Watching the Democratic Implosion
Speaking as one who was a moderate, Northeastern member of the Republican party (generally referred to in abusive terms as a “RINO” by the party faithful) for many years, I find that I can definitely relate to the Blue Dog Democrats these days. It’s not easy when you decide to eschew the most radical, fringe ideas of your party and attempt to reach across the aisle and work with “the enemy.” That was hammered home again today when I read about Rep. Pete Stark, (D-Calif) who decided to call the Blue Dogs “brain dead” and accuse them of all manner of sins.
A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who’ve pushed for changes in health care legislation are “brain dead” and out for insurance company campaign donations.
Moderate Blue Dog Democrats “just want to cause trouble,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
“They’re for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they’re just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process,” Stark told reporters on a conference call.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that many of these members are from districts which are far from liberal in their demographic profile and that they might like to be elected again next year, these insults are nothing new. Some of the comments I’ve received here at TMV in response to criticism of H.R. 3200 have included pointless drivel about my alleged “buddies in the health insurance business” or how I must own stock in those companies. It’s the same old story.
The treatment of the RINOs hasn’t been much different in the Republican party. If you’re not 115% in line with the platform, you must be part of “the enemy” and of no use. It was more noticeable, in some ways, when the GOP still held power, but it hasn’t faded entirely. And now that the Democrats are in charge of all the chips on the table, there’s a certain wry satisfaction in watching them throw themselves on their own swords in a similar fashion. At least there’s one thing that both sides can agree on, it seems. You must drive out the heretics.
That worked so well for the Republicans, as evidenced by their current hegemony over all power in Washington, it’s no surprise that the Democrats would wish to emulate them. Let us know how that works out for you, ok?
63 Responses to “Watching the Democratic Implosion”
OK, time to consider what we could have in place of our status quo with the Duopoly, and to respond to Don Quijote's question in a fun way. (Note to Superdestroyer: Includes specific items you'll like.)
“When the two main parties lose their grip on power, then some real dialog can start.”
1. I believe the laws will have to be changed for this to happen, and specifically local and state laws, the “bottom-up” approach, because Washington will never do it, and while Washington will intrude in state and local affairs if it recognizes this threat anywhere, there is (still?) a limit to what it can do.
2. Breaking up the Duopoly and having at least four to six (or more) parties is long overdue, in my opinion, and this is why I'm one of the rare non-extreme lefties or “progressives,” etc, who also is in favor of proportional representation in multi-seat legislatures (or even in executive bodies someday) where this is warranted. (The lefties want it because their extreme views ordinarily are rejected and are not represented. Our government is supposed to be representative, not defy us or be tyrannical.)
Multiple seats: Proportional representation. Single seats: Approval voting. Four to six-plus parties.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…
[a book I already have]
http://books.google.com/books?id=snVhXVdyk90C&d…
These are the best things to seek; more conventional things like:
Revising terms of office, banning re-election or imposing term limits, budget restriction amendments to the Constitution (supermajority for deficit or borrowing; ban on deficit or on borrowing), line-item veto, the most overdue things,
Revising Congressional districts (combining sets of contiguous Census districts or ZIP codes and considering county lines and natural or political boundaries), radical measures like random selection (“jury duty”; “civil conscription”) for seats instead of by elections, in bodies like the U.S. House,
would be much more possible as well as better were the Duopoly ended in this country.
Other radical measures like revision of powers of federal versus state governments (formally giving to Washington nearly-unlimited powers, the de facto state sought by the Left for decades), or changing the definition of the states as well as their number, size, and boundaries (possibly involving metro area unification with local governments), all could be considered and better achieved if we wanted it.
(Don't forget what remains controversial but what is highly popular and could be eventual, anyway, the direct election of the President and Vice President. Or, it could be an approval vote with the second place finisher becoming the Vice President, or making it into an appointed position. [The same could be true for all Executive positions, to end the Dem-manged Congressional approval political circuses.] We could even elevate the position of the Speaker of the House into a truly principal position in Congress as a counterweight to the President; this originally was suggested by an author after Watergate and be awarded to the “Opposition” major political party to function as leader of the Opposition, but I believe this shouldn't be misused to enshrine the Duopoly, but only happen if we had a true multi-party (polypartisan) system with proportional representation, ideally.)
* * *
To respond to Don Quijote's question by asking it in a more elaborate and entertaining way:
I should add that the following caustic (my preferred descriptor for this man's style) post-1994 work (now hosted at a rare truly-far-right Web site; the guy was a libertarian, not a paleo-con like those at this site, typically) is probably appropriate here, not only in decrying “the illusion of choice” but in asking aloud what might happen after 1994, which remains appropriate today in going gung-ho in discussing the Republicans now, and in 2010 and 2012. Good, clean, fun reading.
“Instead of a moderate leftist, they got …”
“The public had been tipped over, and had had enough; it was fed up. An old friend reminds me that the Republicans could well have campaigned on the simple but highly effective slogan of their last great party victory of 1946: “Had Enough? Vote Republican!” In short, the right-wing populist, semi-libertarian, anti-big government revolution had been fully launched.”
“There are a few critical tests of whether [GOP or its agenda] is really, in actual deed, keeping faith with the [']revolution['] or whether he [or she], or the other Republican leaders, are betraying it. …”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard155…
“There is only one solution. This solution is extreme reductions in federal and state spending. America must take Draconian measures to economically survive. Again, this debt, this rate of wild eyed deficit spending is not sustainable. America is in so deep, my personal estimate is government spending must be slashed by at least fifty percent to give us an outside chance at economic survival.”
This is what we call Neo-Hooverism. If we were to slash government spending by 50%, the economy would simply wither and die. Not to mention all the medicare and social security recipients you would be condemning to death as well.
While we're seeing the USA made worse, at the same time we know that federal entitlements, especially Godzilla Social Security and Medicare, are unsustainable (the Trustees and others have tried to get people to understand this, for years; the problems will begin in only a few years), as are the vast (and largely unfunded) future government liabilities, including employee retirement (which is going to face a harsh change when reality cannot be avoided in, say, twenty years) — while the Dems are making things worse than ever already (and leading us closer to a debt trap as well as to more de-industrialization with climate craziness, for example), another nation's public now wants change, and is going to face some unpleasant realities, even before encountering its eventual future bigger problems.
No, not Europe and its future already assured to be worse than that of the USA's. Rather, Japan.
Who knows, it might be the main issue next week or the following in the Economist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125139678660664…
Background
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20097/
I wonder if the GOP will dare resurrect the following ad (see story).
After all, it probably had something to do with Obama's campaign (though the GOP's ended on time).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917…
Braindead was not the word to use at all…tsk tsk..
No, the proper phrase would've been “greedy sellouts”. Much more accurate…
Sylvia Soraya comments, “Individual Americans are truing up their personal financial positions right now.”
There you are, an example of sound and rational budgetary thinking, least amongst our peoples. Currently, savings rate by American families is soaring after decades of recalcitrant credit card spending and debt. Americans are finally smartening up. Our politicians continue to be about as smart as a bucket of rocks and more corrupt than Bernie Madoff.
There is a question about my “Draconian” measures to cut federal and state spending. This is easily accomplished without jerking the safety net out from under Americans in need. Accomplishing this from a financial perspective is easy. Accomplishing this from a political perspective is difficult.
Here is California, last year, illegal aliens cost taxpayers 13 billion dollars. This is about half of the current budget deficit in California. Multiply this 13 billion by 50 and you have a “rough” idea of what illegal aliens are costing us on a national level. Easy solution, close our southern border then shut down jobs for illegal aliens. No need to deport, simply take away those jobs; illegals will leave on their own.
A lot of jobs would be opened up for Americans willing to take on subsistence level work and wages. Those unwilling to take this work, tough luck, you are on your own.
America can announce a military withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq in precisely six months, “We are leaving, you are on your own, if the Taliban and terrorists return, we will simply fly over and bomb you.” Lots cheaper to drop bombs than to send in foot soldiers.
Pork barrel spending can be made illegal, “You include irrational porkulus spending in a bill, you will be brought up on ethics charges and possibly removed from office.”
Aid to foreign countries, “America is suspending all aid to foreign nations for a period of five years. We cannot afford to provide aid.” Shut down national parks, keep all people out. Close our space program. Open up offshore oil drilling and exploration in Alaska with well planned rules to protect our environment. Take away Pelosi's luxury aeroliner; you politicians will fly commercial. End all the subsidies for agriculture, diary and meat industries. Effect a severe crackdown on financial crime; Wall Street. Get rid of all the czars and pointless wasteful government offices and branches. Shift the burden of financial responsibility to states. Declare all union contracts null and void then renegotiate reasonable wages and especially pension and retirement packages, under federal court supervision. Cut taxes for all Americans and small business. Make illegal all special interest groups who lobby politicians.
Those measures and similar measures are easy to effect but very difficult to sell to politicians.
A prime example of politicians screwing us over is tort reform. Revamping rules on civil litigation can save hundreds of billions, maybe a trillion per year. Recently at a town hall meeting, a politician says, “Tort reform is politically difficult.” Well, yeah, because the American Bar Association is a very major campaign contributor to politicians. This is politicians screwing us over to keep their campaign war chests overflowing with special interest donations.
I could write for hours on this topic. Bottom line is America can effect Draconian measures to reduce federal and state spending *without* taking away our safety nets for those in need.
Sylvia writes, “Individual Americans are truing up their personal financial positions right now.”
This is precisely what federal and state governments are to do. Problem here is politicians refuse to do this fearing loss of votes. This is all about votes and power, none of what our politicians are doing is about what is good for America.
Appears to me the only solution is widespread protest by Americans, both on the streets and in the voting box. America is failing, America is becoming a two bit Banana Republic. If Americans do not stand up, take to shouting, take to protesting, our children and their children will live in socialist style Banana Republic once known as “America, The Land Of The Free”.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha points out, “Easy solution, close our southern border then shut down jobs for illegal aliens.”
Of course this would be a savings for taxpayers. It would also be a windfall for young employable Americans. There would be jobs again for our teenagers and college students, busing tables, washing dishes, flipping burgers, operating the drive up windows, mowing lawns, raking leaves and many more jobs taken by illegals. Construction jobs would open up for many.
Getting rid of illegals is a double win for America.
I now understand why you didn't provide links, sorry. Let me present a few.
” Collectively, they reaped 20+ billion in 2007, and 17+ billion in 2008″
Maybe you ought to take a closer look.
For the 10 biggest health insurance companies were seeing their profits rise over 400 percent between 2000 and 2007. If BC/BS is non-profit and one of the top ten, you make the other nine even more “profitable.”
Source: Company 10-k filings with the Securities & Exchange Commission. You know, the guys that know something about profit.
If you wish to toss in all companies, aren't you making a huge argument against regional co-ops? The big ten hold roughly 65% of all policies across the 50 states. Wonder why their profits are so high while the smaller plans have lower profits?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02536r.pdf
“. As I recall, he estimates the “administrative costs” of group policies issued to large employers at about 7%, and the true “administrative costs” of Medicare at 4″
So the 3% difference covers advertising, marketing, high exec salaries, and an army of people whose sole purpose is to deny claims and find reasons for policy rescission to avoid patient costs?
Sylvia Soraya comments, “Getting rid of illegals is a double win for America.”
Oh no! This is unconscionable, least according to Obama and his boys, “We are morally responsible to take care of those criminals coming to America to leech upon the financial lifeblood of America.” Of interest, RINO John McCain supports this liberal bleeding heart philosophy, “We are our lazy no-count brothers' keeper.”
Jazz Shaw titles his well written article, “Watching the Democratic Implosion” and this left liberal bleeding heart philosophy is a major component of this ongoing Democratic implosion. Those boys are climbing over each other to see who can outspend the other, “My bucks are bigger than your bucks!”
Tunnels for turtles! Why do drunk Chinese whores engage in unsafe sex? Tax exemptions for toy arrows made of wood! Free health care for all peoples of our world who come to America illegally! Our boss is the Black Messiah, we are his chosen disciples! We are omnipotent. We are the saviors.
We can do no wrong.
Rather delightful to watch the Democratic party implode because of their egotistical arrogance, about as delightful as watching the Republican party implode last year. Obama is voted into office, along with Democrats, because of backlash against illiterate idiot George Bush. Now we have a literate idiot sitting in the Oval Office. No change, one was illiterate, the other is literate, but both are idiots.
Sylvia adds, “…busing tables, washing dishes, flipping burgers, operating the drive up windows, mowing lawns, raking leaves….”
Reminds of decades back, reminds of my husband and I working our way from poverty in Oklahoma to the Land of Milk and Honey, California. We took on those types of jobs, we worked oil fields in west Texas, picked cotton in Arizona and worked alongside illegals out in crop fields of the Imperial Valley of California. Without those types of jobs we would have not been able to leave the poverty of farming in Oklahoma to a decent life in California.
Today, California is the land of tacos and pesos. I'm thinking we will go back to Oklahoma.
Today, those jobs Sylvia mentions are no longer available. Those jobs belong to illegal aliens. Today, a family could not make the same “Grapes of Wrath” journey we did decades back; opportunity for American families to better their lives is stolen away by illegal aliens.
All of this is more than just the Democratic party imploding, this is America imploding.
Telling you, folks, America is headed for ruination if we do not take serious actions, if we do not take control over our nation back into our hands. America is imploding.
KABOOM! Bye-bye America, hello Banana Republic!
Say, buddy, can you spare a dime for a girl down on her luck?
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha sees America headed for ruintation, “Telling you, folks, America is headed for ruination if we do not take serious actions, if we do not take control over our nation back into our hands. America is imploding.”
I see this word ruination and I think ruined nation.
Imploding and ruined that sums it up.
Ah, well, I can't access the site today through my rusty MSNTV, so I'll try to respond to Hemm through Disqus email.
So why do you suppose your source selected 2007 as his comparator rather than 2008? Because profits were much higher in 2007, no? That's what I call “selectivity.”
I misspoke when I said you could easily call up the profitability figures for the health insurer industry. I haven't been able to retrieve the numbers I quoted from memory in my first post. You can get a snark-free chart for the 10 largest insurers in pdf at netincomeofmajorhealthinsurers. So, yes, they did make much more in 2007 than in 2000. But insurance (and I was in it for 30+ years) is a game of ups and downs. You have to look at the averages, over time.
So the Big 10 made 8.4 bil in 2008, up from 2.4 bil in 2000. According to NCHC, total health care spending will reach 2.5 trillion in 2009. You do the math. And no, the Big 10 doesn't include BCBS or any of the other tax-exempt non-profits. On what rationale are we supposing that a “public option” vehicle will be able to significantly undercut their pricing? Let me further invite your attention to the fact that, according to Price Waterhouse, the cost of malpractice litigation, including “defensive medicine,” is about 153 bil a year. 153 bil vs. 8.4 bil, but we gotta stamp out the 8.4.
Ok, I see I didn't get all of Hemms comments through the email. The 7% figure for “administrative costs” is applicable, as I said, only for group policies issued to large employers. The “administrative costs” of Medicare are, on the whole, quite a bit less than those of private insurers. In my opinion, that explains why one can't pick up a paper without seeing something about another huge Medicare scandal. They lose 80 billion a year by automatically stamping “approved for payment” on everything sent to them.
Health insurer profits, compared to other industries, are mediocre. Just how much mileage do you think you can get out of that 8.4 billion?
As for the rest of it, you are simply spitting venom based on your repeated watchings of Sicko. It is very dangerous to deny coverage without a sound basis in the policy to do so, and yes, they take material misrepresentations made on applications very seriously indeed.
You can have the last word. I didn't come here to ping-pong talking points.
Progressives are the Religious Right of the Democratic Party. They use the same tactics to the same extent. They are pretty much one and the same.