Waste cleanup will pay the way

Reuters is reporting on an article today stating that Medicare wastes up to $800 billion a year. $800 billion a year. While the Congress frets over health care reform that could cost $1 trillion over 10 years, we could be tossing away 8 times that amount over the same period in Medicare waste. Wow. Imagine what could be done if you could cut that waste to $100 billion a year. $700 billion a year to play with. You could actually do Medicare for all (single payer). You could reduce the deficit. You could fix Social Security.

60 Minutes even ran a story on how easy it is to do fraud in Medicare.

Of course, this is proof that government can't be trusted to run these programs because look at the waste! Also, any cuts to Medicare either by cutting funding or trying to implement programs that would reduce waste will be interpreted by Republicans as rationing care. It's all bunk. I would agree with you if we were funding the fraud divisions of Medicare properly and they weren't catching this stuff. But the fact is, fraud detection is not funded properly and the teams are very small.

FIX THIS NOW!!!

Rich people are human, too

Which means that rich people have idiots and smart people. Anyone who disputes that is one of the former, not latter types. So they next time you hear someone say "The markets are effcient. It will fetter out the fraud and waste on it's own." is one of the former too. Alan Greenspan used to say this, but after last fall, he wised up. Wall Street is full of idiots. Why our elected officials are listening to some of these people must put them in the former group too.

Matt Taibbi has a great rant that sorta relates to this. Elizabeth Warren for President!

Inside the auto bailout and why drug companies will win

Steven Rattner gives an inside look at the restructuring of GM and Chrysler in this month's issue of Forbes.

Time has an article on the drug companies and their efforts in Washington.

Slash and Tax

So we are going after the paychecks of big firms that received tax payer assistance. I think that is addressing the symptom, not the cause. We should have busted up these firms, not bail them out then come at them later. This is populist pandering. This is a move that the banks will scream about, but they know that in the long run this is a sign that things won't change, that they can keep betting like they did to get in this mess and get bailed out when their bets go bad in the future. Of course, since Goldman already paid back it's assistance, it won't get pay cuts. The firms that are getting the paycuts have no real hope of recovery. This is a bait and switch move by the Administration. The real players (Goldman) have already left the coop. Forbes.com has some thoughts on how to address the crazy pay.

Mr. Volker is advocating the breaking up of the big banks.

I'm a new fan of Bruce Bartlett. You should be too.

Frontline on the Economy

Last night's Frontline. Watch it now.

This American Life looks at Healthcare, plus links

So the past 2 weeks of This American Life take a look at healthcare. Both episodes are terrific and worth a listen.

October 9

October 16

Extra: Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon is trying to get choice into the current health care bills. Go Wyden!

Here's a dumb senator that sounds, only sounds smart. So how do you not give a 25% pay cut and reform the system? Anyone? Anyone?

Ezra Kelin explains the Cadillac plan excise tax and how the tax will make money when no one pays it.

Bruce Bartlett is trying to kill supply-side economics.

Salon has a great article on why the government needs to start creating jobs NOW.

If we can bail out the employees of Wall Street, we can bail out the unemployed on Main Street. And we had better do so quickly, if we don't want that rotting sound to be followed by a sudden snap.

Heads they win, tails we lose

Does anything really matter? Does worrying about what amount a health care reform bill will cost over 10 years matter?

How about the proposal to give $250 checks to seniors this year since Social Security won't increase because cost of living has not increased. I am starting to really dislike Social Security. I never thought I would say that. I don't blame the current group of seniors. These folks are the Greatest Generation, and do deserve our support. But does the next generation, the Baby Boomers really deserve to receive these benefits? They have done so much harm to this country. Why should they collect? Baby Boomers don't set good examples for others to follow. That's a blanket statement, and unfair to some, but if you look at who our current leadership is at local, state, and national levels, what do you see? Do you see great leadership making hard choices, willing to put things on the line? No, you see bickering, deceit, mud slinging, pandering. It's all a thinly disguised lie. Where is the responsibility?

If you are in government, and you can give money to people willy-nilly because you are worried about how they vote, then why get all worked up over what a bill will cost over 10 years? It's not like that 10-year projection is set in stone. Not when you can (and will) change it whenever it's most politically convenient. Obama sucks. Democrats suck. Republicans suck. I think the only path we are going down is one of ruin. Typical. This is 'uniquely American.' Do nothing until people die and and things are so bad that you have to make changes. Then we will pick up the pieces, try to make a change, and limp along until the next disaster. That's America.

So now that I'm all depressed, more than I was when I started this post let's move on to links.

Robert Reich has a great post on the fact that Obama should renege on his deal with health care industry players, since the costs are going way up and the fact that the people (middle class) who were supposed to be helped by the reform will get screwed instead. I agree, but I bet you real money Obama won't do a thing.

Paul Krugman discusses why Citi and BofA are reporting losses in Q3 after making profit in Q1 and Q2. Now Larry Summers is denouncing the big trading banks since they are reporting record bonuses. He quotes Mr. Summers with this nugget.

“There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system.”

So if someone tells me that it is not my business to question how much someone in this industry makes, I say yes it is. It's my money they are gambling with. It's my money that saved their reckless ass when their bets went bad. Don't tell me to shut up. We should shut these bastards down. I don't have much hope from the Obama Administration to supply leadership on real reform in the financial industry. The casino will remain open. These people in these companies are thieves and gamblers and do not deserve our respect or tolerance.

Here is a bizarre article at Minyanville on how another recession is going to come in the next few years because of the Obama policies. It's a weirdly compelling read, in that it supports trickle-down theory (when won't this idea die?!?!) and how deficiets are going to harm America. This seems to me like old-school thinking being applied to a reality that doesn't fit the old-school model.

Daniel Gross with an excellent article on the current losses reported by GM, Citi, and BofA.

Government ownership doesn't cause catastrophic losses; catastrophic losses cause government ownership

Economist quotes from a gathering in New York. I don't have hope. These are hollow words.

John Maynard Keynes still has good ideas.

How Moody's sold out.

Barry Ritholtz wonders if the White House is finally taking financial regulation seriously.

Friday links

Krugman on the crazy AHIP report released this week by PW

98% of banks are left out of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency's purview. This leaves only the big banks that would get the annual regulation review. Makes sense, as the big banks are mostly responsible for the crisis. Could this drive nefarious schemers to go to small banks and cause trouble? Maybe, but there just isn't enough capital in the little banks to do much damage, certainly not on a national scale.

NYT Op-Ed on why the financial sector melted down. Hard to find any argument with that.

The Maestro says we should think about breaking up banks.

I've been railing on the insane supposed $80 billion dollar deal that the NYT reported the White House made with the Pharmacuetica industry a couple of months ago, but New Majority has a point. Where is the money (ads) that that deal would have produced?

Here's a walkthrough of how key member's of Congress are owned by the bank and insurance industries. Here's another pretty graph.

What I'm reading

I'm reading the book The Looting of America. It's a pretty good read. Gives a 101 course in how derivatives work and how Wall Street brought on the economic crisis.

News today: The House Banking Panel just approved the regulation that derivatives must be regulated, which means they must be traded on an exchange with all the involved parties and counterparties disclosed. This is surprising, as I th0ught it wouldn't have been possible to get this passed this late in the game. Barney Frank

Go Vandals!!

Over at ESPN.com, Pat Forde has a great little writeup about the Vandals in his recent column. Here is the writeup in its entirety:

Miracle In Moscow

With each passing victory, The Dash becomes an even bigger bandwagon fan of resurgent Idaho (31), the punch-line-turned-powerhouse of the WAC. (Or, if not powerhouse, at least respectable member of the WAC. That's pretty much a first in its own right.)

If you missed it -- and shame on you if you did -- the Vandals improved to 5-1 with a comeback victory at San Jose State on Saturday, 29-25. It was damn near enough to make The Dash endow a blocking sled at a school that hasn't been this good through six games since 1994, when it was an FCS program.

The Vandals also improved to a league-best 2-0 in WAC play, with both victories coming on the road. Given the embedded history of woe at Idaho -- eight straight seasons with at least eight losses, including 21 defeats the previous two years -- these are giddy times in Moscow.

Jesse Beals/Icon SMIRobb Akey and the Vandals are 5-1 and 2-0 in the WAC.

"We've woken up the place a little bit," said The Dash's current Coach of the Year, Robb Akey (32).

Akey traversed the eight miles across the Palouse from Washington State two years ago to become the latest head coach at Revolving Door U. He's the fourth coach this decade, following alleged staff-puncher Tom Cable (Oakland Raider), I'd-rather-be-an-assistant Nick Holt (who returned to USC after two years) and loyalty-is-overrated Dennis Erickson (who fled after one for Arizona State). And here in Year 3, Akey's methods are paying dividends.

"It'd been rough for the kids, because they'd had so many head coaches," Akey said of his first two years, which included one WAC win. "We had to make football be fun for them and give them a reason to believe in us."

When Akey got the job, it was Christmas break. He sat down with a media guide and a list of phone numbers and began calling every player to introduce himself.

"A couple of guys had the courage to say, 'Why are you any different from the last guy?'" Akey said. "And they were right. We had to prove we cared about them and that we could help them."

Part of that included weeding out a healthy number of players who weren't into Akey's way of doing things. Another part was playing a lot of young guys early in their careers and taking lumps. The third part was upgrading the talent.

Part of the upgrade was Washington State transfer running back DeMaundray Woolridge (33), whose measurements read like fiction: 5-9, 241 pounds. The human bowling ball carried five times on the game-winning drive for 28 yards, including the last 5 yards for a touchdown.

(Not all news is good news for the Vandals, however. The WAC reprimanded linebacker Tre'Shawn Robinson (34) for throwing a punch during the game against San Jose State, an act that earned him an ejection from the game and carries with it the threat of suspension if he acts up again.)

Idaho has four of its final six games at home as it strives for its first bowl bid since 1998. The Vandals also get a road shot at Boise on Nov. 14 -- and if things get really haywire, the two teams could be a combined 18-1 at that point. Could there be anything stranger than the national media descending upon Boise for Broncos-Vandals?

Rhetorical question.

Why do these bastards deserve this?

Wall Street is to make record profits this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. While the rest of the country suffers, these people are using our dime to make bigger sums of money than before the meltdown. They really are stealing. NO regulation changes from Washington. Kevin Drum says it very well:

I sort of feel like I've run out of things to say about this. There's an insanity here that's almost beyond analysis. Wall Street can spark an economic slowdown that misses destroying the planet and causing a second Great Depression only by a hair's breadth — said hair being an 11th hour emergency infusion of trillions of taxpayer dollars — and then turn around and use those trillions to return to bubble levels of profitability within 12 months. And they can do it even though the rest of the economy is still suffering through the worst recession since World War II. It's mind boggling.

Is there any silver lining here? Probably not, but I'll try: If Wall Street can shrug off the worst recession of our lifetimes as if it's a minor fender bender and get the party rolling all over again in less than 12 months, it means the next bubble is already in the works and its collapse will be every bit as bad as this one. That in turn means it will almost certainly happen while today's politicians are still in office. So maybe news like this will finally spur lawmakers to realize once and for all that the financial industry needs to be cut down to size. Half measures won't do it. Self-regulation won't do it. Compensation limits won't do it. Byzantine, watered-down rules won't do it. Something like a Morgenthau Plan for Wall Street is the only thing that has even half a chance of working.

Monday and Tuesday links

This picture is from a Slate article describing how the Right is saying that the Stimulus hasn't worked and more stimulus would be a waste. Of course, at most only about 25% of the stimulus has been spent as that is when the stimulus was designed to be spent. One could argue that the timing of when the stimulus would be spent has been done poorly, but to call the stimulus a failure is dumb and simply a political stunt.

On the health care front, the NYT has an article about how health care lobbyists are flooding Washington to get last minute changes into the bills so that the reforms will fall flat. The article makes me feel more and more supportive of a government-run health plan. In support of this news, and article at Truthout.org is claiming that these lobbyists are telling Congress that rate hikes will be inevitable if the reforms pass as they are currently proposed. And now, the health care industry has released a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) that claims that utter chaos will ensue if the current reforms do get passed. That set off quite a firestorm, and PWC is now backing away from it's own report. Hee Hee. Robert Reich says that this report is quite a bomb, but one that has exploded under the insurers. He is saying that this report does nothing except strengthen the case for a strong public option. Since the report claims that if the current reforms will cause premiums to increase faster and higher, it's hard to argue against him. It seems like insurance companies are getting desperate, as the Senate Finance Committee is voting on the Reform bill today and it's looks like it will pass the committee and move on to a floor vote. This is the farthest any kind of health care reform has gotten, and the tactics of the insurance industry are getting more and more desperate. From Reich's post:

Now's the time for Congress and the White House to say to the insurance industry: You want to play hardball? Okay. We'll play it, too. You didn't want a public insurance option. That was one of your conditions for supporting the bill. You wanted gigantic profits from having thirty million new paying customers and the market to yourself. The Senate Finance Committee and the White House agreed because they wanted your support and were afraid of the negative ads and hurricane of opposition you could finance. But you're even greedier than we imagined. And now you've demonstrated that greed to the American people. They don't want to turn over even more of their hard-earned money to you. So, insurance companies, we've got news for you. We're going to make sure Americans have the freedom to choose a public insurance option that's cheaper and better, and you're going to have to work hard to keep them your customers.

UPDATE: Timothy Noah at Slate looks at the PWC report and details how the report shows that the government is better at containing costs than the private market. The more this gets looked at, the worse the health care industry looks.

Too Big to Regulate?

Simon Johnson has a thought-provoking piece up today discussing whether the current direction of financial regulation is going in the right direction. What do you think? Has Wall Street changed after a year since the meltdown began?

It looks like the current health care reform bill is becoming more like health insurance reform as David Brooks sees it. So health care is also too big to regulate. I find this conclusion amusing, because I seem to remember Obama changing to calling health care reform health insurance reform a few months ago. Ok, so what? The rhetoric changed. Buy why? Is the timing coincidental? Does it really matter what reform is called. Actually, yes. The timing is suspect because 2 weeks after the name change, the story was confirmed that the Administration had struck a behind-the-scenes deal with the drug industry to block any reforms that could affect the drug industry. Well, so what? The industry promised to make changes and help with the deal. That's good, right? Yes, but when you look at it from standpoint of what the industry has to gain, things get less encouraging. This Vanity Fair piece details what different parts of the heath care industry make in dollars. Which part of the industry makes the most profit? Drug companies.

It seems to me that the Administration started out with health care reform, got hit with a bunch of threats from lobbyists. Grew fearful that the reform would go the way of Clinton in 1994. Since the Administration is filled with former Clinton staffers, the strategy changed to include the big health care players from the beginning. This necessitated that they make huge concessions to these players in exchange for a chance at success. But in order to make effective your rhetoric to the public, you have to find a common enemy, one that both the public and Congress could gang up on. The weakest of the health care players from a dollars perspective is the insurance companies, and they were chosen. Yes, they do deserve their criticism, and their practices of recission and are disgusting, but they are only a small part.

Think of the health care like the Golden Gate Bridge. There are lots of little pieces that are necessary for the bridge to work. You are told that the bridge is in imminent collapse. The pillars that hold the bridge up are rusting through. The cables are fraying. The road surface has holes that cars fall through. It's obvious to all that the bridge will fail in the future. Billions of dollars are spent maintaining the bridge each year, yet it just gets worse and worse. What do you do about it? Do you replace the bridge? Do you build a new bridge next to the old one? Do you just patch up the existing bridge?

Right now, it seems like the current proposal (The Baucus Bill) is going to patch up the current bridge, with the hope that the patches hold. But the problem is that the patch is only fixing the road surface (which I am analogizing to health insurance). It does nothing to the columns that are rusting, or the frayed cables. This is the deal that has been struck. Maybe it will prolong the current bridge, but there is still a collapse in the future. Maybe the hope is that people will see how nice the road is, they will want to patch the columns and fix the cables. But the foundation is still rotten. The bridge is too big to fix.

Also, both Brooks and Ezra Klein are lamenting the loss of the Wyden-Bennet bill.

I'm on the air!!

So the wonderful folks over at NPR's Planet Money have used a question I asked them about one of my health bill's as part of their podcast yesterday. Very, very cool.

In response to their answer, I posted to them another question. Which became a sort of rant, then a suggestion. Here's what I wrote them:

I would just like to say thanks for putting my question up on the podcast yesterday. It was a real treat, and the answer was enlightening. I do have one follow-up question in response. If the insurance negotiates with the hospital on what amounts it will pay for given procedures, doesn't that validate the argument for a public option insurance plan? Costs will be kept in check because the public option will be able to negotiate prices just like the other insurance companies.

I think I'm in danger of going on a rant here but whatever, here goes. The more I think about the health care debate, the more uncomfortable I am with the idea that you should make a profit off of sick people. Let me be clear here. There is a huge difference between making a living off of sick people (paying doctors and nurses) and making a profit (paying dividends to stockholders, working to increase the stock value, etc). Why do we insist on making a profit? Is the argument that healthcare is so huge that the only way for a company to raise enough capital to deal with healthcare costs is to go public and sell shares? If so, then I think that means that since the necessary size is so huge, you either have to go public or use the government. But since I think that making a profit is not the best way to do healthcare, then that only leaves the government. But then this leads to another point: I have a 401(k) and a Roth. I expect to get a return on those investments, which means that I want to see profits from the companies that I am invested in. I could have some healthcare stocks in my 401(k), but I don't know that for certain. Now I have a dilemma, because I disagree with having healthcare be run as a profit entity, yet I want profit so that my 401(k) will grow. How do I deal with this conflict? I don't really know. Sure, I could find out what stocks I have and then dump the healthcare stocks, but that could mean that my pool of risk just got smaller, which is a bad idea for investing. What to do, what to do... I also work for a company that has a pension plan, but to get that pension, I have to work for this company for the rest of my life. Is that an option? Maybe. I'm 29 and have a long career ahead of me, and staying with one company might not always suit me. So the only hope of having retirement is through my 401(k) and Roth.

The tough part about all this is that the only people who can really answer these questions is me and you. Not Wall Street, who only seems to have short-term gains in mind. Not Congress, who seems to only think as far as the next election cycle. Us. Society at large. It's easy to be passive. Passive stockholder, passive voting citizen. It just feels that to me, the healthcare debate is touching on something that is much more than just keeping ourselves healthy. It is something fundamental about how we as a society want to move forward as citizens/investors. I've read Robert Reich's book "Supercapitalism", where he really examines this issue. I highly recommend this book. Hey, there's a thought: how about a Planet Money book club, where you guys read a book and then use a podcast or do an extra podcast to discuss your thoughts? There are lots of great books coming out about the crisis, like Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail" and Henry Paulson's memoir.

So in closing, healthcare is huge and mysterious. I think the government will have to play a big role. I think that we as a society need to look at some fundamental issues that we have put ourselves in and make some tough, tough decisions. I think that Planet Money should have a book club. And thanks for putting me in your podcast, that was AWESOME!!

In other news, I just finished reading Michael Smerconish's book "Morning Drive: Things I wish I knew before I started Talking" It's a great read, and I found myself agreeing with him on most of his points. His best quote is at the end on page 257. Here is the quote:

Most importantly, I think the Republican Party needs to be more libertarian on social issues. Stay out of people's individual choices and for goodness' sake, stop being a party of litmus tests. How about we get a handle on stemming heterosexual divorce before telling same-sex couples how to lead their lives? Speaking of families, let's recognize that single-parent households pose more of a threat to safety than firearms. Why not have room in our tent for both pro-life and pro-choice views? Stop treating cells bound to a petri dish with the same rights and inherent dignities afforded to people. And let us resolve that never again will we stand for politicians trying to determine for any American what his or her end-of-life plan should be.

Speaking of politicians, I continue to believe that we need citizen politicians, not professionals. Two Senate terms and six in the House will ensure we get grounded folks who are capable of earning a living when they're not serving us. And when it comes to those elections, let's give up trying to regulate donations. Someone will always find a loophole. Let anyone spend whatever he or she wants, as long as there is full and immediate disclosure.

Then I read this completely stupid article in New Majority. Read it here. Then read my response, which I haven't yet decided if it's worth posting in the comments:

I think it is wrong to lay all these problem's at Obama's feet. He's not a dictator with absolute control. Implying that the stimulus is only 40% spent because of Obama misses out on how our government works. Obama didn't write the check. He proposed the bill and Congress passed it. Congress stipulated how and when the money would be spent. Obama signed that bill, but I think the Obama team went along with the delayed spending because they wanted to get something out ASAP. Compromising on when the money would go out was a risk that seemed worth it back when the legislation was passed. Remember that because of the stimulus spending so far, the number of unemployed would be even higher than it currently is. I want more of stimulus to be spent now, too. But our cozy, jobs-are-secure Congress disagrees, and so here we are. Banks are hoarding their cash because they are still thinking like we are in 2007 and that foreclosure is the best way to recoup the money from past-due mortgages. It's not Obama's fault that the banks are stupid and that it is in their best interest to modify these troubled loans. Instead they are giving themselves huge bonuses and claiming to be survivors of the recession. Give me a break. The banks don't need any more incentives. Why only focus on jumbo loans? Let's focus on the people who are just trying to stay afloat with a $200k to $300k loan. I agree that Obama should (dare I say it) take the gloves off and start playing hardball. The Copenhagen stunt was lame, but so what? It's time for conservatives and Republicans back off the criticism and offer good ideas and make compromises with Democrats and then actually vote YEA for those compromises. Being critical of Obama and not Congress is counter-productive.

National Affairs has a great piece on where capitalism stands in America right now. The end of the article wraps up nicely:

We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy.

The alternative path is to soothe the popular rage with measures like limits on executive bonuses while shoring up the position of the largest financial players, making them dependent on government and making the larger economy dependent on them. Such measures play to the crowd in the moment, but threaten the financial system and the public standing of American capitalism in the long run. They also reinforce the very practices that caused the crisis. This is the path to big-business capitalism: a path that blurs the distinction between pro-market and pro-business policies, and so imperils the unique faith the American people have long displayed in the legitimacy of democratic capitalism.

Unfortunately, it looks for now like the Obama administration has chosen this latter path. It is a choice that threatens to launch us on that vicious spiral of more public resentment and more corporatist crony capitalism so common abroad — trampling in the process the economic exceptionalism that has been so crucial for American prosperity. When the dust has cleared and the panic has abated, this may well turn out to be the most serious and damaging consequence of the financial crisis for American capitalism.

Paul Krugman answer's readers questions. Ezra Klein looks at an article in the NYT about where that hamburger you are eating comes from.

Ezra Klein then looks at how the current reform proposals look a lot like how the Dutch do their healthcare. As an aside, I think that claiming the only way to get reform is to create something that is 'uniquely American' is a load of bull. Who cares if the reform is like a European country's? I want something that works, not just something that is different.

Daniel Gross looks at how banks are screwing us again with high ATM fees. I hate banks.

David Frum declares the era of the Private Sector over. My response: So what? Didn't do too much for the middle class, so good riddance!

Monday links

Robert Reich has some interesting ideas on how to get more stimulus without having Congress pass a second stimulus.

Paul Krugman looks at how the Republican part works today, and I find myself agreeing with him. Here's a bite:

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

9.8%

That is the announced unemployment rate given by the government today. This is pretty bad. Even though the recession is officially over, people are still fearful of losing jobs. Planet Money and other experts say that the 9.8% isn't a true reflection of the employment situation, as large numbers of people are giving up even looking for work, are underemployed, or are taking pay cuts. So if you add all that up, the rate of "unemployment" is closer to 17%. As a result of the unemployment and fear, spending is down as people save more and pay off debt as opposed to buying. This results in more job losses, as businesses aren't selling stuff and their profits drop. So they shed more jobs and the cycle continues. Still with me? So how do you stop that cycle? If you agree with the situation that I just described, then you cannot say that the market will self-correct and turn itself around on it's own. It can't. At least, it can't in any amount of time that people would be willing to give it. The only way to get this trend to stop is government intervention. Nothing else exists that can fill the void. Robert Reich and Paul Krugman have been shouting this for months, and its getting more and more absurd to argue against their points. I don't like debt, but the consequences of letting things go as they are has much scarier implications to the future than the implications of running up more debt now do. We are not in normal times where debt is just bad bad bad. We've pulled back from the brink, but we aren't heading away from the brink. We are coasting parallel to it and can still veer back. I do not want another bank bailout, but another stimulus is a good idea. But for God's sake let's make it go into effect NOW, not in 2010. Let's be sensible about this and that when the economy does pick up, let's figure out how to get this debt paid off.

As an aside, I am always amused to hear people who voted for Bush seem to have no problem with the waste and irresponsiblity of that administration. As soon as a Democrat gets into the White House, then all is lost and the government is dumb and irresponsible. Please. I agree that there is waste, but there is waste either way. Oversight will always be necessary, not when it is politically useful.

Bill Moyer's Journal - past shows that are worth watching

So I've been catching up on Bill Moyer's Journal lately.

Sam Tanenhaus talks about his new book, the Death of Conservatism.

Money-driven Medicine is a film based on a book of the same name by Maggie Mahar. The film looks at why costs are so high.

Critical Condition is a movie about how health care is breaking families and our fellow citizens in this country, and how lacking insurance is killing our friends and families.