The following is an explanation of how capitalism subverts and eventually destroys democracy, unless appropriate rules are laid down to separate the influence of money from the electoral process.
We know what democracy is, right? One man, one vote. We know what capitalism is, too. That’s the system whereby people earn money to buy goods, and when they have more money than they need to buy goods, they save their money. When people have less money than they need, they have to buy lesser goods and/or go hungry.
What is the interaction between democracy and capitalism? When we get together to vote, candidates for public office advertise, and to do so, they spend money. Second, when important policies are considered by our legislative and executive bodies, advocates of some policies also advertise to the general public. Finally, advocates of financial interests (companies or groups of companies, for example) pay lobbyists who spend their time trying to persuade our representatives to enact policies that they favor.
There are other, less well known and possibly less legal, methods by which capital influences democracy. For example, a business interest can bribe a political representative to vote a certain way. A business can even pay for the re-election campaign of a judge for the purpose of obtaining the judge’s favorable ruling in a court case affecting the business’s interests. That actually happened just a few years ago: a business (a coal mining company) paid 2.5 million dollars to a state Supreme Court justice’s re-election campaign; after the judge was re-elected, he voted favorably on a case affecting that company that saved the company 44 million dollars in costs (fines for pollution.) In this case, the federal Supreme Court reversed the collusion although the judge remained on the bench.
Clearly, there is substantial room for capitalism to have a profound effect on the operation of democracy. This is an area of potential mischief which was never addressed in our Constitution. At that time, the late eighteenth century, the process of learning for whom to vote and the processes of governance by our representatives were little affected by the presence of money.
Money was assumed to be sufficient for both campaigning for office and while carrying out one’s office because those who governed were independently wealthy. It was assumed that our representatives would have considerably more money than the average voter. It was also assumed that the process of campaigning would be supported by newspaper coverage, public speeches, rallies, and debates.
Bribery of office holders was prohibited. The franchise was limited to men who owned property in most cases, so it was assumed that the voter would be educated and able to comprehend the issues discussed. With the gradual spread of the franchise to all male adults, lack of education became an issue and the probability of ignorant voters easily swayed by propaganda increased. Compulsory education was first introduced in Massachusetts during the Colonial period and gradually spread to the rest of the US, with Mississippi being the last state, in 1918.
During the American Revolution, the newspaper was the popular source of education for everyone who could read. Wealthy individuals bought newspapers which they used as platforms for the promulgation of their political views. Newspapers became a relatively cheap method of propaganda available to almost everyone.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, money rapidly became essential to the development of the United States. The geographic area of the country was greatly expanded by the direct purchase of control over land that had previously been owned by native Americans (“Indians”) from France. A national bank was established despite the opposition of Andrew Jackson. In 1833 and 1836, Jackson took actions which destroyed the Second National Bank (originally established to handle the debts from the War of 1812) and threw the US into its first recession by forcing people to purchase land with specie (gold or silver.)
During the process of development in the nineteenth century, the United States went through a number of episodes in which it could be seen that capital was having an adverse effect on governance. First, the capital value of slaveholder’s chattel was an important impediment to the resolution of the moral issue of slavery and many solutions were proposed for the orderly disentanglement of the slaveholder’s money interest. None of these solutions were ever carried out.
Instead, a violent uprising by slaveholders occurred and a number of southern states seceded from the Union, provoking the Civil War in 1861. Current estimates put the number of war dead at about 850,000, an increase of 25 % over previously accepted totals.
The second great crisis related to democracy and capitalism occurred during what is known as the “Gilded Age.” After the Civil War, corruption gradually took over both state and federal governing establishments, and wealthy individuals obtained highly advantageous relationships with the government and the utilities that appeared (railroad, oil, and so on.) Government was controlled by wealthy individuals who took advantage of the relative ignorance and apathy of the voter to govern as they pleased.
In 1901, Theodore Rooseveldt became president after William McKinley was assassinated. He did not campaign on a reform platform, but he did, in fact, partially reform the way business was run. He dramatically reduced corruption in the federal government and the government of New York State. He broke up some of the “trusts” that had developed and reduced the advantages the wealthy had enjoyed. He introduced what he called the “Square Deal”, which offered the average citizen a fair share of prosperity. Unfortunately, his reforms did not prevent unbridled speculation on Wall Street.
The third great crisis of capitalism and democracy occurred when the stock market crashed in 1929. This was preceded by the period known as Prohibition, in which, starting in 1920, the consumption of alcohol was forced underground. The creation of a black market in alcohol separated the government from an essential market and forced those who ran the markets to regulate them, never an effective situation. The result was the rise of organized crime, which regulated itself through internecine violence.
At the same time, banking and investment industries were allowed to operate with minimal oversight, resulting in frequent Ponzi schemes, including the eponymous Ponzi scheme. The stock market crash of 1929 apparently resulted from an increase of “leverage”, or the amount of stock one was allowed to buy on borrowed money, to unsustainable levels. Inevitably, a transient drop in stock value snowballed into a complete market collapse when key players were unable to satisfy their “margin calls.”
Worse than the bankruptcy of stock market investors was the wiping out of many small banks by their exposure to the vagaries of the stock market or derivatives markets. The system collapse of 1929 was followed for years by knock-on collapses of banks and industries. Lack of demand led to reductions in production, leading to layoffs, leading to even less demand. The federal government did essentially nothing (if you don’t count actions that made matters worse) until Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected and inaugurated.
In his first 100 days, Roosevelt put in place a vast array of new programs in an attempt to reverse the effects of the depression. Most of the programs involved such things as hiring people to produce most anything they were qualified to produce. A great many bridges, tunnels, highways, buildings, and other structures were put up during Roosevelt’s administration, not to mention the murals, photographic essays, and other art projects. Other programs were designed to increase demand by deficit spending in many other areas.
Rapid improvement in the economy lead to a premature abandonment of some of these measures in 1937, and the recovery stalled. Fortunately, America became involved in the struggle against Nazi aggression and the need for war materiel relieved the lingering effects of the Great Depression.
The fourth crisis of capitalism and democracy occurred during the Nixon administration. In an all out effort to get re-elected, Richard Nixon hired a number of men who were intended to “spy” on the Democratic side of the campaign. These men were also authorized to perform some “dirty tricks.” This resulted in the Watergate scandal as well as the persecution of Daniel Ellsworth, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the public.
The fifth crisis has been occurring over the last few years. More and more money has been spent on campaigning for election, to the point where each candidate for President this year will have mobilized more than a billion dollars in an effort to attain office. The Supreme Court has essentially removed all obstruction to the expenditure of money in campaigns by declaring, in the Citizens United case, that independent groups (now known as super PACs) can advocate for a candidate “independently” with no restriction on costs.
At the same time, income inequality has dramatically increased with a resulting wealth inequality that, in 2007, equaled levels not seen since just before the Great Depression. The housing market bubble collapsed in 2007 and took much of Wall Street with it; other victims included the American automobile industry and state and local governments.
Because of the monetizing of political office, individuals and groups who already have a lot of money have been able to tilt the system in their favor. The tax system, in particular, has been made highly regressive. This is most obvious in the treatment of investment income as opposed to wage or salary income. Dividends and carried interest (monies received by virtue of the ownership of stock in companies that declare dividends, for example) are taxed at a fixed rate of fifteen percent. Ordinary wages are taxed at a variable rate that begins with a fifteen percent fixed contribution for Social Security and Medicare; in addition, up to 36% taxes are levied on wages above a certain figure. As a result, rich people who do nothing but “clip coupons” (own stocks and bonds) are taxed at half the rate that persons who work full time or more have to pay.
There are many other laws that have been passed at the behest of wealthy individuals and groups that make the American system highly un-democratic. This is the final crisis for democracy. The election this November, even if President Obama is re-elected, will not help because it is quite likely that the Republicans will retain control of the House. Government will continue to be paralyzed in a state that is highly unfair to the average person and clearly un-democratic.
As a result of the Great Recession, an average of 30 to 40 % of all personal wealth (as well as the holdings of institutions such as colleges with endowments) was wiped out. The less wealthy you were before the crash, the larger a percentage of your wealth you were likely to lose. Stimulus measures and rescues of large financial institutions were instituted after the crash, but the stimulus was insufficient to relieve the suffering of the average American. Unemployment has persisted at more than eight percent (nominal) since 2009. Job growth has been extremely weak and demand has continued to be insufficient to stimulate expansion of the economy.
I deeply regret to say that there is an increasing likelihood of violence and destruction as the average American suffers more and more from the effects of our un-democratic system. Unless democracy and rational behavior by the American government can be re-established, the chances for civil war and revolution will continue to increase over the next few years.
What must be done to stop capitalism from corrupting democracy? Capitalism is actually a good thing because it stimulates and lubricates the economy, so it is impossible to remove capitalism as a process. To prevent capital from influencing government, it will be necessary to end private funding of election campaigns and remove lobbyists.
Public financing of elections will involve the use of “free” television time for candidates, extensive petition drives to establish the popularity of individual candidates, and multiple stages in the election process. Conventions will have to be held at the local, city, county, and state levels to set up maximum citizen participation. Voting will have to be required instead of voluntary. Free photo ID for all citizens will have to be distributed. Elections will have to be held on weekends instead of Tuesdays.
To address the influence of ignorance on government corruption, it will be necessary to greatly expand public primary and secondary education. In addition to the basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, students will need courses in good governance, ethics, democracy, and history. For additional benefit, secondary schooling must include vocational education as well.
If adequate education through high school is re-established, it will not be necessary to expand college and postgraduate education. The scams of “vocational” schools that “prepare” people for poorly paid jobs as medical assistants and auto mechanics with ridiculously expensive student loans must be prosecuted and eliminated. These schools have been particular beneficiaries of capitalist corruption in government.
Once candidates are in office, they must be paid in parity for the importance of their offices, and lobbyists must be prohibited from preferential contact with office holders. All citizens and organizations will have to be given equal opportunity to establish contact with office holders to communicate their points of view (presumably through web sites.)
Finally, the election of judges must be prohibited. Judges will have to be nominated and approved at the local and state level just as they are now in federal courts, and limited terms of office will have to be established. For example, Supreme Court justices can be given eighteen year terms, staggered so that every two years a new justice will be elevated.
Most importantly, there must be close oversight and clear penalties for violations of democratic trust by undue influence from moneyed interests. Every department of government must have an inspector general, including Congress and the judiciary.
The key issue will be the commitment of government to democratic, rational principles. Democracy must be freed from the malign influence of money and ignorance. Enlightenment by scientific study must be encouraged and valued through adequate education of the ordinary person.
The alternative will be worse violence than the Civil War and greater suffering for the people. When income inequality reaches unsupportable extremes as a result of the control of government by capital, violence is inevitable. This must be prevented by rational and comprehensive reforms before it is too late.
The following is a copy of a comment I made to an article in the New York Times online. The comment was in response to another comment requesting three actions to help address the excessive cost of medical care in this country. I repeat it here because when I finished it, I realized how important it was. I added a few things in square brackets that wouldn’t fit in the NYT’s 1500 character limit.
I am a retired physician. Here are the three actions that will save the most money: (very hard to accomplish, but worth it.)
1)single payer universal health care. (This involves rationing, electronic records, and many other improvements)
2)eliminate the “fee for service” system: change over to salaries for all health care providers.
3)crack down on the drug industry: have the single payer buy all the drugs and demand discounts for volume.
Note that I am ignoring malpractice, fraud, and a host of other issues because they represent only a small portion of the problem. [Comprehensive reform can address these issues as well, especially because they would be easier to accomplish.]
Making people pay more (large copays and deductibles) will only make the problem worse because (as studies have shown) people economize inappropriately when they have to pay more for their care. They wait too long to treat problems for fear of the cost, and the problems are worse and cost more to treat when they eventually do go to treatment. Keep in mind that in Europe, many countries have minimal to no copays, and the overall costs in these countries are half what they are here.
This is a subtle and difficult problem and I don’t believe it will see improvement in the near future because there are too many industries sucking money from the business: pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, physician’s group (AMA), device manufacturers, etc. [Medicine has a reputation as a cash cow, so it is very attractive to entrepeneurs, rent seekers, and other hangers-on.]
While I’m at it, I recommend that we throw open our borders to immigrants, especially young workers, to revitalize our Social Security system (think about it.) [The basic problem with Social Security now is that there are too many older workers getting ready to retire and not enough young workers signing on to pay into the system. Look it up, this is verified research: this is the real problem. In addition, eliminate the cap on salaries subject to the SS tax: it’s a flat tax, and having a cap makes it regressive. Making the retirement age older will NOT help, and is unfair to those working low paid, strenuous jobs who are completely worn out long before age 65.]
I could add a lot of additional verbiage to this comment, but I think that it is pretty good by itself.
This post is about the efforts of the Obama administration to institute a new health care system, which are likely to be disallowed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this week. The part which is unconstitutional is mandatory coverage, that is, a mandate that everyone should carry health care insurance or face a fine. The idea of mandatory insurance is not new, and that is the point of this post.
When Obama introduced his health care plan to Congress, his advisors were comfortable with the idea that Congress had the constitutional power to mandate that all Americans purchase (or have themselves enrolled in) some form of health care insurance. The idea of mandatory coverage had been knocked around discussions of health care reform for some time, with no concern about Congressional power, mostly by Republican proposers.
The reason mandatory coverage (by private insurance companies and/or Medicaid) was popular with Republicans was that it appeared to be a good alternative to single-payer health care insurance administered exclusively by the Federal government. Republicans did not and do not like the idea of single-payer insurance because, for one thing, it involves a large government program, and for another, it might cut in to the business and profits of private health care insurers.
Making the purchase of insurance mandatory would cover a big hole in the economics of health care and hold down the cost of insurance for everyone. It’s not the most critical problem in health care today, but it is a serious problem; many personal bankruptcies are forced by the cost of uninsured health care. Republicans, who preach personal responsibility, believe that everyone who is rational would buy health insurance coverage as soon as possible anyway. Making this mandatory, however, would require that the government subsidize the cost of coverage for those who could not afford it.
This is not as much of a problem to Republicans as single-payer insurance would be. Altering the system to put everyone under a single-payer “insurance” plan would also solve the problem of unpaid bills, but that might involve changes that the private health insurance business would find unsatisfactory. The Republicans could not tolerate that any private business should be discommoded, much less run out of town.
What has happened to the idea of mandatory insurance, which was originally the Republican answer to the problem? Unfortunately for this idea, it was adopted by a Democratic administration. The Republican response to this adoption was a change from enthusiastic acceptance to adamant rejection. No Republican in Congress would vote for it. Over 250 million dollars in advertising has been devoted to selling the American people on the idea that mandatory insurance, along with all the other parts of the new health care bill, is wrong and un-American.
Republican attorneys general of a majority of American states have sued in federal court to block this new health care proposal. The Supreme Court is about to issue a decision on the constitutionality of this proposal, and if their known proclivities hold true, the Court will find a reason to declare part or even all of the proposal unsound.
So an idea, which may or may not be fundamentally sound, is treated by Republicans as if it is only good when they propose it, not when Democrats accept it. This type of thinking is difficult for the average person to understand. Most people would consider an idea on its merits.
This is what we can expect from Republicans. They hate Democrats and Democratic ideas, even if those ideas used to be Republican ideas. There is even reason to suspect that they hate Democrats specifically because they are part black.
This also shows that the only really and truly reasonable solution to the problem of unpaid health care bills is single payer health insurance with a gradual phaseout of private health insurance companies. Overhead will be much less, total costs will be less, and it will be much fairer to everyone. The detailed advantages of the single payer plan will be left to another post.
Paul Krugman’s latest column in the New York Times bares the ugly truth for all to see: the upper class, those who are in control of the economy, want to use the Great Recession as an excuse cut social programs from government spending and starve the already suffering under class into submission.
There is clearly no other reason why those in control of the economy do not pursue the social spending policies that have been shown to promote growth. Krugman says that he spoke to those in charge in the United Kingdom (which happens to have easy access to huge amounts of credit), and they admitted that “it is essential [to] shrink the size of the state”. They don’t want the economy to get better.
As a matter of fact, the United States has access to even more credit than the United Kingdom: Federal investment instruments are selling like hotcakes at incredibly low interest rates. But neither the UK nor the US is willing to use their borrowing ability to shore up their economies. What they want is to eliminate social spending from government budgets, using the economic crisis as an excuse.
Contrast this position with that of the Chinese government (who are as evil as they come on human rights policies): sensitive to a reduction in their growth rate, they have instituted increased government spending policies that will improve growth again in the summer of 2012. Those policies: increased infrastructure spending, increased small loans to consumers, increased money to pensioners. They did the same thing in 2007-8, only on a larger scale, and as a result, China’s economy resisted the Great Recession.
China doesn’t want their growth rate to drop below 8% because it may cause economic discomfort for the people. This may cause them to complain about government policies that they find intellectually objectionable, but would otherwise have accepted because of their prosperity. In particular, there is the lack of “rule of law” (as so poetically described by Chen Guangcheng in his letter to the American people, published in the New York Times last week) and the censorship that prevents people from talking freely about their problems.
So the Chinese, to prevent social unrest, have instituted pro-growth policies quietly at the very onset of a mild drop in GDP growth rate. The rest of the world, with the exception of countries like Sweden and Austria (with “big government” policies), are by and large sticking to austerity policies. As a result, there is continued weakness and even declines in GDP. Economic weakness has stimulated mass demonstrations, which became violent in the UK.
The upper class thinks that they can handle the demonstrations with restricted movement, pepper spray, and arrests. Limited news coverage and compassion fatigue combined with exhaustion and the crush of personal problems inhibits persistent demonstrations. Even voting and the democratic process is of no help because politicians in all parties have been bought and paid for by the upper class.
Conditions that are this frustrating could lead to organized insurrection and possibly even revolutionary violence. This worst outcome could be easily prevented.
The truth is that the upper class needs the under class as much as the under class needs the upper class. Both are part of an organic whole, a functioning society that contains and sustains all classes of people. The classes must work together for the benefit of society as a whole.
President Obama and the morality of war
There are currently several hundred people (mostly extreme Islamist) who are committed to waging war on the United States by means of “terrorist attacks”: bombings, shootings, and the like. Airplanes have been a favorite target. Most of the people who declare themselves to be our enemies live in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. They advertise by logging on to the Internet, and they make many threats, some of which they carry out. There is no question that these people have a lot to be angry about, but they are not attacking soldiers, they are deliberately killing innocent civilians.
One of the most famous was an American citizen who had converted to Islam and was living in Yemen, broadcasting sermons that called on fellow extremists to carry out bombings and other attacks. He was the inspiration for the Islamic military psychiatrist who went over the edge after listening to his sermons and shot a number of fellow American soldiers in cold blood. It would have been extremely difficult to mount an operation to capture this preacher, as dangerous as the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Instead, a drone aircraft fired a missile at the vehicle the preacher was riding in and killed him as well as the other occupant of the vehicle. His son, only sixteen years old, began to preach in the same way and was dispatched with another missile.
Most of us know that there has been a dramatic increase in drone missile attacks over the last few years against people labelled as terrorists. Few of us know that, unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not captured any terrorist suspects (well, one.) The current administration has instead killed several hundred with missiles fired from drones.
The Pentagon and the CIA have entire departments that follow individual suspects and determine whether they are terrorists, eventually selecting some of them for death. A missile fired from a drone can destroy a car and all its occupants. The drones have been operating over large areas, identifying numerous targets.
The problem that Obama has is that there are people out there actively trying to kill Americans, and unless the federal government does something to stop them, they will eventually succeed again as they did on September 11, 2001. It is moral in war to kill someone if he is trying to kill you and there is no other way to stop him (negotiation is impossible and capture is extremely dangerous.) Drones have evolved as the most effective weapon against individuals who want to kill us and who live in inaccessible areas.
The end result of this logical evolution of force is that there are now two government agencies that fly drones equipped with missiles, the CIA and the Pentagon, and both agencies have lists of people who are marked for death. President Obama has taken responsibility for personally approving each kill. He has been very aggressive about limiting collateral deaths and has instituted strict rules of engagement that have greatly reduced the number of people killed in each strike. Obama has been an aggressive, hands on leader in the “fight against terrorism.”
The problem with this strategy of drone missile attacks is that it stimulates intense negative reactions from the civilians in the target areas, especially those directly affected by strikes. Those traumatized civilians, who are already not fans of America, quickly become outraged enemies. They will have few nearby targets on which to vent their wrath but they have long memories.
The US, using a dramatic technological advance which is difficult to counter, has eliminated the top leadership of most of the groups dedicated to waging war against us, and the new leaders of these groups have strong popular support but no way to fight back. Inevitably, these groups will evolve their strategy and tactics to meet this new threat from America.
What does this evolution of terrorists tell us? That something is going on that is deeper than anyone involved realizes. The secret is that “terrorism” cannot be eliminated, and it can never succeed in destroying society. All this sincere effort will never end terrorism, only hold it back for a while.
Mitt Romney spent a reported 25 years working in the world of “high finance.” He specialized in venture capital and private equity (leveraged buyouts.) In that period he earned a large amount of money (in addition to that which he inherited from his father) and he now reportedly has a net worth of 250 million dollars. He retired from “high finance” many years ago and has been employed as a governor of Massachusetts as well as gaining the reputation of having saved the 2000 Olympics. During his retirement he has continued to receive large amounts of money from his financial firm based on contracts he was given when he was Chief Executive Officer; reportedly he is presently receiving ten million dollars a year.
What did Mr Romney do when he worked in “high finance”? He helped to arrange funding to start a big box retailer that became successful and made a big profit. He also bought out a number of companies through the magic of “leveraged buyouts.” What happens when you do a leveraged buyout is that you buy a company (successful or not) and pay for it with about 1/4 to 1/10 of your own money (capital) and a about 60-90% in the form of a loan that is written in such a way that the payments of interest and principal on the loan are said to come from the operations of the company itself (in effect, taking out a loan on the value of the company and putting the responsibility for paying on the company (since you’ve just bought control of the company, you can do that.))
The magic of a “leveraged buyout” is invoked in the creation of a loan based on the ability of a company to pay. Once you control the company, you can do anything you want with it. In order to create profits that can be stripped out, parts of the company that have more value can be sold off and their functions outsourced. It is not hard to make one employee do the work of two, reducing payroll costs. Theoretically, you could create improvements in the company that would increase its profitability and viability, but in most cases, the changes are made with the primary motivation of stripping profits and reducing costs. The kicker comes when you have stripped the company of tangible assets and laid off any extra employees, creating a company that appears to be profitable, you can sell the whole thing for a large profit, especially if the stock market is going up at the time.
The con in the “leveraged buyout” is the loan paid by the victim company’s profits. Naturally some people object to this, whence we get the term “hostile takeover.”
Unfortunately (and Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this) the private equity markets came to a standstill in late 2007, after the real estate market and before the election of Barack Obama.
The point I am trying to make is that Mitt Romney inherited a lot of money, then spent most of his working life buying out companies and stripping them of assets before selling them again. If you read my previous post, you will, I hope, put two and two together: Willard Mitt Romney is a sociopath who made an enormous amount of money destroying vulnerable companies. The best part is that his enormous income was taxed at a total of 15% instead of the 30-50% rate that the average salaryman has to fork over to the government.
(if you don’t believe me, go to Wikipedia and read the entries on private equity and venture capital.)
Most people, unless they are obsessively following the presidential election campaign, missed the “expose” of something that Mr Romney did when he was sixteen years old. The rationale for dismissing this “expose” is that “he was only sixteen, and kids do dumb things in high school.” It is not that simple. If, for example, we were told that Mr Romney had gotten so drunk that he was taken to the emergency room, we probably wouldn’t say “kids do dumb things in high school.” , because we know that “kids” who abuse alcohol tend to become alcoholics later in life. This incident has a similar portent in regards to Mr Romney’s personality.
The incident, as described by several of the participants, involved an attack on a fellow student. Mr Romney was the leader of a group of four or five fellow students who chased down another student, forcibly restrained him, and cut his hair (with scissors, we assume.) Why was Mr Romney motivated to do this? It was said that the victim had unusually long, bleached blonde hair. It was not said that he was gay, but it is very likely that Mr Romney and his fellow assailants were motivated by that perception. In fact, the victim much later came out as being gay.
This incident, if interpreted by today’s standards, would be perceived as a physical assault coupled with “unlawful detention” (forcibly restraining the victim, akin to a brief kidnapping.) In addition, Mr Romney and his fellow assailants would be liable to be charged as adults. In today’s climate, an incident such as this would be likely to have serious criminal consequences.
More important, this behavior is a symptom of a condition known as sociopathy, that is a lifelong personality pattern characterized by lack of internal constraints that prevent behavior that violates the person and rights of another. Sociopathy is a condition that begins in adolescence if not earlier, and leads in many cases to a lifetime of criminal behavior with a stunning lack of guilt feelings or concern for other’s hurt feelings. Sociopaths are greatly over-represented among prison inmates as well as among successful stock traders.
This incident is clear evidence of an already well developed sociopathic personality. His response to questions about the incident show even more clearly his lack of concern for other’s feelings. He claimed to not remember the incident, then offered a half-hearted apology.
Finally, Mr Romney claimed that the possibility of the victim’s being gay wouldn’t even have occurred to him “in those days.” I, for one, clearly recall that the issue of homosexuality was very much in the consciousness of teenagers in the 1960’s, and prejudice against those who were thought to be gay was extremely strong and openly expressed. Persons thought to be homosexual (and it was usually hidden) were considered fair game for verbal and sometimes physical abuse by those who felt the urge to abuse someone.
It is abundantly clear from Mr Romney’s personal history that he suffers from sociopathy. It is not just the incident we have discussed, but his career as chief executive officer of the private equity fund Bain also speaks strongly in favor of his sociopathy. What better occupation for a sociopath than one which involves buying companies, stripping them of their assets, and destroying the careers of those who worked for them?
A vote for Mr Romney is a vote for the practical expression of sociopathic tendencies by our federal government.
Romney and Mormonism
There has been too much tolerance for Willard Mitt Romney’s religion. The Mormon Church is seen by most people as “just another church” like the Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations, the Baptists, the Jewish religion, and even (Heaven forgive us!) Islam.
In fact, the Mormon Church is a cult. Members swear secret oaths to the Church. Thanks to a number of ex-Mormons, these formerly secret oaths have been outed, and are available (like everything else nowadays) on the Internet. If you are interested, I suggest you take a look. The most disturbing of these oaths is the one in which members swear loyalty to the Church over all other loyalties, even to the extent of swearing to sacrifice their lives and liberties to the Church.
We already know that Mormons pay ten percent of their incomes to the Church, but how many people know that loyal Mormons are committed to lay down their very lives for the benefit of the Church?
The power of this oath of loyalty to the Church is so strong that it takes precedence over all other oaths, even the oath that a person takes when he or she is sworn in to the office of the Presidency. If Mr Romney were to be elected as President(Heaven forbid!), he would still be bound by his oath to the Church over his oath to protect the Constitution. The benefit of the Mormon Church would take precedence over protection of the Constitution.
Can you see where I am going with this? This means that, if Mr Romney is elected President, the well-being of the United States would be less important to him than the good of the Mormon Church. Any time that the Mormon Church might be hurt by an action that he might take as President, he would think twice and not take that action. Any time the Mormon Church might benefit from an action he could take as President, he would take that action (if he could get away with it.)
This is different, qualitatively, than the consequences of electing a Catholic (say, for example, John Fitzgerald Kennedy) to the Presidency. For those of you not yet born in 1960 who might not have heard this, Mr Kennedy made a categorical statement during the election campaign that he would not take any action as President that might suggest that he favored the interests of the Catholic Church over his loyalty to the United States.
We should NOT give Mr Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would be willing to make a similar statement. In fact, it is of critical importance that someone should ask Mr Romney the same question that was asked of Mr Kennedy. Would you allow the Mormon Church to influence your actions as President in any way? If Mr Romney is truthful (which I doubt) he would be forced to admit that the answer is yes.
The big question before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the authority to regulate the medical industry by doing something different: requiring everyone to buy health insurance. The question is whether the Constitution, by stating that Congress has the authority to “regulate commerce between the several states”, meant that Congress should be able to require everyone to have (to buy, or if necessary, be given) health insurance. It is clear that medical industries involve “commerce between the several states.” What is not clear is the extent of Congressional authority over the people.
We do know that Congress has the authority to forbid everyone from using cannabis, for example. Does Congress have to authority to prescribe certain behavior as well as to forbid certain behavior?
The problem that is affecting medicine in the United States, at least the one Congress wants to address, is that people who cannot afford medical care wind up going to the emergency room and getting inadequate treatment for outrageous fees that they cannot pay. The resulting bad debt forces the hospitals to obtain funding from the government for the part that insurance will not pay. The people who cannot afford to pay suffer poor treatment and eventually early death, while at the same time hospitals have to write off large fees when these people inevitably pass through their emergency rooms. There is both a monetary and a humanitarian cost to society and government.
To solve this problem on a national level, first Congress established a funding system, the requirement that everyone have insurance, to a pre-existing administration, the private insurance companies. Additional features are funding through federal sources for those who cannot pay for insurance, and regulations that control insurance company behavior to ensure an equitable system. There are many additional provisions in a bill that is reportedly 2,400 pages long.
The normal behavior of Congresspeople when faced with a large, controversial bill has impaired rational implementation of the reforms envisioned by the original bill. There are many places in which changes have been made to suit one pressure group or another. One of the big winners from the bill, it would seem, would be the insurance companies, whose business would have to increase if everyone is to be insured.
To return to the basic issue, the individual financing (personal payment) for medical care is an impediment to the cost-effective provision of medical care. Patients naturally delay medical care when they cannot afford it. Because of personal responsibility for payments, physicians must consider relative affordability or even availability of care. When prescribing a drug to treat any ailment, the doctor has to consider whether the patient can pay for it. If a patient cannot afford the medication best suited to treat his condition, the consequences of taking a less effective or more toxic drug can make the patient’s subsequent care more difficult. If the patient’s condition is not improved or he suffers toxic side effects, further care is more expensive. When the patient didn’t have enough money to pay for the best medicine, he will have even less money to pay for the treatment of toxic side effects or the worsening of his original condition. Thus, the lack of money leads to worse health and more expenses for complications.
The alternative to this cost-based treatment schedule would be a system in which the physician was free to prescribe the most effective medication in the first instance. This medication would minimize the costs that follow the initial treatment. In many cases, using the best medication that cost more would lead to lower costs in the long run. This is the theory behind the use of “insurance” to pay for medical care. Insurance would not necessarily solve the problem of initial cost, unless the company providing the insurance made the necessary assessments and provided coverage for the most cost-effective medication (formularies do not always provide the right medication based on this assessment, but they could do so.)
There is little controversy to the assertion that Americans pay more for poorer health care than many other highly developed nations. We pay approximately 50% higher overall costs for medical care than certain European countries and we have two to four years shorter life expectancy than those countries. The reasons for this problem are multiple, but the most important reason is that patients do not report for early treatment of illness and are not provided the most cost-effective initial treatments. The most important reason for this is that we have personal responsibility for payment, and our initial reaction to illness is to try to minimize initial cost, to the detriment of long term health.
The best way to reduce overall health care costs is to anticipate personal responsibility for individual payment by interposing an advanced insurance-based system for everyone. Under the insurance based system, the long term costs and benefits of medical care would be evaluated and the lessons learned applied to protocols of medical care that produce the best long term health results. By delivering feedback to medical providers in the form of protocols, the insurance based system would modify care to improve outcomes. Patients would be freed from the short-term decision making distortion that initial costs apply to the best medical care, and thus would be better motivated to do the right thing for their health. At the same time, the insurance payments paid in everyone’s name from birth will finance the medical system in a reliable, consistent fashion.
Medicare has consistently been shown to have the lowest administrative costs of any form of insurance, less than half that of private insurance companies. Therefore, we will gain the most cost savings from financing our medical care by deductions from everyone’s paychecks and universal eligibility for treatment under Medicare.
The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is, sadly, a compromise forced on the president by lack of whole-hearted support from Democrats in Congress for a real solution: the public option. The lack of support can be traced to lobbying by insurance companies against the “public option” and any other solution which might compromise the profits and control of health insurance companies. Health insurance companies are usually subsidiaries of larger insurance company conglomerates, and they spend huge quantities of money on lobbying for their interests. The insurance companies have taken a position against “single-payer” health insurance because they believe that it will have a negative impact on their businesses. They would be better informed if they lobbied for contracts to administer single payer insurance rather than opposing a critical driver of efficiency that reduces costs.
I loved this comment from the NYT online so much–in response to a Paul Krugman editorial–that I just had to quote it verbatim: (from “Kathleen” of Oakland CA)
“Mark Thomason (6:51 pm 2/19) is correct: austerity policies provide real and significant benefits to the few, the elite, the ones making the policies.
For starters, austerity policies:
– keep tax rates low for the wealthy, and for those claiming unearned income
– drive wages down, severely
– generate insecurity among workers so that they so fear for their survival that they will do as they’re told, without complaint or attempting to organize unions)
– drive prices of real property down, severely, and those with money can swoop in and buy at fire sale prices
– deprive people of the government benefits that were previously “guaranteed” so that they will distrust government and any other promises made in the future
– increase the disparity between the wealthy and non-wealthy, because what fun is it to be wealthy if it doesn’t make you stand out as “special”?
– prevent educational opportunity to the young of the non-wealthy, thereby enhancing the opportunity for the young of the wealthy, giving them an even better head start in life
– make people so fearful for their own survival that they begin to lash out at others “beneath” them, or at public employees who have it better than they do; scrabbling for scraps keeps our attention focused away from those really calling the shots
– accustom people to a life of kowtowing to employers for even poverty wages, and voila! Good help is now quite easy to find!
Austerity would not be adopted if there were no benefit to elites.”
This comment was the most popular one in the comment thread, out of 790 comments accepted. It even beat out “Winning Progressive” who usually comments first and wins the popularity contest.
It reflects a cause and effect relationship that I have always used to understand things: things that happen have reasons to happen, despite whatever reasons make it unlikely to happen. In this case, instituting austerity policies, despite their obvious history of failure in every instance in which they have been applied, still occurs under the direction of the controlling authorities. Why? Because they benefit the elites in control. The only way to change this is to wrest power, by constitutional means, from those who currently are making the great mass of people suffer needlessly for their own private benefit.
