 33% 2) over the last 8 years (and really, since the Reagan Administration) haven't worked for anyone except the rich.3 We're living proof of this. The rich have gotten richer, while the middle-class has eroded to a shadow of its former self. Trickle-down didn't work; it's time for trickle-up (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Do7L1yh-I for Obama's video on a strong middle class). If you give a rich person $1000, he'll pocket it. If you give a poor person $1000, he'll pay his bills. Which one stimulates the economy?

Does job creation stimulate the economy? History has already shown that it does (witness the Great Depression, where 3 Republican administrations ran the country into debt and reduced oversight and regulation until Wall St. & banks collapsed). It took a Democrat (Roosevelt) to clean up the mess. 4

Sources:
1. Media Matters at http://by119w.bay119.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=2062644410.
2. http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=111507_warren_buffett_asks_government_for_tax_rate_increase_for_the_rich.htm
3.Citizens for Tax Justice, Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts, http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
4. Timelines of the Great Depression, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Inauguration Faces More Than History

The swearing in of Barack Obama makes history as the first US black president. Winning the election with 53% of the vote and riding a hide tide of popularity (79%), he has already been working behind the scenes to make the transition as quickly as possible. 1

He faces a nightmare of problems: the continued and unpopular war in Iraq and Afghanistan, an economic depression, climate change, health care. He comes into office facing a record fiscal deficit--$455 billion for 2008, $1186 billion for 2009...in fact, the CBO's current report shows a continuing deficit through 2019. 2 In addition, the unemployment rate for December was the highest since before 1998. Payroll employment fell by over 1.9 million in the last 4 months of 2008. 3

Last year, 25 banks failed due to tumbling home prices, rising foreclosures, and tighter credit. That's more than in the previous 5 years combined. Two have failed this year already. 4

This year alone, more than $700 billion in corporate loans will come due. Many companies were hoping to borrow more money in order to move that debt further down the road. But the credit market has squeezed them out, just as they have consumers and homeowners. Even companies with strong credit ratings are paying about 5% more than the US govt to borrow money--double the premium they paid a year ago. 5

Where does this leave Obama? He'll have to work with a Congress that is upset with Wall Street for failing to show where the first $350 billion went (though most suspect it purchased other companies, shored up their own debt, and paid internal bonuses). If Wall Streeters fly their corporate jets to the next Congressional session, I hope he impounds them.


Sources:
1. Christian Science Monitor, http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/01/19/american-milestone-obama-inauguration-is-a-moment-of-celebration-reflection/.
2. Congressional Budget Office, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9957.
3. US Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
4. http://www.13wmaz.com/article/20090117/NEWS04/90117003/1013
5. International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/19/business/debt.1-410735.php.

The Power of Terror & Fear

In 2005, the BBC created a documentary called The Power of Nightmares (available on the web & in about 17 ten-minute segments on YouTube). It discusses how specific individuals in the US felt liberalism led to selfishness and social decay; thus neoconservatism was born. The role of politicians, according to these neoconservatives, should be to create myths for the people--nations battling against evil, for instance--thus giving rise to the use of fear as a tool to control the attitudes of people and shape the future. This goal was to lead not only to the rise of neoconservatism, but also of radical Islamism. A synopsis follows, but this should be required viewing across the country (click on this blog title to get started).

According to the film, the neoconservatives had to defeat Henry Kissinger (Sec. of State at the time) and the results of detente in the Nixon Administration. So they allied themselves with members of the Ford Administration. One of them was Donald Rumsfeld, who became Secretary of Defense; the other was Dick Cheney, the President's Chief of Staff. Despite lack of proof, Rumsfeld used his position to set up an inquiry (called Team B) that Russia was arming itself against the US. They began examining all the available data, but couldn't find anything. So, the team insisted that, because they couldn't find anything, the Soviets had such a sophisticated system that we couldn't detect it! At the same time, the CIA saw evidence of a Soviet collapse. Who was right?

Far be it for Team B to give up. They set up a PR group called the Committee of Present Danger and began airing tv ads. One of their members was Ronald Reagan. The neoconservatives targeted conservative members and their religion. They urged the religious right to engage in politics and the result was neoconservatives found a position in the Reagan Administration.

The neoconservatives continued to push for proof that the Soviet Union was behind all terror in the world. When William Casey became head of the CIA, he asked for a document to give to the President proving this. The CIA responded that they didn't have any, that any information found in such books as The Terror Network, was made up--by the CIA. Casey had made up his mind, so he found a University professor, described as a terror expert, who created a dossier that such a terror network did, in fact, exist. Thus Reagan signed a secret document in 1983 that changed American foreign policy. America would fight covert wars to push back the Soviet threat.

So, can you wonder that the US helped the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets? CIA agents trained the Muhadeen in terror attacks, including car bombings. In addition, Arabs were called to join the fight, hence combining a disparate group of jihadists & extremists for the first time. This was in 1985 and included Osama bin Laden and Zuwahari (the radical implicated in the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1979). These radicals started to believe that any politician or anyone participating in politics was setting themselves above the Koran and could legitimately be killed. Since America was the source of this corruption, it became the chief target.

In 1987, then Russian President Gorbachev decided to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and focus on the Soviet economy. Gorbachev asked the Americans for help negotiating a peace to create a stable Afghan govt, but hardliners in the US said "no." The future of that country would be with the "freedom fighters." Gorbachev warned the US that extremists would take over and not introduce democracy. His warning was ignored. Hence, both the US and the Muhadeen felt they were responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1989. The real reason the USSR collapsed was because it was a decrepit system.

Across the world, extreme Islamists rode to power. They believed the Koran was the absolute power; this could end democracy. In Algeria, elections were cancelled & the military stepped in to stop them. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned from political power. To the extremists, this was proof of western corruption. Bin Laden and others decided it was time to start their own jihad, to establish Islamist states through bullets and violence.

In the US, the neoconservatives felt they had brought down the Soviet Union. They felt other regimes had to be conquered as well, that America should always fight tyrants because they're going to come after us anyway. Saddam Hussein was one of their targets. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the US coalition went in to liberate that country. The neoconservatives wanted to push on into Iraq, but Bush senior, who didn't share their goals, felt the goal should be regional stability. Even Brent Snowcroft, the National Security advisor under Bush Sr, insisted that Hussein was not a threat. The neoconservatives were outraged.

The neocons dusted off their propaganda machine again, using religion for political uses. They called it the Culture Wars. The religious right were led to believe they were renewing and expanding their faith. The new campaign took over the Republican Party's policy making machine in 1992. Traditional conservatives were booed off the stage. Their tactics backfired: many voters were scared into voting for Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat. The neocons would do to Clinton what they'd done to the Soviets--transform him into a fantasy evil. They accused him of corruption (Whitewater), murder (Vince Foster's White House suicide), drug smuggling and alleged sexual harassment. None of them was true. It took an affair to bring an impeachment attempt (despite polls that most Americans didn't care).

During this time, the jihadists, who had thought the people would rise up and join them, were dismayed. Governments remained in power, so they decided that the people were also corrupt. By 1997, the Islamist revolution had failed because people were shocked by all the brutal attacks. At that point, the jihadists started to kill each other. In May 1998, the jihadist called a press conference and announced they would support anyone who fought Americans all over the world. If they struck the Americans, it would impress their own people. The neocons grabbed on this group and decided to influence Americans into believing they were a large and wide-spread threat.

The jihadists set up training camps in Afghanistan, though most of those who joined did so in order to fight their own governments. Meanwhile, in America, testimony by an alleged associate of Bin Laden, painted a picture of a group he called al-Qaeda as responsible for bombings around the world--a new myth. Then 19 hijackers attacked America.

The neocons immediately blamed al-Qaeda, led by Bin Laden. The attack brought the neocons back into power: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (mentioned earlier in the film) and others. Just as they'd done with the Soviet Union, they did with the network of evil--terrorism. Rumsfeld claimed Bin Laden was in Tora Bora (northern Afghanistan) in a sophisticated network of caves. Such caves were never found. The truth was that the small group of radical Islamists had already died or been captured. There was no organization of cells, sleeper cells, etc. The idea was what posed a threat.

The neocons continued to believe the myth and decided to look in America for terrorists. Local officials arrested many around the country in what was described as "sleeper cells." However, in all the cases they've brought since 9/11, the government has failed to prove any of them. This includes alleged threats in Britain. They failed to prove the fantasy that a network of terrorists existed all over the world. The next fantasy was the so called "dirty bomb." The government claimed terrorists had the capability to build one, an explosive that would spread radiation. However, experts (and even our own government) had already proved the effectiveness of "dirty bombs' was negligible.

Now that the neocons saw that the fear of terrorism was working with the American people, they then targeted Saddam Hussein. Despite the fact that Hussein banned al-Qaeda from Iraq and had no weapons of mass destruction, the government insisted otherwise and attacked.

The war on terror allowed governments to play on people's fear of the future. They embraced the "precautionary principle," the idea that governments should imagine what could happen in the worst case scenario and should plan accordingly. They could jail anyone for what they might do in the future. This went against human and legal rights. The affects are still being felt today.

Update: A Jan. 19, 2009 article, RussiaToday documents the 8 years of Bush.