For Immediate Release
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
Contact: Todd Vachon, socialistpartyct@gmail.com
On this day in 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among it's thirty articles which detail the basic rights of all human beings is included the right to health care. Article 25 states that all people have the right to "health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
In the years following the Second World War, every industrialized nation except for the United States has realized this right for it's citizens.
On this anniversary of the UDHR, the Socialist Party of Connecticut would like to draw attention to this violation of human rights exercised in our own backyards. Our current multi-payer, for profit, health system (and it's modifications currently being decided in congress) does not secure the rights envisaged in Article 25. With nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, millions more underinsured, patients denied vital care and yet health care CEO's earning as much as $57,000 per hour, we are certainly not treating health as a human right.
The profit-based, private insurance industry costs American consumers twice as much per capita as the services provided for citizens by other industrialized nations. Americans spend $7,129 per capita on health insurance and yet it does not even cover all Americans. Despite out-spending other nations, our system still leaves the U.S. ranked 38th in the world for health care. We score poorly on all major health indicators, including: life expectancy- ranked 30th, right behind Bosnia; infant mortality-ranked 46th, right behind Cuba and Guam, and we're ranked 20th out of the G20 for deaths by treatable causes.
The Socialist Party of CT advocates for the elimination of the private insurance industry and the creation instead of a national, single-payer health insurance plan; an expanded Medicare-For-All. There can be no solution to the health care crisis without eliminating the cause of the problem itself, the profit-motive of insurers. A national single-payer system would cost $300-400 billion less per year than Americans currently spend and would extend coverage to all. To learn more about such a system we would direct people to the following resources: www.vachonforcongress.blogspot.com, www.pnhp.org, www.socialistparty-usa.org/platform/humanneeds.html
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Socialist Party of CT Opposes Escalation of War in Afghanistan; Demands Money for Jobs and Health Care
Amidst the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, President Barack Obama has mistakenly chosen to dedicate yet more resources, manpower and lives to military interventionism. The Socialist Party of CT finds this course to be foolhardy and wasteful. We advocate instead for an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The seemingly endless pool of public money spent on war could far better serve the unemployed, underemployed and uninsured people of the United States by creating a public works program and a single-payer national health insurance plan.
It has always been a core principal of the Socialist Party that public assets should be used for the public good by means of democratic administration. This recent exercise in defense spending, in addition to the ongoing health care reform "debate", further underscore the shortcomings of the capitalist political-economic system; namely that the voices of the many are repeatedly drowned out by the voices of the wealthy and powerful.
During the 2008 presidential campaign the mainstream media made a big to-do about claims that Mr. Obama was a "socialist" and yet did little or nothing to find out what the actual socialist candidates thought about the issues. Socialist Party Presidential candidate Brian Moore, Vice-Presidential candidate Stewart Alexander and candidate for U.S. Congress here in CT, Todd Vachon would have gladly informed the public that we stood for an immediate end of both wars. We also would have reminded people that mandating private health insurance is only socialism for the insurance corporations and bailing out bankers is yet further welfare for millionaires and billionaires...
We hope that the disenchanted popular movement that brought this administration into power on a tide of "hope" and "change" will not walk away and become apathetic. We invite them instead to join a real movement for real change starting tomorrow, Wednesday Dec. 2, at 4:30pm by joining us and dozens of other groups to protest the war escalation in front of the Federal Buildings in Hartford and New Haven and demand that our public assets return home to serve our public good!
SPCT platform and information available at:
www.socialistpartyct.org
www.socialistparty-usa.org
www.votevachon.com
It has always been a core principal of the Socialist Party that public assets should be used for the public good by means of democratic administration. This recent exercise in defense spending, in addition to the ongoing health care reform "debate", further underscore the shortcomings of the capitalist political-economic system; namely that the voices of the many are repeatedly drowned out by the voices of the wealthy and powerful.
During the 2008 presidential campaign the mainstream media made a big to-do about claims that Mr. Obama was a "socialist" and yet did little or nothing to find out what the actual socialist candidates thought about the issues. Socialist Party Presidential candidate Brian Moore, Vice-Presidential candidate Stewart Alexander and candidate for U.S. Congress here in CT, Todd Vachon would have gladly informed the public that we stood for an immediate end of both wars. We also would have reminded people that mandating private health insurance is only socialism for the insurance corporations and bailing out bankers is yet further welfare for millionaires and billionaires...
We hope that the disenchanted popular movement that brought this administration into power on a tide of "hope" and "change" will not walk away and become apathetic. We invite them instead to join a real movement for real change starting tomorrow, Wednesday Dec. 2, at 4:30pm by joining us and dozens of other groups to protest the war escalation in front of the Federal Buildings in Hartford and New Haven and demand that our public assets return home to serve our public good!
SPCT platform and information available at:
www.socialistpartyct.org
www.socialistparty-usa.org
www.votevachon.com
Monday, November 30, 2009
Horatio and Santa
Horatio Alger was an author in the mid 1800's whose books, such as "Ragged Dick", promoted somewhat of a "rags to riches" theme. In a very formulaic fashion, his working-class protagonists would always come out on top by working hard, abstaining from pleasures and often times having a lucky break.
I like to characterize the American psyche's understanding of the Horatio Alger myth to the American (christian/capitalist) child's understanding of Santa. It is something that we are taught to believe in at an early age. It is something that we will likely realize is not true at some point, but if we have made out okay we will continue to pass on the belief. So, just as kids who have always received presents from Santa continue to want to believe in him after they know he isn't real, adults who have ended up with decent jobs want to believe that it is exclusively due to their own merit.
The flip side is that the children whose parents couldn't afford gifts from Santa tend to blame themselves, just as workers who wind up unemployed blame themselves. And just as charity organizations collect toys to give to poor children, the government collects taxes to give assistance to those in poverty. The only difference is that the children think the gifts are from Santa and no longer feel bad about themselves, but the workers are forced to feel even more inadequate and down on themselves. While it might be nice to believe in Santa, it would certainly be more desirable to believe in oneself, and that is what makes the Horatio Alger myth so dangerous.
Average people don't realize that capitalism requires an unemployed reserve army of workers in order to: 1. be on standby for periods of expansion, and 2. keep down the wages of those who do have jobs. Think about that. There must always be a certain percentage of the workforce unemployed. Furthermore, there are those who have "low level jobs" that also feel bad about themselves, but never stop to consider that there must always be a certain percentage of the population who occupies those socially necessary positions. So, no matter how hard you try; I mean even if every single working age person gave 100% all the time, there would still be those who are unemployed and those working mundane jobs. So, without even considering any details about personal or socio-economic circumstances, there is an inherent flaw in the Horatio Alger logic as applied within a capitalist economy.
I like to characterize the American psyche's understanding of the Horatio Alger myth to the American (christian/capitalist) child's understanding of Santa. It is something that we are taught to believe in at an early age. It is something that we will likely realize is not true at some point, but if we have made out okay we will continue to pass on the belief. So, just as kids who have always received presents from Santa continue to want to believe in him after they know he isn't real, adults who have ended up with decent jobs want to believe that it is exclusively due to their own merit.
The flip side is that the children whose parents couldn't afford gifts from Santa tend to blame themselves, just as workers who wind up unemployed blame themselves. And just as charity organizations collect toys to give to poor children, the government collects taxes to give assistance to those in poverty. The only difference is that the children think the gifts are from Santa and no longer feel bad about themselves, but the workers are forced to feel even more inadequate and down on themselves. While it might be nice to believe in Santa, it would certainly be more desirable to believe in oneself, and that is what makes the Horatio Alger myth so dangerous.
Average people don't realize that capitalism requires an unemployed reserve army of workers in order to: 1. be on standby for periods of expansion, and 2. keep down the wages of those who do have jobs. Think about that. There must always be a certain percentage of the workforce unemployed. Furthermore, there are those who have "low level jobs" that also feel bad about themselves, but never stop to consider that there must always be a certain percentage of the population who occupies those socially necessary positions. So, no matter how hard you try; I mean even if every single working age person gave 100% all the time, there would still be those who are unemployed and those working mundane jobs. So, without even considering any details about personal or socio-economic circumstances, there is an inherent flaw in the Horatio Alger logic as applied within a capitalist economy.
Escalate Employment
From Luxemburgnet
JOBS FOR ALL!
Ten months after the stimulus law passed, one in six Americans is unemployed or underemployed. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, the private sector is destroying jobs, not making them. Yet everywhere there is work that needs to be done—schools and hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed, housing and infrastructure is crumbling. Enough of this insanity! Today, there is only one way to create jobs—the government must hire workers directly at good pay to do the work that needs to be done, the way the CWA and WPA programs hired millions in the last Great Depression.
We Demand:
A Massive Public Works Program,
with direct government employment at prevailing wages to:--Cut class size in half in our schools--Provide low cost housing for all--Provide mass transit for all--Research, develop and build cheap, clean safe energy--and to do all the other work in our hospitals, on our roads and bridges, in our social services, in our factories and universities, that needs to be done. This program is to be paid for by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by taxing the rich and the corporations who created the crisis.
We will not be divided!
We will not fight against ourselves for the available jobs but will unite in one movement to win JOBS FOR ALL WHO LIVE HERE, immigrant and native-born. So to get Jobs For All,
We Demand:
Legalization for ALL
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL,
REBUILD AMERICA, JOBS FOR ALL!
Rally Saturday, Dec. 19 12:00 Noon
Market and Broad Sts. Newark NJ
JOBS FOR ALL!
Ten months after the stimulus law passed, one in six Americans is unemployed or underemployed. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, the private sector is destroying jobs, not making them. Yet everywhere there is work that needs to be done—schools and hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed, housing and infrastructure is crumbling. Enough of this insanity! Today, there is only one way to create jobs—the government must hire workers directly at good pay to do the work that needs to be done, the way the CWA and WPA programs hired millions in the last Great Depression.
We Demand:
A Massive Public Works Program,
with direct government employment at prevailing wages to:--Cut class size in half in our schools--Provide low cost housing for all--Provide mass transit for all--Research, develop and build cheap, clean safe energy--and to do all the other work in our hospitals, on our roads and bridges, in our social services, in our factories and universities, that needs to be done. This program is to be paid for by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by taxing the rich and the corporations who created the crisis.
We will not be divided!
We will not fight against ourselves for the available jobs but will unite in one movement to win JOBS FOR ALL WHO LIVE HERE, immigrant and native-born. So to get Jobs For All,
We Demand:
Legalization for ALL
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL,
REBUILD AMERICA, JOBS FOR ALL!
Rally Saturday, Dec. 19 12:00 Noon
Market and Broad Sts. Newark NJ
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The SPCT Calendar Listing: November, 2009
1. Peace/Economic Conversion Symposium: Nov. 14
“Symposium on Conversion to a Peace Economy in Connecticut”
Sat., November 14, 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Konover Auditorium, Dodd Research Center, UConn/Storrs
Continental Breakfast as of 8:15
Public invited free of charge.
Parking available in the South Garage at $1/hour within a short walk
to the Dodd Center. For handicapped access, use contacts below.
INFORMATION: mimbck@yahoo.com or 860-429-3107
2. Voices of A People’s History-By Howard Zinn: Nov. 14-15
Theatrical performance of great dissident voices from throughout American history. 8pm Nov 14th and 2pm Nov 15th at The Old Town Hall, 221 East St. Stafford Springs, CT. Tix available at: 860-684-9500
3. Two Presentations on two growing movements in Latin America,
followed by a meeting of Connecticut United for Peace: Nov. 15
-“Class Struggle and Colonialism” in Puerto Rico
-"Nobody Here Surrenders!" The Struggle in Honduras Continues
Sunday, November 15, 2:00pm at The Church of the Holy Trinity
381 Main Street, Middletown, CT
4. Cindy Sheehan speaks at CCSU: Nov. 16
2pm: Torp Theatre, Davidson Hall at CCSU in New Britain, CT
“Where Has The Antiwar Movement Gone?”
Panel discussion with Cindy Sheehan
7pm: Torp Theatre, Davidson Hall at CCSU in New Britain, CT
“What One Woman Can Do”
Lecture and discussion by Cindy Sheehan
Open and free to the public
5. Protest the Escalation of The War in Afghanistan: TBA
4:30 p.m. the day after any official announcement of troop escalations by the president. Rally at the federal buildings in Hartford or New Haven
6. Socialist Party of CT, December Meeting: TBA
Join the lively and growing movement here in CT!
contact: spcentralct@gmail.com www.socialistpartyct.org
Now on facebook, search: Ct Socialists
7. Call-In For The Kucinich State Single-Payer Amendment: TBA
When the house and senate go into committee to jive up their two bills we have to raise holy heck to have the Kucinich Amendment inserted into the final legislation; this would allow individual states to create their own single-payer systems if they so choose.
“Symposium on Conversion to a Peace Economy in Connecticut”
Sat., November 14, 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Konover Auditorium, Dodd Research Center, UConn/Storrs
Continental Breakfast as of 8:15
Public invited free of charge.
Parking available in the South Garage at $1/hour within a short walk
to the Dodd Center. For handicapped access, use contacts below.
INFORMATION: mimbck@yahoo.com or 860-429-3107
2. Voices of A People’s History-By Howard Zinn: Nov. 14-15
Theatrical performance of great dissident voices from throughout American history. 8pm Nov 14th and 2pm Nov 15th at The Old Town Hall, 221 East St. Stafford Springs, CT. Tix available at: 860-684-9500
3. Two Presentations on two growing movements in Latin America,
followed by a meeting of Connecticut United for Peace: Nov. 15
-“Class Struggle and Colonialism” in Puerto Rico
-"Nobody Here Surrenders!" The Struggle in Honduras Continues
Sunday, November 15, 2:00pm at The Church of the Holy Trinity
381 Main Street, Middletown, CT
4. Cindy Sheehan speaks at CCSU: Nov. 16
2pm: Torp Theatre, Davidson Hall at CCSU in New Britain, CT
“Where Has The Antiwar Movement Gone?”
Panel discussion with Cindy Sheehan
7pm: Torp Theatre, Davidson Hall at CCSU in New Britain, CT
“What One Woman Can Do”
Lecture and discussion by Cindy Sheehan
Open and free to the public
5. Protest the Escalation of The War in Afghanistan: TBA
4:30 p.m. the day after any official announcement of troop escalations by the president. Rally at the federal buildings in Hartford or New Haven
6. Socialist Party of CT, December Meeting: TBA
Join the lively and growing movement here in CT!
contact: spcentralct@gmail.com www.socialistpartyct.org
Now on facebook, search: Ct Socialists
7. Call-In For The Kucinich State Single-Payer Amendment: TBA
When the house and senate go into committee to jive up their two bills we have to raise holy heck to have the Kucinich Amendment inserted into the final legislation; this would allow individual states to create their own single-payer systems if they so choose.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
My Town Hall Experience
After waiting 90 minutes with my hand raised to speak, I was finally selected. The entire town hall meeting about healthcare had been unfolding just like all of the reports I'd been seeing and hearing in the media. Loud and disruptive naysayers overpowering any voice that proposed modifying our broken health system.
My heart and mind were racing. So many things that I'd like to say. So many falsehoods and misconceptions to counter. So many facts to share. As I waited behind two others for my turn I scratched some notes on piece of paper I dug from my pocket. Finally, the mic was to be handed to me, and...... "I'm sorry folks that's all we have time for, we have to leave the auditorium at 8pm sharp!" I couldn't believe my ears.
I had so much to say! So little had been accomplished! What a sham!
The whole ride home my father and I, who had attended with me, were simultaneously angered and disheartened by the experience. We discussed a myriad of ways in which the forum could have been better organized. We took turns saying things that we would have liked to have had the opportunity to say.
To paraphrase my own thoughts, (and possibly brush up the language) I would have liked to have said something like this:
"Thank you for taking my question. My name is Todd Vachon from Colchester and I'd like to start by saying that I have spent several years working as a teacher in that 'oh so socialist' institution known as public education. And if this were my classroom, the disruptive members would be on their last warning. But since the principal is not here, perhaps we could call on the uniformed folks standing in the back, who work for that other socialist institution-- the police department, to escort them to their cars. From there, they could drive home on those 'socialist' public roads, abiding by the 'socialist' traffic signals before crossing any 'socialist' bridges.
I think we should also thank the Stalinist 1st selectman and communist regime of Montville for allowing us to use this 'socialist' high school auditorium, free of charge; a beautiful and brand new one at that.
It is unfortunate however, that over 100 folks had to be turned away at the door. The maximum capacity has been reached and the 'socialists' from the fire department deemed it a matter of public safety.
But seriously, all sarcasm aside, what I'm getting at with these examples is that NOT ALL THINGS are handled best by the so-called 'free-market'. Imagine if we all had to subscribe to fire, police and medical service. Many folks would not be able to afford the premiums. What happens when your neighbor's house is on fire and they didn't pay their fire bill? Or better yet, the fire companies deny coverage to your home because it is too old or has a pre-existing condition. I know, it's ludicrous to consider, but what is so different about health services?
If you get in an accident today, the fire and police department respond as a public service. EMT's respond and start treating you on the scene, but as soon as you arrive at the ER the treatment now becomes a commodity that you must pay for.
Every other industrialized country spends considerably less per capita on healthcare; half to be exact. They provide it universally to all of their citizens; we leave 50 million without, and they have better service than we do; we rank 38th in the world.
So, my question is this: Can the naysayers suck it up, get past the ideological free-market dogma, and consider practical solutions to a real problem? Or are they too damned stubborn to ever admit that they are wrong? Thank you."
Well those are my two cents. A day late and a dollar short, but still here anyway.
You know, in retrospect, I think that merely organizing the two opposing factions on opposite ends of the parking lot and allowing them to yell back and forth at each other would have been equally as productive.
My heart and mind were racing. So many things that I'd like to say. So many falsehoods and misconceptions to counter. So many facts to share. As I waited behind two others for my turn I scratched some notes on piece of paper I dug from my pocket. Finally, the mic was to be handed to me, and...... "I'm sorry folks that's all we have time for, we have to leave the auditorium at 8pm sharp!" I couldn't believe my ears.
I had so much to say! So little had been accomplished! What a sham!
The whole ride home my father and I, who had attended with me, were simultaneously angered and disheartened by the experience. We discussed a myriad of ways in which the forum could have been better organized. We took turns saying things that we would have liked to have had the opportunity to say.
To paraphrase my own thoughts, (and possibly brush up the language) I would have liked to have said something like this:
"Thank you for taking my question. My name is Todd Vachon from Colchester and I'd like to start by saying that I have spent several years working as a teacher in that 'oh so socialist' institution known as public education. And if this were my classroom, the disruptive members would be on their last warning. But since the principal is not here, perhaps we could call on the uniformed folks standing in the back, who work for that other socialist institution-- the police department, to escort them to their cars. From there, they could drive home on those 'socialist' public roads, abiding by the 'socialist' traffic signals before crossing any 'socialist' bridges.
I think we should also thank the Stalinist 1st selectman and communist regime of Montville for allowing us to use this 'socialist' high school auditorium, free of charge; a beautiful and brand new one at that.
It is unfortunate however, that over 100 folks had to be turned away at the door. The maximum capacity has been reached and the 'socialists' from the fire department deemed it a matter of public safety.
But seriously, all sarcasm aside, what I'm getting at with these examples is that NOT ALL THINGS are handled best by the so-called 'free-market'. Imagine if we all had to subscribe to fire, police and medical service. Many folks would not be able to afford the premiums. What happens when your neighbor's house is on fire and they didn't pay their fire bill? Or better yet, the fire companies deny coverage to your home because it is too old or has a pre-existing condition. I know, it's ludicrous to consider, but what is so different about health services?
If you get in an accident today, the fire and police department respond as a public service. EMT's respond and start treating you on the scene, but as soon as you arrive at the ER the treatment now becomes a commodity that you must pay for.
Every other industrialized country spends considerably less per capita on healthcare; half to be exact. They provide it universally to all of their citizens; we leave 50 million without, and they have better service than we do; we rank 38th in the world.
So, my question is this: Can the naysayers suck it up, get past the ideological free-market dogma, and consider practical solutions to a real problem? Or are they too damned stubborn to ever admit that they are wrong? Thank you."
Well those are my two cents. A day late and a dollar short, but still here anyway.
You know, in retrospect, I think that merely organizing the two opposing factions on opposite ends of the parking lot and allowing them to yell back and forth at each other would have been equally as productive.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Bringing Single-Payer InToThe Media
Friends,
In case you have not heard, Representative Courtney will be hosting a town hall forum on health reform this Wednesday, September 2nd at 6:30 p.m. at Montville High School.
I would like to make an appeal to progressives, folks on the left and anyone who wants a real discussion about our broken health care system to attend:
1.) To counter the right-wing nonsense about death panels, Adolf Hitler and Darth Vader.
~and~
2.) To advocate for single-payer instead of this band-aid, doomed-to-fail, "public option". HR3200 does not address the real core of the problem: that multi-payer systems are bureaucratic nightmares, required to put profit before care in every instance. HR676 is the logical solution and must be considered.
As most of you know, I have been advocating for the single-payer solution for a very long time. Pre-dating my challenge to Mr. Courtney at the ballot last fall. I have attached below a few recent breakthroughs into the media that I have made for the single-payer option.
Hope you enjoy and hope to see you on Wednesday in Montville!
-Todd
Trying To Bring Single-Payer In To The Media:
Some Health Proposals Address The Issue of Waste
By Todd Vachon
Norwich Bulletin
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x769901449/Todd-Vachon-Some-health-care-proposals-answer-issue-of-waste
Health Care: What’s The Diagnosis?
By Todd Vachon
New London Day
http://archive.theday.com/re.aspx?re=3d92d656-ccbb-491e-9839-716af30f2a6b
WHUS Radio Interview with Todd Vachon about Single-Payer
http://www.4shared.com/account/file/126038457/84651d11/whus_interview.html
Other Great Resources on Health Reform:
Physicians for a National Health Program
www.pnhp.org
House Bill 676
www.hr676.org
Frontline: Sick Around The World
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Bullying, Hate-Mongering Have No Place In Health Debate:
In a reasoned debate, single payer will come out on top
By Laura S. Boylan, MD and Joanne Landy, MPH
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/18/bullying-hate-mongering-have-no-place-in-health-
debate/
In case you have not heard, Representative Courtney will be hosting a town hall forum on health reform this Wednesday, September 2nd at 6:30 p.m. at Montville High School.
I would like to make an appeal to progressives, folks on the left and anyone who wants a real discussion about our broken health care system to attend:
1.) To counter the right-wing nonsense about death panels, Adolf Hitler and Darth Vader.
~and~
2.) To advocate for single-payer instead of this band-aid, doomed-to-fail, "public option". HR3200 does not address the real core of the problem: that multi-payer systems are bureaucratic nightmares, required to put profit before care in every instance. HR676 is the logical solution and must be considered.
As most of you know, I have been advocating for the single-payer solution for a very long time. Pre-dating my challenge to Mr. Courtney at the ballot last fall. I have attached below a few recent breakthroughs into the media that I have made for the single-payer option.
Hope you enjoy and hope to see you on Wednesday in Montville!
-Todd
Trying To Bring Single-Payer In To The Media:
Some Health Proposals Address The Issue of Waste
By Todd Vachon
Norwich Bulletin
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x769901449/Todd-Vachon-Some-health-care-proposals-answer-issue-of-waste
Health Care: What’s The Diagnosis?
By Todd Vachon
New London Day
http://archive.theday.com/re.aspx?re=3d92d656-ccbb-491e-9839-716af30f2a6b
WHUS Radio Interview with Todd Vachon about Single-Payer
http://www.4shared.com/account/file/126038457/84651d11/whus_interview.html
Other Great Resources on Health Reform:
Physicians for a National Health Program
www.pnhp.org
House Bill 676
www.hr676.org
Frontline: Sick Around The World
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Bullying, Hate-Mongering Have No Place In Health Debate:
In a reasoned debate, single payer will come out on top
By Laura S. Boylan, MD and Joanne Landy, MPH
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/18/bullying-hate-mongering-have-no-place-in-health-
debate/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Norwich Bulletin Column on Health Reform
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/columnists/x769901449/Todd-Vachon-Some-health-care-proposals-answer-issue-of-waste
Some health care proposals answer issue of waste
Guest Column
By TODD VACHON
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 19, 2009 @ 10:49 PM
Last update Aug 19, 2009 @ 11:46 PM
Health care reform is the topic of the day. One cannot pass by a radio or television without hearing some mention of it. What seems to be missing from the coverage, however, are the sobering facts about our problem and the true nature of our potential reform measures.
First, let’s examine our health care system.
The United States spends twice as much — $7,129 per capita — on health care as other industrialized nations, yet we still have nearly 50 million uninsured people. Despite spending more, we continue to perform poorly on major health indicators. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. ranks 30th for life expectancy, right behind Bosnia; 46th for infant mortality, right behind Cuba and Guam, and 20th out of G20 for deaths by treatable causes.
Being the richest nation in the world, this certainly reveals our national priorities to be issues other than public health.
More than 18,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford to seek treatment. That’s rationing based on income. Those with insurance have more bureaucrats between them and their doctors than any other nation, namely the claims departments at the insurance companies. In fact, we have the most bureaucratic system in the world. More than 31 percent of all health expenditures go to administrative costs. Our multi-payer, profit-based system has countless insurers, each with their own overhead costs, marketing departments and exorbitant executive salaries.
These expenses combined account for $350 billion spent on things other than providing health care. Meanwhile, 70 percent of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and half of those are people who actually have insurance.
The diagnosis: The system is very ill.
The treatment: Here are the options in Congress:
Garnering the most attention is the president’s preferred bill, HR 3200. This adds a public option to compete in the system. However, it does not address the root problem, namely the administrative waste of a multi-payer system. U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has offered an amendment to allow individual states to create their own single-payer systems. This would begin to save money and increase efficiency.
Getting practically zero mention in the press is U.S. Rep. John Conyers’, D-Michigan, bill, HR 676, that would create a National Health Insurance plan. This bill details the creation of a universal single-payer system covering all Americans with comprehensive care — and for the same amount we’re spending. Conyers and advocates contend eliminating the tremendous overlap and waste of a multi-payer system, the whole country could have comprehensive coverage.
The final option, preferred by pundits and spin masters, is to do nothing.
These are the choices legislators face this fall. Please do some research and contact your representative to share your views.
Todd Vachon resides in Colchester.
Some health care proposals answer issue of waste
Guest Column
By TODD VACHON
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 19, 2009 @ 10:49 PM
Last update Aug 19, 2009 @ 11:46 PM
Health care reform is the topic of the day. One cannot pass by a radio or television without hearing some mention of it. What seems to be missing from the coverage, however, are the sobering facts about our problem and the true nature of our potential reform measures.
First, let’s examine our health care system.
The United States spends twice as much — $7,129 per capita — on health care as other industrialized nations, yet we still have nearly 50 million uninsured people. Despite spending more, we continue to perform poorly on major health indicators. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. ranks 30th for life expectancy, right behind Bosnia; 46th for infant mortality, right behind Cuba and Guam, and 20th out of G20 for deaths by treatable causes.
Being the richest nation in the world, this certainly reveals our national priorities to be issues other than public health.
More than 18,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford to seek treatment. That’s rationing based on income. Those with insurance have more bureaucrats between them and their doctors than any other nation, namely the claims departments at the insurance companies. In fact, we have the most bureaucratic system in the world. More than 31 percent of all health expenditures go to administrative costs. Our multi-payer, profit-based system has countless insurers, each with their own overhead costs, marketing departments and exorbitant executive salaries.
These expenses combined account for $350 billion spent on things other than providing health care. Meanwhile, 70 percent of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and half of those are people who actually have insurance.
The diagnosis: The system is very ill.
The treatment: Here are the options in Congress:
Garnering the most attention is the president’s preferred bill, HR 3200. This adds a public option to compete in the system. However, it does not address the root problem, namely the administrative waste of a multi-payer system. U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has offered an amendment to allow individual states to create their own single-payer systems. This would begin to save money and increase efficiency.
Getting practically zero mention in the press is U.S. Rep. John Conyers’, D-Michigan, bill, HR 676, that would create a National Health Insurance plan. This bill details the creation of a universal single-payer system covering all Americans with comprehensive care — and for the same amount we’re spending. Conyers and advocates contend eliminating the tremendous overlap and waste of a multi-payer system, the whole country could have comprehensive coverage.
The final option, preferred by pundits and spin masters, is to do nothing.
These are the choices legislators face this fall. Please do some research and contact your representative to share your views.
Todd Vachon resides in Colchester.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
G20 Organizing in CT
Meeting to Organize Transportation to Protest The G20
Sunday, August 30th at 2pm
Location: TBA in Middletown, CT
Discussion List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctg20workgroup/
Join us as we come together and organize for the G20 protests in Pittsburgh this Sept 25th.
Why We Protest: Working people and the poor continually carry the burden of suffering during economic crises; struggling to keep their homes, their jobs and maybe health care. Meanwhile, the wealthy elites continue to debate policies that do little to alleviate this pain, and much to garner further profits. This economic struggle is historic; a continuation of the struggles that our parents and their parents endured during the crisis in the 1970s and the Great Depression of the 1930s. While we are being stripped of our job security, access to quality education, access to healthcare, and forced from our homes; the ruling class continues to enrich itself through economic bailouts and endless wars. It’s time to draw a line in the sand!
People from around the world; including Latin America, Guadeloupe, Greece, France, Iraq, Iran, throughout Africa, and countless other countries have taken up the fight for a more just economy. Here in the US we have been resisting the unjust war against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan and Iran.
This September, the G20 comes to Pittsburgh for a meeting of war-makers and profiteers—
offering us a great opportunity to stand up for global justice! The G20 is an undemocratic organization of wealthy capitalists who meet behind closed doors to make extremely important decisions that impact us all. The criteria of their decisions is quite simply to maximize profits, which has nothing to do with making a better world for all. In fact, they rarely even consider the social and environmental impacts of their decisions on the poor people in their own countries let alone anyone in the 175 other non G20 countries. We must join our sisters and brothers in solidarity against this economic oppression and protest these undemocratic processes. These meetings continue to enact the very programs that have made the richest 500 men wealthier than the remaining 5 billion+ men and women combined . We cannot allow these warmongers and spoilers to further exploit our resources unopposed. We must meet them in the streets to demand an economy that provides for the people, not the war machines. We call for students, workers, and lovers of democracy to:
UNITE and RESIST THE G20! RESIST IMPERIALISM!
DEMAND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL!
Email: ctstraightedge@yahoo.com for more details
Sunday, August 30th at 2pm
Location: TBA in Middletown, CT
Discussion List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctg20workgroup/
Join us as we come together and organize for the G20 protests in Pittsburgh this Sept 25th.
Why We Protest: Working people and the poor continually carry the burden of suffering during economic crises; struggling to keep their homes, their jobs and maybe health care. Meanwhile, the wealthy elites continue to debate policies that do little to alleviate this pain, and much to garner further profits. This economic struggle is historic; a continuation of the struggles that our parents and their parents endured during the crisis in the 1970s and the Great Depression of the 1930s. While we are being stripped of our job security, access to quality education, access to healthcare, and forced from our homes; the ruling class continues to enrich itself through economic bailouts and endless wars. It’s time to draw a line in the sand!
People from around the world; including Latin America, Guadeloupe, Greece, France, Iraq, Iran, throughout Africa, and countless other countries have taken up the fight for a more just economy. Here in the US we have been resisting the unjust war against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan and Iran.
This September, the G20 comes to Pittsburgh for a meeting of war-makers and profiteers—
offering us a great opportunity to stand up for global justice! The G20 is an undemocratic organization of wealthy capitalists who meet behind closed doors to make extremely important decisions that impact us all. The criteria of their decisions is quite simply to maximize profits, which has nothing to do with making a better world for all. In fact, they rarely even consider the social and environmental impacts of their decisions on the poor people in their own countries let alone anyone in the 175 other non G20 countries. We must join our sisters and brothers in solidarity against this economic oppression and protest these undemocratic processes. These meetings continue to enact the very programs that have made the richest 500 men wealthier than the remaining 5 billion+ men and women combined . We cannot allow these warmongers and spoilers to further exploit our resources unopposed. We must meet them in the streets to demand an economy that provides for the people, not the war machines. We call for students, workers, and lovers of democracy to:
UNITE and RESIST THE G20! RESIST IMPERIALISM!
DEMAND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL!
Email: ctstraightedge@yahoo.com for more details
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Single-Payer: Highlights for The Curious and Advocates Alike
HR676, the House Bill to create a National Health Insurance Plan, has been promised a floor debate and vote when congress returns from recess. Please take a few minutes to review these highlights and then contact your representative to support this measure; the real cure to our health care problem, not just another band-aid. Think it's "politically unfeasible"? We'll never really know if we don't really try, and try again.
Thanks!
-Todd
ps; Senate Bill S703 will be offering the same legislation to the U.S. Senate.
CRITIQUE OF OUR CURRENT SITUATION
-The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita.
-Our system performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators:
Ranked 30th for Life Expectancy- right behind Bosnia
Ranked 46th for infant Mortality Rate, right behind Cuba and Guam
and 20th out of the G20 for deaths by treatable causes
(source: CIA World Factbook)
-The U.S. system leaves 46 million citizens uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
-The private insurance industry’s bureaucracy and paperwork consume nearly one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar.
-Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Not to mention political advertisements and lobbying….
-For example, the healthcare corporations are currently spending 1.4 million dollars a day to kill a single-payer or public option through lobbying, advertising and other propaganda. (All paid for by premiums and deductibles of policy holders)
-The complexity of the current reimbursement schemes requires providers to fight with insurers for payment. This results in massive administrative waste that private insurers inflict on hospitals, doctors, nursing homes etc. (In contrast, a single payer system would greatly streamline providers’ paperwork to one payer, one policy, one set of rules)
-70% of bankruptcies are due to medical causes, and
that more than half of those are among people with health insurance.
-Thousands of people are losing their jobs--and their health insurance—daily.
It is clear that an employer-based system of healthcare is a failure.
-The U.S. once had a lower infant mortality rate than Canada…. until they passed national health insurance. Canada’s rate fell sharply. Similarly, their advantage in life expectancy emerged shortly after the single-payer system was implemented.
-60.5% of current health spending in the U.S. is funded by the government. Through:
1. Tax subsidies for private insurance: $188.6 billion annually. These predominantly benefit wealthy taxpayers.
2. Government purchases of private health insurance for public employees such as police officers: $120.2 billion annually.
The U.S. government’s true share amounts to 9.7 % of gross domestic product:
$4,048 per capita. By contrast, government health spending in Canada was 6.9 percent: $2,337 per capita. Government health spending per capita in the U.S. exceeds total (public plus private) per capita health spending in nearly every other industrialized country.
ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER
H.R. 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles.
-Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%.
+Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage.
-Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year.
+Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies, which averages out to be considerably less for most employers
+Potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
+Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.
+A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
+Single-payer will help businesses by removing the onus of providing healthcare to their employees.
+Single-payer will increase entrepreneurship and the ability to truly pursue happiness, not just jobs that offer decent benefits.
+Patients will be free to seek care from any licensed health care provider, without financial incentives or penalties; aka: free choice of providers
+Medical decisions will be made by patients and providers rather than dictated from afar. The current, market-based, mechanisms empower employers and insurance bureaucrats pursuing narrow financial interests, putting profit before healthcare.
+Alternative Care that is proven in clinical trials to be effective will be covered.
How will the transition to the new system work?
The total transition time will be roughly a 15-year period.
• Private health insurance companies will be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the public plan.* The private companies will, however, still be able to sell coverage for services that are not deemed medically necessary, thus excluded from the public plan (such as many cosmetic surgery procedures).
• Private insurance company workers who are displaced as a result of the transition will be the first to be hired and retained by the new single-payer entity. Any of the displaced workers who are not rehired will receive two years of unemployment benefits and job re-training and placement services.
How will the universal program be paid for?
First, by billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs from eliminating the multi-payer bureaucracy.
Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created and funded by:
• Maintaining current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax
* Allowing such duplication of coverage weakens and eventually destabilizes the health care system. It undermines the principle of pooling the risk. Health care systems act as universal insurers. At any one time the healthy help pay for those who are ill. If private insurers are allowed to cherry-pick the healthy, leaving the public health care system with the very sick, the system will fail.
OTHER OPTIONS:
The “competing public plan” option won’t work to fix the health care system for 2 reasons.
1 - It foregoes at least 84% of the administrative savings available through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs through the roof. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95% of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public plan the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16% of the roughly $400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough to make reform affordable.
2 - A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan - which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients; with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.
-The “public plan option” will not expand our choice of caregivers, will not be universal, cannot offer comprehensive care (and thus can not lessen disparities in care or improve quality) — and above all there will be no way to pay for it, especially as the economy continues to tank. That it is not reform.
-The option to purchase a public plan within a market of private health insurance plans would merely provide one more player in our already inefficient, dysfunctional, fragmented, multi-payer system of financing health care. It would leave in place the deficiencies that have resulted in very high costs with the poorest health care value of all nations (i.e., overpriced mediocrity in health care).
Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?
Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. If the wealthy are forced to rely on the same health system as the poor, they will use their political power to assure that the health system is well funded.
Allowing a parallel, private system for the wealthy means the creation of a permanent lobby for underfunding public care.
What is a Voucher Plan? What’s Wrong With It?
A Voucher Plan is when individuals would be given a health care certificate, an insurance “voucher,” which would entitle them to enroll in a private health plan of their choice. Employer-based insurance would be eliminated. The vouchers would be paid for through a value-added tax (VAT), essentially a sales tax on all manufactured goods and services. This is a highly regressive way of financing such a plan, since low-income people spend a much larger percentage of their income on purchases of goods and services than do higher-income people. However, the main problem with such a plan is that it leaves the wasteful, inefficient, and inequitable private insurance system in place, with no change at all in its operation. It simply makes it easier for us to purchase their defective product.
Health savings Accounts? . Once the account is depleted and a deductible is met, medical expenses are covered by a catastrophic plan, usually a managed care plan.
Individuals with significant health care needs would rapidly deplete their accounts and then be exposed to large out-of-pocket expenses;
Currently, HealthSavings Accounts (HSAs) offer substantial tax savings to people in high-income brackets, but little to families with average incomes, and thus serve as a covert tax cut for the wealthy.
Realistically? Who can afford to put money aside? Just like retirement accounts, college funds and personal savings. Way to many folks are living hand to mouth, check to check. Plus, this too leaves the wasteful administrative multi-payer nightmare in place.
Why not use tax subsidies to help the uninsured buy health insurance?
The major flaw of tax subsidies is that they would be used to help purchase plans in our current fragmented system. As already mentioned, the administrative inefficiencies and inequities that characterize our system would be left in place, and we would continue to waste valuable resources that should be going to patient care instead.
CONCERNS ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER
Won’t this raise my taxes?
A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers and an income tax on individuals (about 4.75% ea.). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.
For the vast majority of people, a 4.75% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.
For most employers, the 4.75% payroll tax would be considerably less than the 74% of plan cost they currently pay (which equates to 8.5% of an employee’s income making the median salary).
Health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?
No. There is a lot of confusion on the language here thanks to the spinmasters. Truly “Socialized” medicine is a system of publicly owned, democratically managed health cooperatives. “Nationalized” medicine, like Great Britain, is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services here are also paid this way. Most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan have national health insurance, not nationalized or socialized medicine. Meaning that the government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country.
Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?
The U.S. already rations care based on income:
-18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That’s rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.
-Why do we hear about rationing abroad and not here? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not..
-In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. Rationing is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forego care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they can’t pay for. Aka, There is no democracy.
Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?
The United States currently has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world with 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.
It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.
Won’t This put some bureaucrat between me and my doctor?
We already have a few dozen of them there. The bill collectors, administrators and agents of the private for-profit insurance companies.
How will we keep drug prices under control?
When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This “monopsony” buying power is the main reason why other countries’ drug prices are lower than ours. This also explains the drug industry’s staunch opposition to single-payer national health insurance.
What will happen to malpractice costs under national health insurance?
They will fall dramatically, for several reasons. First, about half of all malpractice awards go to pay present and future medical costs (e.g. for infants born with serious disabilities). Single payer national health insurance will eliminate the need for these awards.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won’t national health insurance have similar problems?
1. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is an Army hospital and is run by the Department of Defense. The VA hospitals are run by the Veterans Administration (Veterans Health Administration), a separate organization. The VA health system continues to receive the best quality scores of any segment of the U.S. health system, with the most satisfied patients. It beats the best HMOs in quality ratings,
2. There is a lot we can learn from the Walter Reed disgrace. Its operation was outsourced to a Halliburton-connected company in 2002, over the objections of some Army medical personnel and leadership, with a subsequent drastic reduction in staff and loss of government employees with institutional experience.
Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system?
Advocates of the “free market” approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that past competitive activities in health care under a free market system have been wasteful and expensive, and are the major cause of rising costs.
There are two main areas where competition exists in health care: among the providers and among the payers. When, for example, hospitals compete they often duplicate expensive equipment in order to corner more of the market for lucrative procedure-oriented care. This drives up overall medical costs to pay for the equipment and encourages overtreatment. They also waste money on advertising and marketing.
Competition among insurers (the payers) is not effective in containing costs either. Rather, it results in competitive practices such as avoiding the sick, cherry-picking, denial of payment for expensive procedures, etc. An insurance firm that engages in these practices may reduce its own outlays, but at the expense of other payers and patients.
-The preferred scenario has hospitals coordinating services and cooperating to meet the needs of their communities.
-Health care should be organized as a public service, like a fire department. A health system organized as a business is discriminatory and accountable to no one. At some point in our lives all of us will predictably need health care. Hence health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; we are all involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data and excerpts were taken from: CIA’s Book of Facts, House Bill 676 ( www.hr676.org), Physicians for a National Health Plan (www.pnhp.org), Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and the Center for Economic Research and Policy.
Thanks!
-Todd
ps; Senate Bill S703 will be offering the same legislation to the U.S. Senate.
CRITIQUE OF OUR CURRENT SITUATION
-The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita.
-Our system performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators:
Ranked 30th for Life Expectancy- right behind Bosnia
Ranked 46th for infant Mortality Rate, right behind Cuba and Guam
and 20th out of the G20 for deaths by treatable causes
(source: CIA World Factbook)
-The U.S. system leaves 46 million citizens uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
-The private insurance industry’s bureaucracy and paperwork consume nearly one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar.
-Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Not to mention political advertisements and lobbying….
-For example, the healthcare corporations are currently spending 1.4 million dollars a day to kill a single-payer or public option through lobbying, advertising and other propaganda. (All paid for by premiums and deductibles of policy holders)
-The complexity of the current reimbursement schemes requires providers to fight with insurers for payment. This results in massive administrative waste that private insurers inflict on hospitals, doctors, nursing homes etc. (In contrast, a single payer system would greatly streamline providers’ paperwork to one payer, one policy, one set of rules)
-70% of bankruptcies are due to medical causes, and
that more than half of those are among people with health insurance.
-Thousands of people are losing their jobs--and their health insurance—daily.
It is clear that an employer-based system of healthcare is a failure.
-The U.S. once had a lower infant mortality rate than Canada…. until they passed national health insurance. Canada’s rate fell sharply. Similarly, their advantage in life expectancy emerged shortly after the single-payer system was implemented.
-60.5% of current health spending in the U.S. is funded by the government. Through:
1. Tax subsidies for private insurance: $188.6 billion annually. These predominantly benefit wealthy taxpayers.
2. Government purchases of private health insurance for public employees such as police officers: $120.2 billion annually.
The U.S. government’s true share amounts to 9.7 % of gross domestic product:
$4,048 per capita. By contrast, government health spending in Canada was 6.9 percent: $2,337 per capita. Government health spending per capita in the U.S. exceeds total (public plus private) per capita health spending in nearly every other industrialized country.
ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER
H.R. 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles.
-Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%.
+Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage.
-Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year.
+Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies, which averages out to be considerably less for most employers
+Potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
+Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.
+A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
+Single-payer will help businesses by removing the onus of providing healthcare to their employees.
+Single-payer will increase entrepreneurship and the ability to truly pursue happiness, not just jobs that offer decent benefits.
+Patients will be free to seek care from any licensed health care provider, without financial incentives or penalties; aka: free choice of providers
+Medical decisions will be made by patients and providers rather than dictated from afar. The current, market-based, mechanisms empower employers and insurance bureaucrats pursuing narrow financial interests, putting profit before healthcare.
+Alternative Care that is proven in clinical trials to be effective will be covered.
How will the transition to the new system work?
The total transition time will be roughly a 15-year period.
• Private health insurance companies will be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the public plan.* The private companies will, however, still be able to sell coverage for services that are not deemed medically necessary, thus excluded from the public plan (such as many cosmetic surgery procedures).
• Private insurance company workers who are displaced as a result of the transition will be the first to be hired and retained by the new single-payer entity. Any of the displaced workers who are not rehired will receive two years of unemployment benefits and job re-training and placement services.
How will the universal program be paid for?
First, by billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs from eliminating the multi-payer bureaucracy.
Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created and funded by:
• Maintaining current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax
* Allowing such duplication of coverage weakens and eventually destabilizes the health care system. It undermines the principle of pooling the risk. Health care systems act as universal insurers. At any one time the healthy help pay for those who are ill. If private insurers are allowed to cherry-pick the healthy, leaving the public health care system with the very sick, the system will fail.
OTHER OPTIONS:
The “competing public plan” option won’t work to fix the health care system for 2 reasons.
1 - It foregoes at least 84% of the administrative savings available through single payer. The public plan option would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs through the roof. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95% of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public plan the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16% of the roughly $400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough to make reform affordable.
2 - A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage. They have progressively undermined the public plan - which started as the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation of patients; with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan.
-The “public plan option” will not expand our choice of caregivers, will not be universal, cannot offer comprehensive care (and thus can not lessen disparities in care or improve quality) — and above all there will be no way to pay for it, especially as the economy continues to tank. That it is not reform.
-The option to purchase a public plan within a market of private health insurance plans would merely provide one more player in our already inefficient, dysfunctional, fragmented, multi-payer system of financing health care. It would leave in place the deficiencies that have resulted in very high costs with the poorest health care value of all nations (i.e., overpriced mediocrity in health care).
Why shouldn’t we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?
Whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. If the wealthy are forced to rely on the same health system as the poor, they will use their political power to assure that the health system is well funded.
Allowing a parallel, private system for the wealthy means the creation of a permanent lobby for underfunding public care.
What is a Voucher Plan? What’s Wrong With It?
A Voucher Plan is when individuals would be given a health care certificate, an insurance “voucher,” which would entitle them to enroll in a private health plan of their choice. Employer-based insurance would be eliminated. The vouchers would be paid for through a value-added tax (VAT), essentially a sales tax on all manufactured goods and services. This is a highly regressive way of financing such a plan, since low-income people spend a much larger percentage of their income on purchases of goods and services than do higher-income people. However, the main problem with such a plan is that it leaves the wasteful, inefficient, and inequitable private insurance system in place, with no change at all in its operation. It simply makes it easier for us to purchase their defective product.
Health savings Accounts? . Once the account is depleted and a deductible is met, medical expenses are covered by a catastrophic plan, usually a managed care plan.
Individuals with significant health care needs would rapidly deplete their accounts and then be exposed to large out-of-pocket expenses;
Currently, HealthSavings Accounts (HSAs) offer substantial tax savings to people in high-income brackets, but little to families with average incomes, and thus serve as a covert tax cut for the wealthy.
Realistically? Who can afford to put money aside? Just like retirement accounts, college funds and personal savings. Way to many folks are living hand to mouth, check to check. Plus, this too leaves the wasteful administrative multi-payer nightmare in place.
Why not use tax subsidies to help the uninsured buy health insurance?
The major flaw of tax subsidies is that they would be used to help purchase plans in our current fragmented system. As already mentioned, the administrative inefficiencies and inequities that characterize our system would be left in place, and we would continue to waste valuable resources that should be going to patient care instead.
CONCERNS ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER
Won’t this raise my taxes?
A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers and an income tax on individuals (about 4.75% ea.). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments.
For the vast majority of people, a 4.75% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.
For most employers, the 4.75% payroll tax would be considerably less than the 74% of plan cost they currently pay (which equates to 8.5% of an employee’s income making the median salary).
Health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?
No. There is a lot of confusion on the language here thanks to the spinmasters. Truly “Socialized” medicine is a system of publicly owned, democratically managed health cooperatives. “Nationalized” medicine, like Great Britain, is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services here are also paid this way. Most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan have national health insurance, not nationalized or socialized medicine. Meaning that the government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country.
Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?
The U.S. already rations care based on income:
-18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That’s rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.
-Why do we hear about rationing abroad and not here? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not..
-In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. Rationing is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forego care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they can’t pay for. Aka, There is no democracy.
Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?
The United States currently has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world with 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.
It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.
Won’t This put some bureaucrat between me and my doctor?
We already have a few dozen of them there. The bill collectors, administrators and agents of the private for-profit insurance companies.
How will we keep drug prices under control?
When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This “monopsony” buying power is the main reason why other countries’ drug prices are lower than ours. This also explains the drug industry’s staunch opposition to single-payer national health insurance.
What will happen to malpractice costs under national health insurance?
They will fall dramatically, for several reasons. First, about half of all malpractice awards go to pay present and future medical costs (e.g. for infants born with serious disabilities). Single payer national health insurance will eliminate the need for these awards.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won’t national health insurance have similar problems?
1. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is an Army hospital and is run by the Department of Defense. The VA hospitals are run by the Veterans Administration (Veterans Health Administration), a separate organization. The VA health system continues to receive the best quality scores of any segment of the U.S. health system, with the most satisfied patients. It beats the best HMOs in quality ratings,
2. There is a lot we can learn from the Walter Reed disgrace. Its operation was outsourced to a Halliburton-connected company in 2002, over the objections of some Army medical personnel and leadership, with a subsequent drastic reduction in staff and loss of government employees with institutional experience.
Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system?
Advocates of the “free market” approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that past competitive activities in health care under a free market system have been wasteful and expensive, and are the major cause of rising costs.
There are two main areas where competition exists in health care: among the providers and among the payers. When, for example, hospitals compete they often duplicate expensive equipment in order to corner more of the market for lucrative procedure-oriented care. This drives up overall medical costs to pay for the equipment and encourages overtreatment. They also waste money on advertising and marketing.
Competition among insurers (the payers) is not effective in containing costs either. Rather, it results in competitive practices such as avoiding the sick, cherry-picking, denial of payment for expensive procedures, etc. An insurance firm that engages in these practices may reduce its own outlays, but at the expense of other payers and patients.
-The preferred scenario has hospitals coordinating services and cooperating to meet the needs of their communities.
-Health care should be organized as a public service, like a fire department. A health system organized as a business is discriminatory and accountable to no one. At some point in our lives all of us will predictably need health care. Hence health insurance is unlike any other form of insurance; we are all involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data and excerpts were taken from: CIA’s Book of Facts, House Bill 676 ( www.hr676.org), Physicians for a National Health Plan (www.pnhp.org), Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and the Center for Economic Research and Policy.
Town Hall Thugs Just Sore Sports
For progressives, folks on the left and especially socialists; it’s nothing new to see legislation we despise come to fruition. For example, we were opposed to both wars, the USA PATRIOT Act and countless forms of deregulation just to name a few. In each case we organized non-violent protests, wrote about our dissatisfaction and then respectfully took our losses, brushed ourselves off and got back up for the next round. Now, in the 9th inning, when it seems like some “liberal” policies might be making a comeback, we are all watching to see how the former titans of the right are handling it…. And, well frankly it’s been a raucous display of piss-poor sportsmanship. Attitude and behavior akin to booing, hissing, cursing, throwing bats and taking outright sucker punches.
The rash of disruptions at recent town hall meetings about health reform have been a serious hindrance to the small “d” democratic process. While we on the left will be the first to tell you that we do not live in a democracy, we do acknowledge a certain number of democratic mechanisms espoused in our current system. Public meetings, civil discourse and free access to information are among the cornerstones of democracy; practices that we are not willing to give up. No matter the circumstances.
Having a free and open discussion about policies and options is a necessary precursor for the public to make an informed and rational decision. The use of scare tactics and outright lies spinning through the media lately can only be combated with genuine facts and useful information.
Full text of all congressional bills is available online at the U.S. Congress website. They are very lengthy, not impossible to read, but most people haven’t the time to sift through them. Independent and public media have offered some valuable details on the various plans. Town hall meetings and informational sessions are the next best way to get the low down on potential legislation. The corporate media has unfortunately proved itself, yet again, to be essentially worthless when one is seeking useful and reliable info.
As citizens in a somewhat democratic society we must take our information very seriously; always with a grain of salt, and demand more. Important decisions are not best made in shouting matches. Nor in a state of fear.
Voters must be guaranteed the right to safely gather and discuss important decisions effecting all of us. Furthermore, conveners of these meetings must also detail ALL of the options on the table, including HR676, the single-payer National Health Insurance plan, that will be debated on the house floor this fall.
As it has so often been throughout history, some groups of people conjure up the very desirable ideals of democracy when it is in their interest, but proceed to suppress them when the table is turned. To these folks I say: “Stop being sore losers. The season is not over.”
The rash of disruptions at recent town hall meetings about health reform have been a serious hindrance to the small “d” democratic process. While we on the left will be the first to tell you that we do not live in a democracy, we do acknowledge a certain number of democratic mechanisms espoused in our current system. Public meetings, civil discourse and free access to information are among the cornerstones of democracy; practices that we are not willing to give up. No matter the circumstances.
Having a free and open discussion about policies and options is a necessary precursor for the public to make an informed and rational decision. The use of scare tactics and outright lies spinning through the media lately can only be combated with genuine facts and useful information.
Full text of all congressional bills is available online at the U.S. Congress website. They are very lengthy, not impossible to read, but most people haven’t the time to sift through them. Independent and public media have offered some valuable details on the various plans. Town hall meetings and informational sessions are the next best way to get the low down on potential legislation. The corporate media has unfortunately proved itself, yet again, to be essentially worthless when one is seeking useful and reliable info.
As citizens in a somewhat democratic society we must take our information very seriously; always with a grain of salt, and demand more. Important decisions are not best made in shouting matches. Nor in a state of fear.
Voters must be guaranteed the right to safely gather and discuss important decisions effecting all of us. Furthermore, conveners of these meetings must also detail ALL of the options on the table, including HR676, the single-payer National Health Insurance plan, that will be debated on the house floor this fall.
As it has so often been throughout history, some groups of people conjure up the very desirable ideals of democracy when it is in their interest, but proceed to suppress them when the table is turned. To these folks I say: “Stop being sore losers. The season is not over.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Single-Payer: Myths and Facts
Financing Single-Payer National Health Insurance:
Myths and Facts:
Myth: Employers fund the majority of health care in the U.S. Fact: Private business funds less than 20
percent of total health spending. (Government employees have taxpayer-funded coverage through the
FEHBP program and employer payments for private insurance receive a substantial tax subsidy).
Myth: The U.S. has a privately financed health care system. Fact: 60 percent of health spending is
financed by taxpayers. (Estimates that are lower exclude two large sources of taxpayer-funded care: health
insurance for government employees and tax subsidies to employers to provide coverage.)
Myth: Covering the uninsured is unaffordable.Fact: 31 percent of current health spending is squandered
on administrative tasks related to our fragmented payment system with hundreds of different health plans
rather than invested in patient care. Over $350 billion – about half of the money currently wasted on
overhead and bureaucracy – could besaved with simplified single-payer administration, enough to cover all
the 46 million uninsured. Covering the uninsured is affordable; keeping the current private insurance system
intact is not.
Myth: National health insurance would require large new taxes. Fact: No increase in total health
spending is needed to finance single payer. The increase in taxes required to finance national health insurance
would be fully offset by a reduction in out-of-pocket costs and premiums.
Myth: Making people more “cost conscious” is the best way to control health costs. Fact: The
U.S. has the highest health care costs even though Americans pay the highest out-of-pocket costs of any
nation.
Myth: Rising numbers of elderly Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: Europe and Japan
already have a larger proportion of elderly people than America faces with the aging of the baby boomers.
Germany and Japan have adopted single-payer programs for long-term care coverage precisely because of
single payer’s greater potential for efficiency and cost containment.
Myth: Rising numbers of obese Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: The proportion of
health spending dedicated to caring for the obese is not rising faster than their share of the population.
The best way to address the issues of obesity, smoking and other public health epidemics is through public
health measures.
Myth: U.S. health spending is higher than other nations because we get more and higher quality
care. Fact: Americans get less of most kinds of care (doctor, hospital, surgery, etc.) than the citizens of
other industrialized nations, and our care is lower quality by several measures.
This document is copied from The Pysicians For A National Health Plan Website and can be downloaded as a PDF at: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
Myths and Facts:
Myth: Employers fund the majority of health care in the U.S. Fact: Private business funds less than 20
percent of total health spending. (Government employees have taxpayer-funded coverage through the
FEHBP program and employer payments for private insurance receive a substantial tax subsidy).
Myth: The U.S. has a privately financed health care system. Fact: 60 percent of health spending is
financed by taxpayers. (Estimates that are lower exclude two large sources of taxpayer-funded care: health
insurance for government employees and tax subsidies to employers to provide coverage.)
Myth: Covering the uninsured is unaffordable.Fact: 31 percent of current health spending is squandered
on administrative tasks related to our fragmented payment system with hundreds of different health plans
rather than invested in patient care. Over $350 billion – about half of the money currently wasted on
overhead and bureaucracy – could besaved with simplified single-payer administration, enough to cover all
the 46 million uninsured. Covering the uninsured is affordable; keeping the current private insurance system
intact is not.
Myth: National health insurance would require large new taxes. Fact: No increase in total health
spending is needed to finance single payer. The increase in taxes required to finance national health insurance
would be fully offset by a reduction in out-of-pocket costs and premiums.
Myth: Making people more “cost conscious” is the best way to control health costs. Fact: The
U.S. has the highest health care costs even though Americans pay the highest out-of-pocket costs of any
nation.
Myth: Rising numbers of elderly Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: Europe and Japan
already have a larger proportion of elderly people than America faces with the aging of the baby boomers.
Germany and Japan have adopted single-payer programs for long-term care coverage precisely because of
single payer’s greater potential for efficiency and cost containment.
Myth: Rising numbers of obese Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: The proportion of
health spending dedicated to caring for the obese is not rising faster than their share of the population.
The best way to address the issues of obesity, smoking and other public health epidemics is through public
health measures.
Myth: U.S. health spending is higher than other nations because we get more and higher quality
care. Fact: Americans get less of most kinds of care (doctor, hospital, surgery, etc.) than the citizens of
other industrialized nations, and our care is lower quality by several measures.
This document is copied from The Pysicians For A National Health Plan Website and can be downloaded as a PDF at: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Neo-Liberal Media
The “Liberal Media”?
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 And Corporate Control Of The Airwaves
By Todd Vachon
“You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.”
-Gil Scott Heron
Many people take serious offense when I say that television could quite honestly be the largest road block to real democracy ever invented. While the potential for it to be the greatest tool and asset simultaneously exists, it’s power is unfortunately controlled by corporate giants who use it largely for “bad”, not “good” ends.
Being among the few die hard purists that avoid corporate media like the plague, it’s easy to see the vast majority of Americans absorb it’s sleazy content daily (like an ex-smoker smelling tobacco on everyone else). For most people it’s either a necessity or simply the most convenient way to find out “what’s happening.” Trying to gather as many varied sources as possible from the internet, radio and television can make us more completely informed, but most people don’t have the time or frankly the interest to do this; just the political news junkie types who read it for pleasure as well as education.
I’m the guy that walks into the doctor’s office, sees Fox News on the idiot box and immediately locates the remote to change the channel to Animal Planet (one of 100+ stations owned by Discovery Communications, Inc). To the surprised, and sometimes angered onlookers I offer: “We can all learn how to behave a little bit better by watching these animals than those other sly foxes.”
But, sadly “we, the people” rely heavily, if not exclusively on the media in order to make informed decisions; both public and private. Unfortunately, the information we receive is always biased. While I realize that unbiased media is a virtual impossibility, a little slant wouldn’t seem so bad if there were some balance coming from other major stations. Such balance used to exist to a certain extent, but it certainly does not in today’s profit-minded media system. The so-called “liberal media” is owned by a handful of very wealthy conservatives whose sole interest is in maximizing profits, to hell with public service. There is a bit more diversity in radio, but it’s still largely controlled by the same folks who own the television stations, cable networks and newspapers.
This extreme consolidation of media ownership is a relatively recent phenomenon. The private control of more and more media outlets by fewer and fewer companies was rapidly facilitated by one act of congress in the winter of 1996. While Bill Clinton was running for re-election, O.J. Simpson was on trial and the Taliban was capturing Afghanistan, five major corporations were conspiring to buy up and control 75% of what you see, read and hear in the United States. Guess which one of these stories didn’t get covered by the corporately owned media? Clinton won re-election and the media skewered him. OJ was acquitted and he was flambéed as well. The Taliban got mixed reviews from pundits, but the results of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 got just as much coverage after it was passed as it did before it was passed….virtually none.
Wasn’t it big enough news that the FCC and congress undid media regulations that dated back to the birth of radio and television? Damn right it was! Just not the sort of thing that the winners of the spoils wanted their viewers/listeners/readers to know much about. This is yet another glaring example of how democracy under capitalism serves the highest bidder.
So, having been left out of the know and now suffering it’s consequences, let’s examine what the Telecomm Act of ’96 actually did for the “liberal media.”
The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
(Source: The Fallout of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned, The Common Cause Education Fund, 2005. www.commoncause.org)
• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, the homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp [owner of Fox], General Electric, owner of NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
• The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
See:
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7B8A2D1D15-C65A-46D4-8CBB-2073440751B5%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF
In a small “d” democratic society it is absolutely imperative that the voting public have access to pertinent information that will guide their decision-making processes on issues that will effect them, their families’, friends and communities’. The simple fact that the major media outlets chose not to cover this legislation that changed media ownership rules tells me that they are more than willing to put profits before public service. How many other bills in congress or local policies have we missed out on? With now fewer owners controlling more media, their interests have also been consolidated and our access to information that may be contrary to their profit interests will be even more difficult to find.
While some stations are actually exposed for reporting blatantly inaccurate information regularly, it is the more “trustworthy” stations that pick and chose which stories to cover or not cover that have the most dangerous outcome for democracy.
Now, being a book that advocates more, rather than less socialism, you may be wondering at this point how socialism could address this problem. Well, first of all, erase any image of the state run Chinese media or Orwell’s ministry of information (or Fox News Channel) or any other undemocratic propaganda machine. The solution lies in having access to more diversity, not less.
To better serve the public interest, a few simple steps can be taken: 1. re-instate regulations. Implement strong public interest rules that require stations to cover local issues, issues of public interest, local elections, etc… in order to maintain a broadcast license. 2. Create more high quality, publicly funded, local media that is not in the business of making profits, but rather interested in informing, educating and entertaining the public, period. Give the public some democratic control over content. 3. Guarantee equal media access to all candidates for office, including eligible minor party candidates. Eliminate for-profit campaign advertising and open the television/radio debates to minor parties as well.
Although not often perceived as such, the media operates like the 4th branch of the government. They are the liaison between the state and the public, the gateway of information. This makes the media the single most important issue in politics today because it sets the agenda and provides the voice to opinions on all other issues. While the internet is currently a valuable resource for diverse information, it is not readily accessible by all Americans; especially not those in the lower income brackets, the elderly and less tech-savvy. But even the internet is now under attack by corporations like Comcast who wish to privatize every aspect of the web as well (see www.savetheinternet.com).
In sum, greater social ownership and democratic control of the media can only serve to improve democracy and hence society at large.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 And Corporate Control Of The Airwaves
By Todd Vachon
“You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.”
-Gil Scott Heron
Many people take serious offense when I say that television could quite honestly be the largest road block to real democracy ever invented. While the potential for it to be the greatest tool and asset simultaneously exists, it’s power is unfortunately controlled by corporate giants who use it largely for “bad”, not “good” ends.
Being among the few die hard purists that avoid corporate media like the plague, it’s easy to see the vast majority of Americans absorb it’s sleazy content daily (like an ex-smoker smelling tobacco on everyone else). For most people it’s either a necessity or simply the most convenient way to find out “what’s happening.” Trying to gather as many varied sources as possible from the internet, radio and television can make us more completely informed, but most people don’t have the time or frankly the interest to do this; just the political news junkie types who read it for pleasure as well as education.
I’m the guy that walks into the doctor’s office, sees Fox News on the idiot box and immediately locates the remote to change the channel to Animal Planet (one of 100+ stations owned by Discovery Communications, Inc). To the surprised, and sometimes angered onlookers I offer: “We can all learn how to behave a little bit better by watching these animals than those other sly foxes.”
But, sadly “we, the people” rely heavily, if not exclusively on the media in order to make informed decisions; both public and private. Unfortunately, the information we receive is always biased. While I realize that unbiased media is a virtual impossibility, a little slant wouldn’t seem so bad if there were some balance coming from other major stations. Such balance used to exist to a certain extent, but it certainly does not in today’s profit-minded media system. The so-called “liberal media” is owned by a handful of very wealthy conservatives whose sole interest is in maximizing profits, to hell with public service. There is a bit more diversity in radio, but it’s still largely controlled by the same folks who own the television stations, cable networks and newspapers.
This extreme consolidation of media ownership is a relatively recent phenomenon. The private control of more and more media outlets by fewer and fewer companies was rapidly facilitated by one act of congress in the winter of 1996. While Bill Clinton was running for re-election, O.J. Simpson was on trial and the Taliban was capturing Afghanistan, five major corporations were conspiring to buy up and control 75% of what you see, read and hear in the United States. Guess which one of these stories didn’t get covered by the corporately owned media? Clinton won re-election and the media skewered him. OJ was acquitted and he was flambéed as well. The Taliban got mixed reviews from pundits, but the results of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 got just as much coverage after it was passed as it did before it was passed….virtually none.
Wasn’t it big enough news that the FCC and congress undid media regulations that dated back to the birth of radio and television? Damn right it was! Just not the sort of thing that the winners of the spoils wanted their viewers/listeners/readers to know much about. This is yet another glaring example of how democracy under capitalism serves the highest bidder.
So, having been left out of the know and now suffering it’s consequences, let’s examine what the Telecomm Act of ’96 actually did for the “liberal media.”
The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
(Source: The Fallout of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned, The Common Cause Education Fund, 2005. www.commoncause.org)
• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, the homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp [owner of Fox], General Electric, owner of NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
• The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
See:
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7B8A2D1D15-C65A-46D4-8CBB-2073440751B5%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF
In a small “d” democratic society it is absolutely imperative that the voting public have access to pertinent information that will guide their decision-making processes on issues that will effect them, their families’, friends and communities’. The simple fact that the major media outlets chose not to cover this legislation that changed media ownership rules tells me that they are more than willing to put profits before public service. How many other bills in congress or local policies have we missed out on? With now fewer owners controlling more media, their interests have also been consolidated and our access to information that may be contrary to their profit interests will be even more difficult to find.
While some stations are actually exposed for reporting blatantly inaccurate information regularly, it is the more “trustworthy” stations that pick and chose which stories to cover or not cover that have the most dangerous outcome for democracy.
Now, being a book that advocates more, rather than less socialism, you may be wondering at this point how socialism could address this problem. Well, first of all, erase any image of the state run Chinese media or Orwell’s ministry of information (or Fox News Channel) or any other undemocratic propaganda machine. The solution lies in having access to more diversity, not less.
To better serve the public interest, a few simple steps can be taken: 1. re-instate regulations. Implement strong public interest rules that require stations to cover local issues, issues of public interest, local elections, etc… in order to maintain a broadcast license. 2. Create more high quality, publicly funded, local media that is not in the business of making profits, but rather interested in informing, educating and entertaining the public, period. Give the public some democratic control over content. 3. Guarantee equal media access to all candidates for office, including eligible minor party candidates. Eliminate for-profit campaign advertising and open the television/radio debates to minor parties as well.
Although not often perceived as such, the media operates like the 4th branch of the government. They are the liaison between the state and the public, the gateway of information. This makes the media the single most important issue in politics today because it sets the agenda and provides the voice to opinions on all other issues. While the internet is currently a valuable resource for diverse information, it is not readily accessible by all Americans; especially not those in the lower income brackets, the elderly and less tech-savvy. But even the internet is now under attack by corporations like Comcast who wish to privatize every aspect of the web as well (see www.savetheinternet.com).
In sum, greater social ownership and democratic control of the media can only serve to improve democracy and hence society at large.
Friday, May 1, 2009
May Day 2009
"It was not by gold or silver, but by labor that all the wealth of the world was purchased" -Adam Smith
Even the most die-hard and utopian free-market capitalists admit that labor creates all wealth. If you have any doubt, just consider any corporation on an average day. What would happen if no workers showed up?
That's right, the company would make no products or render no services and hence make no profit.
I suppose the CEO and shareholders could do all of the work in place of the wage earners and still share all of the profit, but that would no longer be capitalism. It would be worker owned and controlled enterprise, or as some might say, socialism.
Now consider the opposite. What happens if the owners or CEO don't show up for the day?
Well, this actually happens all the time and the companies still make money.
Labor creates all wealth.
This is the theme of May Day and will continue to be so long as the working majority is seperated from ownership and control of the economy.
Please join the Socialist Party of CT and other like minded folks on the New Haven Green tomorrow to celebrate all of the past struggles; losses and victories, and future hope of the labor movement and working class politics.
I understand that it is a work day for many and travelling is difficult, but for those of you who cannot attend please consider the importance of worker solidarity. The color of the collar is irrellevant now-a-days. The nature of the character and capacity of the heart are what define us as socialists in the 21st century.
Economic crises are nothing new for those familiar with Marx. Democrats rushing in to save capitalism from itself is also nothing new.
This May Day let us have the resolve to commit to the real worthy struggle of attaining economic democracy. Be vocal, be proud and stand strong.
Times are changing.
As always,
In Peace and Solidarity
Todd Vachon
Chair
Socialist Party of CT
www.socialistpartyct.org
www.sp-usa.org
www.votevachon.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message to all Workers on Their Day
by the National Action Committee, Socialist Party USA
On this International Workers Day, the majority of the workers find themselves in a great dilemma. It is obvious that free trade and deregulation have caused millions to lose their jobs. Even the United States, once the major economic power of the world, is in the process of an economic collapse. Today, more than ever, is a time to consider casting off the chains of capitalist crisis.
The truth is that the majority of the workers understand very well the economic depressions are a permanent part of capitalism. The majority of the workers are intellectuals in an organic way. Without any type of formal economic education, they know what is going on because they are forced to live capitalist economics. It is irritating to hear so many socialist intellectuals pontificate that all workers have to do is realize that they are being exploited and it will light their revolutionary fire. Workers understand that they are being exploited, what is lacking is the organizational means to ignite the spark.
Creating socialism will not be easy. It will take much sacrifice. An egalitarian society will not arise in one day. Only a determined class struggle can bring about the kind of fundamental changes we need. We must first learn to abandon the trinkets and small concessions that capitalism offers us. We must create a vision of the society we want to live in and fight for it.
For the Mexicans and other Hispanics in the United States that work as undocumented workers, the economic crisis will bring great difficulties. President Barack Obama promised some type of amnesty, but you can be assured that this will not happen immediately. When it does it will come at great economic cost for the applicants and will have many complications. .Meanwhile, immigrants will be made into scapegoats as racist conservatives circulate the notion that they are stealing “American” jobs. Violence by racist groups has already begun and may
continue to grow. Immigrant workers will find allies in socialists because we understand that labor knows no borders – all workers are a part of our class.
This crisis presents opportunities to reestablish and enlarge the power of the unions and rebuild mass socialist political parties. But that decision to take action is yours as workers. You know socialism is the path to create a better society. You know there is a history of successful socialist political parties throughout the world. Socialism can once again deliver what working people need so desperately – a world of prosperity, justice and freedom!
Long Live the Workers!
Long Live Revolution!
Long Live the First of May!
Even the most die-hard and utopian free-market capitalists admit that labor creates all wealth. If you have any doubt, just consider any corporation on an average day. What would happen if no workers showed up?
That's right, the company would make no products or render no services and hence make no profit.
I suppose the CEO and shareholders could do all of the work in place of the wage earners and still share all of the profit, but that would no longer be capitalism. It would be worker owned and controlled enterprise, or as some might say, socialism.
Now consider the opposite. What happens if the owners or CEO don't show up for the day?
Well, this actually happens all the time and the companies still make money.
Labor creates all wealth.
This is the theme of May Day and will continue to be so long as the working majority is seperated from ownership and control of the economy.
Please join the Socialist Party of CT and other like minded folks on the New Haven Green tomorrow to celebrate all of the past struggles; losses and victories, and future hope of the labor movement and working class politics.
I understand that it is a work day for many and travelling is difficult, but for those of you who cannot attend please consider the importance of worker solidarity. The color of the collar is irrellevant now-a-days. The nature of the character and capacity of the heart are what define us as socialists in the 21st century.
Economic crises are nothing new for those familiar with Marx. Democrats rushing in to save capitalism from itself is also nothing new.
This May Day let us have the resolve to commit to the real worthy struggle of attaining economic democracy. Be vocal, be proud and stand strong.
Times are changing.
As always,
In Peace and Solidarity
Todd Vachon
Chair
Socialist Party of CT
www.socialistpartyct.org
www.sp-usa.org
www.votevachon.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message to all Workers on Their Day
by the National Action Committee, Socialist Party USA
On this International Workers Day, the majority of the workers find themselves in a great dilemma. It is obvious that free trade and deregulation have caused millions to lose their jobs. Even the United States, once the major economic power of the world, is in the process of an economic collapse. Today, more than ever, is a time to consider casting off the chains of capitalist crisis.
The truth is that the majority of the workers understand very well the economic depressions are a permanent part of capitalism. The majority of the workers are intellectuals in an organic way. Without any type of formal economic education, they know what is going on because they are forced to live capitalist economics. It is irritating to hear so many socialist intellectuals pontificate that all workers have to do is realize that they are being exploited and it will light their revolutionary fire. Workers understand that they are being exploited, what is lacking is the organizational means to ignite the spark.
Creating socialism will not be easy. It will take much sacrifice. An egalitarian society will not arise in one day. Only a determined class struggle can bring about the kind of fundamental changes we need. We must first learn to abandon the trinkets and small concessions that capitalism offers us. We must create a vision of the society we want to live in and fight for it.
For the Mexicans and other Hispanics in the United States that work as undocumented workers, the economic crisis will bring great difficulties. President Barack Obama promised some type of amnesty, but you can be assured that this will not happen immediately. When it does it will come at great economic cost for the applicants and will have many complications. .Meanwhile, immigrants will be made into scapegoats as racist conservatives circulate the notion that they are stealing “American” jobs. Violence by racist groups has already begun and may
continue to grow. Immigrant workers will find allies in socialists because we understand that labor knows no borders – all workers are a part of our class.
This crisis presents opportunities to reestablish and enlarge the power of the unions and rebuild mass socialist political parties. But that decision to take action is yours as workers. You know socialism is the path to create a better society. You know there is a history of successful socialist political parties throughout the world. Socialism can once again deliver what working people need so desperately – a world of prosperity, justice and freedom!
Long Live the Workers!
Long Live Revolution!
Long Live the First of May!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What's Fair?
Todd's opening remarks at The Holleran Center for Community Action's Panel:
"What’s Fair? Current Issues in Trade and Labor Organizing"
Thank You for that wonderful introduction. I should start with a quick disclaimer and that is this: I’m here today sharing my personal thoughts and experiences, and not as a representative of any organization that I am affiliated with. The brief bio is meant merely for identification and proof of credentials I suppose.
So…that being said, I’d like to start by reading a short quote from Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations . Is everyone familiar with this book? Or at least with Adam Smith and the concepts that his name embodies? Smith, in simple terms, is kind of like the Godfather of Free Market capitalism. The quote is this:
"It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased."
Sounds like something Karl Marx might have said?
So I’d like to use the premise of this quote as a starting point. “Labor creates wealth” is essentially what he said. “labor creates all wealth.”
It’s a very simple concept, and if you have any doubt, just consider any profitable corporation on an average day. What would happen if nobody showed up to work? There would be no product manufactured or services rendered or whatever the company does would not get done; hence the corporation would make no money .
Well… I guess the CEO and shareholders could go to work and do all the jobs in place of the wage earning employees and still share all of the profit….. but that would of course no longer be capitalism….It would be worker owned and controlled enterprise, or as some might say, socialism…
Okay. So we’ve determined that somebody has to do the work in order for the company to make money right? If the workers don’t show up the company goes belly up. Now lets consider the opposite. What happens if the owners or management doesn’t show up for the day? Well, this actually happens all the time and the company still makes money. Why? Because the surplus value, or profit, of any company is generated by it’s labor force.
The capitalist plays the important initial role of funding and starting the business, but the daily operations and hence income are results of the labor force.
Now some neoliberal economists might argue that that I’m all wrong about the necessity of paying workers in order to make profit…. Some would even argue that machines could do much of the work, but this fails to consider two very important issues: #1. Someone has to make the machines, and: #2. more importantly, even if machines made everything, including themselves, who would be able to buy their products? I mean if all the workers are replaced and presumably making zero income because they are unemployed, they certainly can’t afford to go out and purchase the goods and services made by these machines.
So the premise “labor creates all wealth” is actually a two-sided coin: Labor creates the wealth on one end as workers creating commodities, and on the other end as consumers purchasing them.
So, where the heck does fair labor practice come into this whole scheme?
Pretty much everywhere.
As we all know, corporations want to get as much work for as little pay as they can out of their employees in order to reduce their “bottom line” and increase their profits. Workers, on the other hand want to be paid as much as possible for their time and efforts.
This is a constant tug-of-war between employer and employee, between capital and labor, and it’s array of outcomes can be represented on a simple spectrum. On the far left of the spectrum, the worker would get back exactly what he or she produced. If I make one car per day, I should get paid 1 car per day, or the equivalent of 1 car per day of other goods, because really, who needs 260 cars per year? On the other end, the far right of the spectrum, there would simply be slavery, where the worker is given only enough to sustain his survival so as to continue working while all of the value of his or her work is kept by the employer.
What we have in the U.S. today falls somewhere in between these two extremes and in any given year can be further to the left or the right of where it was the previous year. Throughout the world we find varying degrees, more to the left in Europe and way to the right in parts of Asia, Central and South America.
So, what determines this?
I would argue that the amount of the value workers create that they actually get to keep is determined by the extent of their power to demand a more fair share from their employers, a la unionism.
The business-side reply to this exercise of power by employees is pretty straight forward. “We are putting our capital on the line in hopes that it will have a good return. We deserve the extra value because we are willing to take the risk of losing it.”
This is logical to some extent, but it precludes several pertinent facts. Most notably, that the worker is also engaging in risky behavior, perhaps with more dire consequences, because his livelihood and family depend on his or her income and hence the success of the capitalists business venture.
Furthermore, the worker does not have the luxury of diversification that the capitalist enjoys. If workers could diversify their employment the way that investors diversify their portfolios, they might be more willing to engage in more risky behavior as well. I mean, if I could work Monday at Pfizer, Tuesday at The Day, Wednesday at Aetna, Thursday, etc… I could afford to lose one of those jobs and still have an income. But workers are instead forced to carry all of their eggs in one basket as the saying goes, and therefore they need that basket to be pretty sturdy and filled with as many eggs as possible.
So the worker wants his or her one job to pay well.
But how can this one individual worker ensure that her salary is not forced down to the point of subsistence? If she speaks up by herself or makes too much fuss, the boss can simply terminate her…. And a small check is better than no check after all, right?
Well, one proven way to improve wages and working conditions is to organize with fellow workers and make demands collectively. Through this process, the American labor movement has won much for working people in this country. Not just for union members, but for all workers across the board.
Corporate voices, on the other hand, say that unions stifle their competitiveness and profitability. But, few stop to consider that some of the most prosperous and stable decades of the past century were those where the percentage of workers who were in unions was the greatest. This balanced the play between employers and workers and in-turn created the modern middle-class… the folks who earned enough money at work to purchase goods from the companies they and their neighbors and friends worked for.
This fragile balance has been drastically shifted over the past 3 decades and with the decline of unions in America so too has the middle class eroded.
Wages for the bottom half of society have been stagnant and in many cases declined while those of the top 1% have doubled, those of the top 1/10th percent have tripled. The ratio of CEO income to average worker pay was anywhere between 30 and 70 to 1 in the 1970s, it is now between 500 and 700 to 1 and in some cases 1,000 to 1. After three decades of incredible economic growth the working class still remains in the same boat, a boat which was not “lifted by the rising tide” as the free-market trickle-downers like to argue.
The tug-of-war is obviously uneven, but how is it that the workers in their roles as consumers can still continue to support this economy?
Well, the corporations have managed to have their cake and eat it too. They have both reduced wages and at the same time maintained a large enough pool of consumers to purchase their goods and services.
The main way in which they have accomplished this over the past few decades in this country is by outsourcing jobs to countries with little or no labor or environmental laws. This tactic gives them: 1. Cheap labor- -often children, and 2. The ability to sell their products for lower prices back here in the U.S. to consumers who are earning less than they used to.
The American middle class standard of living was built by labor victories, but is now sustained by cheap labor in Asia and of course endless consumer credit debt and also two full-time household incomes replacing traditionally just one.
This poses a moral dilemma to anyone of conscience.
It would seem that what is considered fair here in the U.S. should also be true for workers over seas that manufacture goods that we consume here. It is illegal to employ children here and we have minimum wage laws here, but it is not illegal to purchase goods here that were made somewhere else under working conditions that would be illegal here. This represents a large disconnect in the American psyche and it is why folks like Marcie and David and others who promote “Fair Trade” play such a vital role in creating a more fair world. It is up to us as consumers to avoid supporting exploitation whenever possible and it is up to us as workers to actively stand up to exploitation everywhere, not just in our own backyards anymore. Capital is global and labor must also be global in order to stand up to it’s injustices.
The tug-of-war will be around as long as capitalism is around. The past victories of labor do not mean that organized labor is no longer necessary. Victories of decades past are not guaranteed forever. Legislation can be over turned, laws can lay unenforced, regulatory agencies can be stacked with corporate insiders.
If we are to define fair as the ability to earn a respectable living by working and still have time to live outside of work, we will realize that most of the working masses around the world are not treated fairly.
The UN’s gini index, which measures the standard of living in all countries, when compared with union membership data for the same countries shows a strong positive correlation between the percentage of union membership and the quality of life.
When workers are able to organize and make demands on very profitable employers they are able to increase their stake and make better lives for themselves. That’s fair.
And I think I’ve probably overrun my time although I’ve hardly said as much as a drop in a barrel of what I’d like to say, but perhaps some of your questions will bring other areas to light.
Thank You.
-------------------------------------------------
"What’s Fair? Current Issues in Trade and Labor Organizing"
Thank You for that wonderful introduction. I should start with a quick disclaimer and that is this: I’m here today sharing my personal thoughts and experiences, and not as a representative of any organization that I am affiliated with. The brief bio is meant merely for identification and proof of credentials I suppose.
So…that being said, I’d like to start by reading a short quote from Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations . Is everyone familiar with this book? Or at least with Adam Smith and the concepts that his name embodies? Smith, in simple terms, is kind of like the Godfather of Free Market capitalism. The quote is this:
"It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased."
Sounds like something Karl Marx might have said?
So I’d like to use the premise of this quote as a starting point. “Labor creates wealth” is essentially what he said. “labor creates all wealth.”
It’s a very simple concept, and if you have any doubt, just consider any profitable corporation on an average day. What would happen if nobody showed up to work? There would be no product manufactured or services rendered or whatever the company does would not get done; hence the corporation would make no money .
Well… I guess the CEO and shareholders could go to work and do all the jobs in place of the wage earning employees and still share all of the profit….. but that would of course no longer be capitalism….It would be worker owned and controlled enterprise, or as some might say, socialism…
Okay. So we’ve determined that somebody has to do the work in order for the company to make money right? If the workers don’t show up the company goes belly up. Now lets consider the opposite. What happens if the owners or management doesn’t show up for the day? Well, this actually happens all the time and the company still makes money. Why? Because the surplus value, or profit, of any company is generated by it’s labor force.
The capitalist plays the important initial role of funding and starting the business, but the daily operations and hence income are results of the labor force.
Now some neoliberal economists might argue that that I’m all wrong about the necessity of paying workers in order to make profit…. Some would even argue that machines could do much of the work, but this fails to consider two very important issues: #1. Someone has to make the machines, and: #2. more importantly, even if machines made everything, including themselves, who would be able to buy their products? I mean if all the workers are replaced and presumably making zero income because they are unemployed, they certainly can’t afford to go out and purchase the goods and services made by these machines.
So the premise “labor creates all wealth” is actually a two-sided coin: Labor creates the wealth on one end as workers creating commodities, and on the other end as consumers purchasing them.
So, where the heck does fair labor practice come into this whole scheme?
Pretty much everywhere.
As we all know, corporations want to get as much work for as little pay as they can out of their employees in order to reduce their “bottom line” and increase their profits. Workers, on the other hand want to be paid as much as possible for their time and efforts.
This is a constant tug-of-war between employer and employee, between capital and labor, and it’s array of outcomes can be represented on a simple spectrum. On the far left of the spectrum, the worker would get back exactly what he or she produced. If I make one car per day, I should get paid 1 car per day, or the equivalent of 1 car per day of other goods, because really, who needs 260 cars per year? On the other end, the far right of the spectrum, there would simply be slavery, where the worker is given only enough to sustain his survival so as to continue working while all of the value of his or her work is kept by the employer.
What we have in the U.S. today falls somewhere in between these two extremes and in any given year can be further to the left or the right of where it was the previous year. Throughout the world we find varying degrees, more to the left in Europe and way to the right in parts of Asia, Central and South America.
So, what determines this?
I would argue that the amount of the value workers create that they actually get to keep is determined by the extent of their power to demand a more fair share from their employers, a la unionism.
The business-side reply to this exercise of power by employees is pretty straight forward. “We are putting our capital on the line in hopes that it will have a good return. We deserve the extra value because we are willing to take the risk of losing it.”
This is logical to some extent, but it precludes several pertinent facts. Most notably, that the worker is also engaging in risky behavior, perhaps with more dire consequences, because his livelihood and family depend on his or her income and hence the success of the capitalists business venture.
Furthermore, the worker does not have the luxury of diversification that the capitalist enjoys. If workers could diversify their employment the way that investors diversify their portfolios, they might be more willing to engage in more risky behavior as well. I mean, if I could work Monday at Pfizer, Tuesday at The Day, Wednesday at Aetna, Thursday, etc… I could afford to lose one of those jobs and still have an income. But workers are instead forced to carry all of their eggs in one basket as the saying goes, and therefore they need that basket to be pretty sturdy and filled with as many eggs as possible.
So the worker wants his or her one job to pay well.
But how can this one individual worker ensure that her salary is not forced down to the point of subsistence? If she speaks up by herself or makes too much fuss, the boss can simply terminate her…. And a small check is better than no check after all, right?
Well, one proven way to improve wages and working conditions is to organize with fellow workers and make demands collectively. Through this process, the American labor movement has won much for working people in this country. Not just for union members, but for all workers across the board.
Corporate voices, on the other hand, say that unions stifle their competitiveness and profitability. But, few stop to consider that some of the most prosperous and stable decades of the past century were those where the percentage of workers who were in unions was the greatest. This balanced the play between employers and workers and in-turn created the modern middle-class… the folks who earned enough money at work to purchase goods from the companies they and their neighbors and friends worked for.
This fragile balance has been drastically shifted over the past 3 decades and with the decline of unions in America so too has the middle class eroded.
Wages for the bottom half of society have been stagnant and in many cases declined while those of the top 1% have doubled, those of the top 1/10th percent have tripled. The ratio of CEO income to average worker pay was anywhere between 30 and 70 to 1 in the 1970s, it is now between 500 and 700 to 1 and in some cases 1,000 to 1. After three decades of incredible economic growth the working class still remains in the same boat, a boat which was not “lifted by the rising tide” as the free-market trickle-downers like to argue.
The tug-of-war is obviously uneven, but how is it that the workers in their roles as consumers can still continue to support this economy?
Well, the corporations have managed to have their cake and eat it too. They have both reduced wages and at the same time maintained a large enough pool of consumers to purchase their goods and services.
The main way in which they have accomplished this over the past few decades in this country is by outsourcing jobs to countries with little or no labor or environmental laws. This tactic gives them: 1. Cheap labor- -often children, and 2. The ability to sell their products for lower prices back here in the U.S. to consumers who are earning less than they used to.
The American middle class standard of living was built by labor victories, but is now sustained by cheap labor in Asia and of course endless consumer credit debt and also two full-time household incomes replacing traditionally just one.
This poses a moral dilemma to anyone of conscience.
It would seem that what is considered fair here in the U.S. should also be true for workers over seas that manufacture goods that we consume here. It is illegal to employ children here and we have minimum wage laws here, but it is not illegal to purchase goods here that were made somewhere else under working conditions that would be illegal here. This represents a large disconnect in the American psyche and it is why folks like Marcie and David and others who promote “Fair Trade” play such a vital role in creating a more fair world. It is up to us as consumers to avoid supporting exploitation whenever possible and it is up to us as workers to actively stand up to exploitation everywhere, not just in our own backyards anymore. Capital is global and labor must also be global in order to stand up to it’s injustices.
The tug-of-war will be around as long as capitalism is around. The past victories of labor do not mean that organized labor is no longer necessary. Victories of decades past are not guaranteed forever. Legislation can be over turned, laws can lay unenforced, regulatory agencies can be stacked with corporate insiders.
If we are to define fair as the ability to earn a respectable living by working and still have time to live outside of work, we will realize that most of the working masses around the world are not treated fairly.
The UN’s gini index, which measures the standard of living in all countries, when compared with union membership data for the same countries shows a strong positive correlation between the percentage of union membership and the quality of life.
When workers are able to organize and make demands on very profitable employers they are able to increase their stake and make better lives for themselves. That’s fair.
And I think I’ve probably overrun my time although I’ve hardly said as much as a drop in a barrel of what I’d like to say, but perhaps some of your questions will bring other areas to light.
Thank You.
-------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Demand HR676: National Health Insurance for All!
Hello All,
HR-676, the house bill for National, single-payer, health insurance has been reintroduced onto the house floor.
It currently has 93 co-sponsors including exactly ZERO from CT.
You can learn more about HR676 at: www.hr676.org
Please consider writing an email, a letter or taking a minute to call Congress and
contact the white house, too!
Rep. Joe Courtney's Email Page: http://courtney.house.gov/email/
Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121
(ask for your representative’s office)
Please forward this message widely!
The government and elite class it represents are certainly not going to just give the tax-paying citizens anything unless they strongly demand it!
Peace & Solidarity,
Todd Vachon
SPCT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rep. Courtney,
I'm writing today to urge you to please co-sponsor HR-676 if you have not already done so.
In this time of economic crisis, caused in part by excessive home foreclosures, I think it is important to consider that one of the top causes of bankruptcy and foreclosure is exorbitant medical bills. This is true for both the insured and those who cannot afford private insurance, but do not qualify for medicaid (a very large section of the population).
Health care ought to be a basic human right for all...especially in such a wealthy nation as ours. Congress seems to have no problems funding an extremely bloated, empire-sized military, multiple reckless wars abroad and bailouts for bankers (thank you for voting against TARP), but we can't seem to conjure up any money to take care of our own citizens? WE are the folks who pay all of the taxes to fund everything. Large corporations pay virtually nothing and yet their interests are constantly served by this government.
It's time to start putting the people's well being before profits and return to a more civilized society.
Please help to do this by co-sponsoring HR-676 and making the good fight for REAL universal health care a priority in this session.
Thank You,
Todd Vachon
Colchester
HR-676, the house bill for National, single-payer, health insurance has been reintroduced onto the house floor.
It currently has 93 co-sponsors including exactly ZERO from CT.
You can learn more about HR676 at: www.hr676.org
Please consider writing an email, a letter or taking a minute to call Congress and
contact the white house, too!
Rep. Joe Courtney's Email Page: http://courtney.house.gov/email/
Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121
(ask for your representative’s office)
Please forward this message widely!
The government and elite class it represents are certainly not going to just give the tax-paying citizens anything unless they strongly demand it!
Peace & Solidarity,
Todd Vachon
SPCT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rep. Courtney,
I'm writing today to urge you to please co-sponsor HR-676 if you have not already done so.
In this time of economic crisis, caused in part by excessive home foreclosures, I think it is important to consider that one of the top causes of bankruptcy and foreclosure is exorbitant medical bills. This is true for both the insured and those who cannot afford private insurance, but do not qualify for medicaid (a very large section of the population).
Health care ought to be a basic human right for all...especially in such a wealthy nation as ours. Congress seems to have no problems funding an extremely bloated, empire-sized military, multiple reckless wars abroad and bailouts for bankers (thank you for voting against TARP), but we can't seem to conjure up any money to take care of our own citizens? WE are the folks who pay all of the taxes to fund everything. Large corporations pay virtually nothing and yet their interests are constantly served by this government.
It's time to start putting the people's well being before profits and return to a more civilized society.
Please help to do this by co-sponsoring HR-676 and making the good fight for REAL universal health care a priority in this session.
Thank You,
Todd Vachon
Colchester
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Testimony Before CT Legislature Regarding Ballot Access and Vote Counting
Testimony of Todd Vachon to the:
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Regarding HB6436 and HB6441
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
My name is Todd Eugene Vachon and I reside in Colchester CT. I am here today on this 18th day of February, 2009 to testify before the Government Administration and Elections Committee in support of HB6436 and HB6441.
The relevance of my testimony today stems from my recent experience as a write-in candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District in the election held November 4th, 2008.
This long and tiresome process began by seeking ballot access for Brian Moore for President and myself as the congressional candidate chosen to represent the Socialist Party, USA. After a couple months of burdensome paperwork, bureaucratic procedure and pounding the concrete with thousands of petition pages, we fell short of acquiring the exclusionary number of petition signatures required to appear on the ballot.
The Socialist Party then met and opted to continue the campaigns with write-in candidacies. We felt it was important to offer our supporters and other voters that do not feel they are represented by the two major parties a real alternative at the ballot. Knowing from the beginning that write-in candidates do not win elections, we decided that it was our right to vote for candidates of our choice regardless of the outcome. What we did not expect was that our votes would not be counted.
Immediately following the election we found that many towns were reporting ZERO write-in votes. Individual voters began contacting the campaign to complain that they had written in a vote for myself and/or Brian Moore for President, but their town was still showing "zero" votes for write-in candidates.
We contacted the Elections Division at the Secretary of State's Office and various individual town clerks to complain. As a result, some numbers changed, but many towns still did not reflect the proper number of votes. We contacted the CT Green Party to see if they had similar concerns with the number of votes received for Cynthia McKinney, their write-in candidate for President, and they said that they had.
In my case, having a very small and identifiable base, it was very easy for us to locate problems. For instance, my wife and I both voted in Colchester for Brian Moore and myself, but Colchester only reported one vote. My family's hometown of Salem showed zero write-in votes until we complained. The number was increased to 4, which was still 2 shy of the six voters that initially complained that their vote was not counted... The story is similar for various other towns including Glastonbury, New London and Mansfield. These are all definite and identifiable discrepancies. They, however, say nothing of other potential counting errors involving voters that I do not personally know. Considering that literally half of the known votes cast for my campaign were not counted certainly opens ones mind to speculation about the potential likelihood of other errors.
We of course understand that this small number of votes will not effect the outcome of the election, but it does represent the disenfranchisement of at minimum, 12 voters, and that is in and of itself an injustice.
Leaving the past now and looking toward the future, what steps can be taken to alleviate these problems in upcoming election cycles?
First and foremost, our current ballot access laws are very prohibitive and wasteful. Countless hours and resources are expended in attempts to gain the extremely difficult goal of ballot access. Lowering the number of signatures required to get on the ballot would combat this problem while still requiring a political entity to show some public support before it may appear on the ballot. HB6436 does exactly this. This bill would reduce the required number of signatures for statewide and federal offices to 1,000, a number which is on par with our neighboring New England states of Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. In addition to the provision in HB6436 to reduce the number of required signatures it might be worthy to consider allowing online petitioning in order to save paper, energy and time.
Opening the political process to more varied and diverse voices will definitely increase voter participation in our state by confronting the anti-democratic nature of a two-party duopoly which limits the scope of democracy; ultimately stifling any real progress. More options on the political menu can only enhance public discourse and increase democracy in our state and country.
Second, in addition to a more clear write-in voting and counting procedure, I feel that stronger oversight of voting integrity would solve some of the counting problems that my supporters have encountered.
HB6441 seeks to strengthen voting integrity in the state of Connecticut by implementing more oversight, stricter guidelines and enforceable rules. This bill will address many deficiencies in our current system by increasing accountability in three ways:
First, it would strengthen the accounting system by making a public record of actual election results. This is achieved by three simple steps:
1) It would require the entire Moderator’s Return, checklist report, and optical scanner tape copy from each district to be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s office.
2) The Secretary of the State would have to post all those document images on the web, indexed by town and date.
3) All data would be inputted at the same level of detail required on the Moderator’s Returns and posted on the SOTS website in a downloadable format.
This procedure would allow anyone to check the documents vs. the data, see the actually results at any level of detail and search for anomalies. Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for three levels of transcription and addition late at night.
The second thing this bill does, which may help in circumstances such as mine, is to make the Secretary of the State’s procedures enforceable; it would become possible to complain to the SEEC if your votes were not counted as required in the Moderator’s Manual.
Finally, the third thing that this bill does is to improve the ballot chain-of-custody, making it more difficult for someone to tamper with ballots.
There are of course many other benefits to these pieces of legislation, but I want to keep my testimony relevant to my personal experience.
That being said, I’ll conclude by reiterating that an expansion of the number and diversity of voices represented in the political arena can only enhance democracy, HB6436 would do this by giving minor parties a fighting chance to get on the ballot. Furthermore, increased oversight of the election and vote counting process to ensure the highest possible integrity of our voting process can only be a good thing. Anyone who agrees would likely support HB6441 and hope that you will.
Thank you for your time.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***You too may submit written testimony in support of making ballot access easier in CT by emailing a written statement in support of HB6436 to len.greene.cga.ct.gov
Cheers,
Todd
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Regarding HB6436 and HB6441
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
My name is Todd Eugene Vachon and I reside in Colchester CT. I am here today on this 18th day of February, 2009 to testify before the Government Administration and Elections Committee in support of HB6436 and HB6441.
The relevance of my testimony today stems from my recent experience as a write-in candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District in the election held November 4th, 2008.
This long and tiresome process began by seeking ballot access for Brian Moore for President and myself as the congressional candidate chosen to represent the Socialist Party, USA. After a couple months of burdensome paperwork, bureaucratic procedure and pounding the concrete with thousands of petition pages, we fell short of acquiring the exclusionary number of petition signatures required to appear on the ballot.
The Socialist Party then met and opted to continue the campaigns with write-in candidacies. We felt it was important to offer our supporters and other voters that do not feel they are represented by the two major parties a real alternative at the ballot. Knowing from the beginning that write-in candidates do not win elections, we decided that it was our right to vote for candidates of our choice regardless of the outcome. What we did not expect was that our votes would not be counted.
Immediately following the election we found that many towns were reporting ZERO write-in votes. Individual voters began contacting the campaign to complain that they had written in a vote for myself and/or Brian Moore for President, but their town was still showing "zero" votes for write-in candidates.
We contacted the Elections Division at the Secretary of State's Office and various individual town clerks to complain. As a result, some numbers changed, but many towns still did not reflect the proper number of votes. We contacted the CT Green Party to see if they had similar concerns with the number of votes received for Cynthia McKinney, their write-in candidate for President, and they said that they had.
In my case, having a very small and identifiable base, it was very easy for us to locate problems. For instance, my wife and I both voted in Colchester for Brian Moore and myself, but Colchester only reported one vote. My family's hometown of Salem showed zero write-in votes until we complained. The number was increased to 4, which was still 2 shy of the six voters that initially complained that their vote was not counted... The story is similar for various other towns including Glastonbury, New London and Mansfield. These are all definite and identifiable discrepancies. They, however, say nothing of other potential counting errors involving voters that I do not personally know. Considering that literally half of the known votes cast for my campaign were not counted certainly opens ones mind to speculation about the potential likelihood of other errors.
We of course understand that this small number of votes will not effect the outcome of the election, but it does represent the disenfranchisement of at minimum, 12 voters, and that is in and of itself an injustice.
Leaving the past now and looking toward the future, what steps can be taken to alleviate these problems in upcoming election cycles?
First and foremost, our current ballot access laws are very prohibitive and wasteful. Countless hours and resources are expended in attempts to gain the extremely difficult goal of ballot access. Lowering the number of signatures required to get on the ballot would combat this problem while still requiring a political entity to show some public support before it may appear on the ballot. HB6436 does exactly this. This bill would reduce the required number of signatures for statewide and federal offices to 1,000, a number which is on par with our neighboring New England states of Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine. In addition to the provision in HB6436 to reduce the number of required signatures it might be worthy to consider allowing online petitioning in order to save paper, energy and time.
Opening the political process to more varied and diverse voices will definitely increase voter participation in our state by confronting the anti-democratic nature of a two-party duopoly which limits the scope of democracy; ultimately stifling any real progress. More options on the political menu can only enhance public discourse and increase democracy in our state and country.
Second, in addition to a more clear write-in voting and counting procedure, I feel that stronger oversight of voting integrity would solve some of the counting problems that my supporters have encountered.
HB6441 seeks to strengthen voting integrity in the state of Connecticut by implementing more oversight, stricter guidelines and enforceable rules. This bill will address many deficiencies in our current system by increasing accountability in three ways:
First, it would strengthen the accounting system by making a public record of actual election results. This is achieved by three simple steps:
1) It would require the entire Moderator’s Return, checklist report, and optical scanner tape copy from each district to be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s office.
2) The Secretary of the State would have to post all those document images on the web, indexed by town and date.
3) All data would be inputted at the same level of detail required on the Moderator’s Returns and posted on the SOTS website in a downloadable format.
This procedure would allow anyone to check the documents vs. the data, see the actually results at any level of detail and search for anomalies. Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for three levels of transcription and addition late at night.
The second thing this bill does, which may help in circumstances such as mine, is to make the Secretary of the State’s procedures enforceable; it would become possible to complain to the SEEC if your votes were not counted as required in the Moderator’s Manual.
Finally, the third thing that this bill does is to improve the ballot chain-of-custody, making it more difficult for someone to tamper with ballots.
There are of course many other benefits to these pieces of legislation, but I want to keep my testimony relevant to my personal experience.
That being said, I’ll conclude by reiterating that an expansion of the number and diversity of voices represented in the political arena can only enhance democracy, HB6436 would do this by giving minor parties a fighting chance to get on the ballot. Furthermore, increased oversight of the election and vote counting process to ensure the highest possible integrity of our voting process can only be a good thing. Anyone who agrees would likely support HB6441 and hope that you will.
Thank you for your time.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***You too may submit written testimony in support of making ballot access easier in CT by emailing a written statement in support of HB6436 to len.greene.cga.ct.gov
Cheers,
Todd
Monday, February 16, 2009
Agitate! Some events for a Rabble-Rouser's Calendar
February 21st, People’s Bailout CT- 2nd Community Meeting
1:00 p.m. location in Hartford TBA. Building a grassroots movement in CT to stand up for economic and racial justice during a time of recession and beyond.
No Cutbacks, No Layoffs, No Evictions or Foreclosures!
Bank Protests being planned for March and April.
More Info at: www.peoplesbailoutct.wordpress.com
March 6th: Protest Bailed Out Banks
Large banks have received a taxpayer bailout, but continue to foreclose on taxpayer’s homes and engage in predatory lending practices. A protest is being planned at a large CT lending institution in Hartford, and in honor of IWD, this rally will focus on Women & Economic Justice; how Women and people of color are disproportionately affected by economic depression More details to follow, check back at www.peoplesbailoutct.wordpress.com
March 7th: New England United for Peace Regional Meeting
1:00p.m. at a location in Hartford TBA. More info at: www.newenglandunited.org/
March 7th: Socialist Party of Connecticut Teleconference
At our February Meeting we decided to try a telephone conference call in place of our regular March meeting. As you can see, the calendar is really filling up and this will save on an extra commute, gas and time…. More info to follow. www.socialistpartyct.org
March 8th: International Women’s Day 2009
A Truly Socialist Holiday! Learn more at: www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp
And join the rally on the 6th in Hartford. (see above)
March 9th: Deadline for Submissions to May Day Issue of “The Socialist”
The Editorial Board of The Socialist is currently accepting submissions for it’s May Day issue. Please consider writing an article, opinion or commentary! You may contact Jim Marra with any questions by emailing spcentralct@gmail.com
March 21st: March on The Pentagon in D.C.
There will be busses leaving from Storrs, Hartford, New Britain, New London and New Haven.
If you would like to buy a ticket, contact: DanPiper of CT United for Peace at: dancetothepiper@gmail.com or 617-823-4068
You can learn more at www.pentagonmarch.org and www.natassembly.org
April 3rd and 4th: March On Wall Street!
Bail Out The People, Not The Banks! More info available at: www.bailoutpeople.org
May 1st: May Day Celebration in New Haven
Join the Socialist Party in celebrating May Day for the 23rd Year with The New Haven May Day Celebration Committee. More Info at: www.maydaynewhaven.org
1:00 p.m. location in Hartford TBA. Building a grassroots movement in CT to stand up for economic and racial justice during a time of recession and beyond.
No Cutbacks, No Layoffs, No Evictions or Foreclosures!
Bank Protests being planned for March and April.
More Info at: www.peoplesbailoutct.wordpress.com
March 6th: Protest Bailed Out Banks
Large banks have received a taxpayer bailout, but continue to foreclose on taxpayer’s homes and engage in predatory lending practices. A protest is being planned at a large CT lending institution in Hartford, and in honor of IWD, this rally will focus on Women & Economic Justice; how Women and people of color are disproportionately affected by economic depression More details to follow, check back at www.peoplesbailoutct.wordpress.com
March 7th: New England United for Peace Regional Meeting
1:00p.m. at a location in Hartford TBA. More info at: www.newenglandunited.org/
March 7th: Socialist Party of Connecticut Teleconference
At our February Meeting we decided to try a telephone conference call in place of our regular March meeting. As you can see, the calendar is really filling up and this will save on an extra commute, gas and time…. More info to follow. www.socialistpartyct.org
March 8th: International Women’s Day 2009
A Truly Socialist Holiday! Learn more at: www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp
And join the rally on the 6th in Hartford. (see above)
March 9th: Deadline for Submissions to May Day Issue of “The Socialist”
The Editorial Board of The Socialist is currently accepting submissions for it’s May Day issue. Please consider writing an article, opinion or commentary! You may contact Jim Marra with any questions by emailing spcentralct@gmail.com
March 21st: March on The Pentagon in D.C.
There will be busses leaving from Storrs, Hartford, New Britain, New London and New Haven.
If you would like to buy a ticket, contact: DanPiper of CT United for Peace at: dancetothepiper@gmail.com or 617-823-4068
You can learn more at www.pentagonmarch.org and www.natassembly.org
April 3rd and 4th: March On Wall Street!
Bail Out The People, Not The Banks! More info available at: www.bailoutpeople.org
May 1st: May Day Celebration in New Haven
Join the Socialist Party in celebrating May Day for the 23rd Year with The New Haven May Day Celebration Committee. More Info at: www.maydaynewhaven.org
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A Letter to Governor Rell and CT General Assembly Regarding The Budget & The Economy
In case you have not already done so, please consider contacting Governor Rell to express your opinion on her budget plans...
She stated on Channel 3 news the other night that she would like to hear thoughts and suggestions from CT residents.
You can also use the same letter to contact your state representative and senator in the CT General Assembly.
Below is the friendly letter that I just sent her.
Feel free to copy and paste if you don't have time to write your own.
Links to Information about the governor's budget plan and
Contact info for the Governor and Assembly are listed at the bottom of this post.
Cheers,
-Todd Vachon
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Governor Rell,
I am writing as a constituent and a concerned citizen to share my opinion about the current recession.
It is my opinion that, in these troubling economic times, cutbacks to education, public services and further layoffs will only continue to hurt the economy. Furthermore, these axe and run practices disproportionately effect our friends and neighbors at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The fallout from decisions made by very wealthy and influential individuals should not be picked up by the collective majority who are the victims of these decisions.
There are alternatives to slashing and burning. There are folks who have made out very well in the past few years riding the economic bubble until it's bursting point. These people can certainly afford to help clean up this mess much better than the rest of us who live in fear each day of whether our jobs will be eliminated. This fear certainly destroys consumer confidence and in turn worsens an already bad situation.
Please consider sending a strong message to CT workers that their jobs are safe, their children's opportunities to enter into higher education are secure and their needed public services will remain intact.
Thank You,
Todd Vachon
Colchester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Governor's Proposed Budget:
www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&Q=433326
To Email Governor Rell:
www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&q=257276
To find Your State Representative & Senator:
www.cga.ct.gov/maps/Townlist.asp
She stated on Channel 3 news the other night that she would like to hear thoughts and suggestions from CT residents.
You can also use the same letter to contact your state representative and senator in the CT General Assembly.
Below is the friendly letter that I just sent her.
Feel free to copy and paste if you don't have time to write your own.
Links to Information about the governor's budget plan and
Contact info for the Governor and Assembly are listed at the bottom of this post.
Cheers,
-Todd Vachon
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Governor Rell,
I am writing as a constituent and a concerned citizen to share my opinion about the current recession.
It is my opinion that, in these troubling economic times, cutbacks to education, public services and further layoffs will only continue to hurt the economy. Furthermore, these axe and run practices disproportionately effect our friends and neighbors at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The fallout from decisions made by very wealthy and influential individuals should not be picked up by the collective majority who are the victims of these decisions.
There are alternatives to slashing and burning. There are folks who have made out very well in the past few years riding the economic bubble until it's bursting point. These people can certainly afford to help clean up this mess much better than the rest of us who live in fear each day of whether our jobs will be eliminated. This fear certainly destroys consumer confidence and in turn worsens an already bad situation.
Please consider sending a strong message to CT workers that their jobs are safe, their children's opportunities to enter into higher education are secure and their needed public services will remain intact.
Thank You,
Todd Vachon
Colchester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Governor's Proposed Budget:
www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&Q=433326
To Email Governor Rell:
www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&q=257276
To find Your State Representative & Senator:
www.cga.ct.gov/maps/Townlist.asp
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Cut Military Spending to Save Us All
Below is an open letter to our senators, representatives and the Obama administration.
Please consider copying or writing your own and sending it to your representatives and the president.
I will let the letter speak for itself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Legislator,
I am writing to urge you to cut the military budget by 25%. This would be a step toward reigning in the out of control Pentagon budget which has grown by 60% since 2001.
Please invest in rebuilding America instead of destroying and rebuilding things abroad. New peace oriented jobs in renewable energy and mass transit can replace current jobs manufacturing weapons....which ultimately need a permanent enemy in order to survive. Let's take the first step towards world peace, economic recovery and combating global warming all at once. Cut military spending by at least 25%.
These cuts should include ending outdated, unnecessary and overly expensive weapons systems. The cost of F-35 Fighter Program will equal the combined outlays for fighting the Korean and Vietnam Wars -- $1 trillion. And, one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier costs $6.2 billion, our tenth such ship, the USS George H. W. Bush, was launched in January 2009. A simple navy combat ship costs $1.4 billion each. Indeed, just the cost overruns on weapons contracts total $300 billion annually. Many weapons being produced today were designed to fight past wars not deal with current security issues.
In addition, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will save $162 billion – the amount appropriated so far. These two war-quagmires will make it impossible to adequately invest the necessary funds in the urgent priority of rebuilding the U.S. economy.
Finally, closing the hundreds of military bases around the world would save $130 billion. Many countries see these bases as imperial outposts. Many Americans see it as the U.S. policing the world. It is time to re-think military policy so that it does not involve hundreds of foreign military bases.
With the U.S. economy in a downward spiral the federal government should be rebuilding the economy, not building unnecessary weapons and fighting discretionary wars.
Sincerely,
_______________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
To email Joe Courtney: http://courtney.house.gov/email/
To email Joe Lieberman: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/
To email Chris Dodd: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace & Solidarity,
Todd Vachon
SPCT
Please consider copying or writing your own and sending it to your representatives and the president.
I will let the letter speak for itself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Legislator,
I am writing to urge you to cut the military budget by 25%. This would be a step toward reigning in the out of control Pentagon budget which has grown by 60% since 2001.
Please invest in rebuilding America instead of destroying and rebuilding things abroad. New peace oriented jobs in renewable energy and mass transit can replace current jobs manufacturing weapons....which ultimately need a permanent enemy in order to survive. Let's take the first step towards world peace, economic recovery and combating global warming all at once. Cut military spending by at least 25%.
These cuts should include ending outdated, unnecessary and overly expensive weapons systems. The cost of F-35 Fighter Program will equal the combined outlays for fighting the Korean and Vietnam Wars -- $1 trillion. And, one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier costs $6.2 billion, our tenth such ship, the USS George H. W. Bush, was launched in January 2009. A simple navy combat ship costs $1.4 billion each. Indeed, just the cost overruns on weapons contracts total $300 billion annually. Many weapons being produced today were designed to fight past wars not deal with current security issues.
In addition, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will save $162 billion – the amount appropriated so far. These two war-quagmires will make it impossible to adequately invest the necessary funds in the urgent priority of rebuilding the U.S. economy.
Finally, closing the hundreds of military bases around the world would save $130 billion. Many countries see these bases as imperial outposts. Many Americans see it as the U.S. policing the world. It is time to re-think military policy so that it does not involve hundreds of foreign military bases.
With the U.S. economy in a downward spiral the federal government should be rebuilding the economy, not building unnecessary weapons and fighting discretionary wars.
Sincerely,
_______________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
To email Joe Courtney: http://courtney.house.gov/email/
To email Joe Lieberman: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/
To email Chris Dodd: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace & Solidarity,
Todd Vachon
SPCT
Monday, February 9, 2009
Debate The Socialist: opening remarks
Text from a talk given at E.O. Smith High School, in Storrs CT on Feb. 9th 2009
These are the opening comments of Todd Vachon on the four topics:
1. Israel/Palestine, 2. Obama and Dems, 3. Economic Crisis and 4. What is socialism?
_________________
"So, the first topic of debate is The Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The prevailing understanding of this conflict as portrayed in the mainstream media is it’s ancient historic nature—a clash of civilizations or cultures. While this is true for the ideological hardliners on both sides of the dispute, it does not address the fact that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians alike want the violence to cease- they’ve had enough. But, just like all wars, in all epochs, the leaders, that is, the members of the dominant or ruling class in any society, wage the wars and enlist the poor and working class masses to fight them. So, the war-waging class is a very small but powerful section of the society and the war-fighting class and real victims of war atrocities come from the majority class, which so long as they’re unorganized have little power or say in things….even in a so-called democratically organized society.
So, recent history, a closer look at the past 20yrs will reveal some key facts regarding this dispute:
#1. Israel receives massive funding from the United states government. Palestine, none. Israel is in fact one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, second only to Colombia I believe…Another area of conflict where we fuel one side of a very political dispute.
#2. Israel is the largest foreign customer for U.S. arms-makers. Private, capitalist, industries that earn massive profits by selling jets, helicopters, bombs, etc… technology that is of course publicly siubsidized by our collective tax dollars and then used to garner private profit. So, for this particular brand of capitalist, unrest and conflict are good.
#3. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Palestinians served as a desperate pool of cheap labor for Israel; much like the United States’ current mistreatment of Mexican and Central American immigrants and historic mistreatment of Irish and Italians, etc.. . When the USSR was abolished and extreme capitalism put in it’s place, unemployment rates, inequality and poverty skyrocketed, causing a massive outpouring of Russian Jewish people to Israel. These new Jewish immigrants quickly filled the role of in-house cheap labor, effectively downgrading the Palestinian migrants to the status of “surplus humanity.” And what we now see is full out apartheid, which leads to point number 4
#4. Hypocrisy. The standards and measures that the U.S. government uses to ostracize or even attack some countries are completely ignored in other countries. If the candle were held equally upon all, then Israel would be labeled an apartheid and terrorist state. The U.S. itself would ironically be labeled a terrorist state by it’s own standards….But, without spending too much time on details I’ll give one quick and powerful example: Israel began to illegally invade and occupy southern Lebanon in the 1980s. There was a U.N. resolution issued which demanded Israel’s withdrawal. This resolution had remarkably similar language to the resolution regarding Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. That resolution which the U.S. enforced when engaging in the first Gulf War. So, not only was there a double standard, but the U.S. actually provided monetary and military aid to Israel’s illegal invasion. Today, Israel still illegally occupies parts of Southern Lebanon and as we all know the U.S. is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
___________________
Okay, so now to our second topic. Obama and the Democratic Party.
The Democrats, supposedly the “left” party in America, stand solidly to the right of center, with of course a few individual exceptions, but the party itself is more conservative than most so-called conservative parties in Europe…. I mean, Even the Torries, in England, wouldn’t dare try to privatize the British National Healthcare system.
What we have in America are 2 wings of one large business party. Our alternatives are The Greens who are left of center and the various Socialist paries- the only true Labor Parties, but these options are all effectively barred from the democratic process by the two-party monopoly.
In terms of Mr. Obama, I am thrilled by the historical significance of the election of a black man to be President by the American electorate. I think that he is a very intelligent man, one who can certainly answer unscripted questions and use real words, unlike our last President, but it does not change the fact that he is still a part of the Democratic Party and can only be as effective as the people that he is surrounded by.
Let’s just refresh our memories and keep in mind that:
1. He was the first candidate to forego public campaign funding and caps since they were created
2. He ran the most expensive campaign for public office ever
3. He had the most commercialized and marketed campaign ever
4. He is a millionaire; apparently a pre-requisite for being a Senator or President
5. He never actually offered any detailed progressive policy proposals throughout the entire campaign, and
6. We are now getting a not-so promising glimpse of the future by his selections for cabinet members, department secretaries and other advisors in major government offices.
Um, I want to keep that one short so there will be time to get to the other two doozy of questions.
___________________
Topic number 3, a real big one at the moment: The Economic Crisis.
I think that it is of great importance that we make no mistakes in understanding the nature of our current economic “downturn” as they call it. It is quite simply part of the regular capitalist cycle of boom and bust that has been occurring in 10-15 year intervals since the dawn of capitalist production.
Um, simply stated, the only permanent solution to this cycle, caused by chaotic overproduction in blind pursuit of profit and simultaneous weakening of consumer buying power, also in blind pursuit of greater profit, is to have some economic planning.
In order to have economic planning and still live in a free society, the clear answer is democratic socialism- that is, public ownership and democratic control of the means of production for actual human use and need, NOT private profit.
In the short-term however, I’ll offer this quick analysis and set of solutions:
#1. Healthcare. Our corporate media has blamed the start of this recession on a housing crisis caused by massive foreclosures. What they have failed to mention is that the number one cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure in America is large medical bills… This includes both the insured and those who cannot afford private health insurance. Thus a National Health Plan or single-payer system would alleviate a great amount of this stress to begin with. It would also open up great opportunities for people to pursue livelihoods based on their interests and not just on what the benefits package for that job included, all good things for economic recovery.
#2 Living Wages. The productivity of the American worker has been steadily increasing for decades and is now fourfold what it was in the 70’s. But the real wages of these workers, adjusted for inflation, have remained stagnant and in many cases declined during this same period of time. So where did the fruits of this extra productivity go? You guessed it, into the pockets of the capitalists, that one percent of society that earns 20% of all income. Employers who earn 500 times as much as their average employees. If ever there were doubts about Marx’s theory of class struggle, these facts should wash them all away. Workers are making more stuff and can’t buy it.
#3 Military Spending. Remember the big to-do about the big $700 billion Wall Street bailout back in September? I’m sure you do, we were all disgusted by the notion of handing our public assets over to these greedy bankers to clean up the mess they created. Well, what you probably don’t remember, because it wasn’t even mentioned in the corporate news, was that just the week before that bailout, Congress signed the appropriations bill for The Pentagon’s 2009 operating budget. Now keep in mind, that does not include the ongoing wars. Guess how much that one cost us? The number might sound a little familiar….$700 billion, and that’s just for ONE YEAR of Pentagon operations. Now add the couple trillion for the wars…..
All of these military expenditures combined account for more than half of all tax dollars. We grossly outspend everyone else in the world on military, in fact more than double our very distant second place contender. We have an empire sized military with bases scattered all across the planet to protect American Big Business interests. No other country has this, and we certainly wouldn’t allow anyone else to have a military base on our soil….. I mean, just think about the fact that the uniform of our nationalArmy is desert camoflouge- We don’t live in a desert country….well, not yet anyway.
The point is, we already generate more than enough tax revenue to easily support real social reforms that would improve the living conditions of everyone, but our government chooses to spend that money instead to seek new markets and defend capitalist interests.
________________
Okay, now the final subject of debate; one which could have easily filled the whole program itself without even beginning to skim the surface….What is Socialism?
I think that the simplest definition is wrapped up in the phrase: “economic democracy”, or perhaps “Participatory Economics.” Socialism is public assets for the public good controlled democratically. One can look at this simply as extending the liberal form of democracy- electing representatives, etc.. to also making decisions about the economy. What do we want to produce? How do we want to produce it?
This kind of public ownership and democratic planning process is the only sure mechanism that can ensure fair treatment of all people, conservation of vital resources and environmental stewardship. I say this because a truly democratic debate will bring all of the real social costs and benefits of production and consumption to the decision making table. Today, capitalists externalize as much as they can in order to increase their profit margins. They seek to lower wages and exploit the environment and resources as much as the law will allow them. They are able to do this because their employees and neighbors have no place in their business decision-making process. There is no economic democracy.
I think that one of the most important points for socialists like myself to make in order to demystify the “S” word is this: The Soviet Union and China were not socialist countries. They still had extreme class distinctions and of course a complete lack of democracy. These two practices are completely incompatible with the definition of true socialism: a classless society where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. In other words, socialism and democracy are one and indivisible.
Capitalism on the contrary only benefits more from a decrease in democracy; Less regulation, unfettered exploitation, no environmental laws, no pesky workers’ rights demanding minimum wages, etc… The most profitable free market system is one that has a dictatorship, like Augusto Pinochet’s model in Chile….hailed in the American media as “a miracle” with no connection being drawn between the human rights abuses, the extreme poverty and the ability of investors to rake in unimaginable profits…
So, my final comment here is that Socialism IS Democracy, and true democracy is socialist in nature.
Thank You"
These are the opening comments of Todd Vachon on the four topics:
1. Israel/Palestine, 2. Obama and Dems, 3. Economic Crisis and 4. What is socialism?
_________________
"So, the first topic of debate is The Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The prevailing understanding of this conflict as portrayed in the mainstream media is it’s ancient historic nature—a clash of civilizations or cultures. While this is true for the ideological hardliners on both sides of the dispute, it does not address the fact that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians alike want the violence to cease- they’ve had enough. But, just like all wars, in all epochs, the leaders, that is, the members of the dominant or ruling class in any society, wage the wars and enlist the poor and working class masses to fight them. So, the war-waging class is a very small but powerful section of the society and the war-fighting class and real victims of war atrocities come from the majority class, which so long as they’re unorganized have little power or say in things….even in a so-called democratically organized society.
So, recent history, a closer look at the past 20yrs will reveal some key facts regarding this dispute:
#1. Israel receives massive funding from the United states government. Palestine, none. Israel is in fact one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, second only to Colombia I believe…Another area of conflict where we fuel one side of a very political dispute.
#2. Israel is the largest foreign customer for U.S. arms-makers. Private, capitalist, industries that earn massive profits by selling jets, helicopters, bombs, etc… technology that is of course publicly siubsidized by our collective tax dollars and then used to garner private profit. So, for this particular brand of capitalist, unrest and conflict are good.
#3. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Palestinians served as a desperate pool of cheap labor for Israel; much like the United States’ current mistreatment of Mexican and Central American immigrants and historic mistreatment of Irish and Italians, etc.. . When the USSR was abolished and extreme capitalism put in it’s place, unemployment rates, inequality and poverty skyrocketed, causing a massive outpouring of Russian Jewish people to Israel. These new Jewish immigrants quickly filled the role of in-house cheap labor, effectively downgrading the Palestinian migrants to the status of “surplus humanity.” And what we now see is full out apartheid, which leads to point number 4
#4. Hypocrisy. The standards and measures that the U.S. government uses to ostracize or even attack some countries are completely ignored in other countries. If the candle were held equally upon all, then Israel would be labeled an apartheid and terrorist state. The U.S. itself would ironically be labeled a terrorist state by it’s own standards….But, without spending too much time on details I’ll give one quick and powerful example: Israel began to illegally invade and occupy southern Lebanon in the 1980s. There was a U.N. resolution issued which demanded Israel’s withdrawal. This resolution had remarkably similar language to the resolution regarding Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. That resolution which the U.S. enforced when engaging in the first Gulf War. So, not only was there a double standard, but the U.S. actually provided monetary and military aid to Israel’s illegal invasion. Today, Israel still illegally occupies parts of Southern Lebanon and as we all know the U.S. is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
___________________
Okay, so now to our second topic. Obama and the Democratic Party.
The Democrats, supposedly the “left” party in America, stand solidly to the right of center, with of course a few individual exceptions, but the party itself is more conservative than most so-called conservative parties in Europe…. I mean, Even the Torries, in England, wouldn’t dare try to privatize the British National Healthcare system.
What we have in America are 2 wings of one large business party. Our alternatives are The Greens who are left of center and the various Socialist paries- the only true Labor Parties, but these options are all effectively barred from the democratic process by the two-party monopoly.
In terms of Mr. Obama, I am thrilled by the historical significance of the election of a black man to be President by the American electorate. I think that he is a very intelligent man, one who can certainly answer unscripted questions and use real words, unlike our last President, but it does not change the fact that he is still a part of the Democratic Party and can only be as effective as the people that he is surrounded by.
Let’s just refresh our memories and keep in mind that:
1. He was the first candidate to forego public campaign funding and caps since they were created
2. He ran the most expensive campaign for public office ever
3. He had the most commercialized and marketed campaign ever
4. He is a millionaire; apparently a pre-requisite for being a Senator or President
5. He never actually offered any detailed progressive policy proposals throughout the entire campaign, and
6. We are now getting a not-so promising glimpse of the future by his selections for cabinet members, department secretaries and other advisors in major government offices.
Um, I want to keep that one short so there will be time to get to the other two doozy of questions.
___________________
Topic number 3, a real big one at the moment: The Economic Crisis.
I think that it is of great importance that we make no mistakes in understanding the nature of our current economic “downturn” as they call it. It is quite simply part of the regular capitalist cycle of boom and bust that has been occurring in 10-15 year intervals since the dawn of capitalist production.
Um, simply stated, the only permanent solution to this cycle, caused by chaotic overproduction in blind pursuit of profit and simultaneous weakening of consumer buying power, also in blind pursuit of greater profit, is to have some economic planning.
In order to have economic planning and still live in a free society, the clear answer is democratic socialism- that is, public ownership and democratic control of the means of production for actual human use and need, NOT private profit.
In the short-term however, I’ll offer this quick analysis and set of solutions:
#1. Healthcare. Our corporate media has blamed the start of this recession on a housing crisis caused by massive foreclosures. What they have failed to mention is that the number one cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure in America is large medical bills… This includes both the insured and those who cannot afford private health insurance. Thus a National Health Plan or single-payer system would alleviate a great amount of this stress to begin with. It would also open up great opportunities for people to pursue livelihoods based on their interests and not just on what the benefits package for that job included, all good things for economic recovery.
#2 Living Wages. The productivity of the American worker has been steadily increasing for decades and is now fourfold what it was in the 70’s. But the real wages of these workers, adjusted for inflation, have remained stagnant and in many cases declined during this same period of time. So where did the fruits of this extra productivity go? You guessed it, into the pockets of the capitalists, that one percent of society that earns 20% of all income. Employers who earn 500 times as much as their average employees. If ever there were doubts about Marx’s theory of class struggle, these facts should wash them all away. Workers are making more stuff and can’t buy it.
#3 Military Spending. Remember the big to-do about the big $700 billion Wall Street bailout back in September? I’m sure you do, we were all disgusted by the notion of handing our public assets over to these greedy bankers to clean up the mess they created. Well, what you probably don’t remember, because it wasn’t even mentioned in the corporate news, was that just the week before that bailout, Congress signed the appropriations bill for The Pentagon’s 2009 operating budget. Now keep in mind, that does not include the ongoing wars. Guess how much that one cost us? The number might sound a little familiar….$700 billion, and that’s just for ONE YEAR of Pentagon operations. Now add the couple trillion for the wars…..
All of these military expenditures combined account for more than half of all tax dollars. We grossly outspend everyone else in the world on military, in fact more than double our very distant second place contender. We have an empire sized military with bases scattered all across the planet to protect American Big Business interests. No other country has this, and we certainly wouldn’t allow anyone else to have a military base on our soil….. I mean, just think about the fact that the uniform of our nationalArmy is desert camoflouge- We don’t live in a desert country….well, not yet anyway.
The point is, we already generate more than enough tax revenue to easily support real social reforms that would improve the living conditions of everyone, but our government chooses to spend that money instead to seek new markets and defend capitalist interests.
________________
Okay, now the final subject of debate; one which could have easily filled the whole program itself without even beginning to skim the surface….What is Socialism?
I think that the simplest definition is wrapped up in the phrase: “economic democracy”, or perhaps “Participatory Economics.” Socialism is public assets for the public good controlled democratically. One can look at this simply as extending the liberal form of democracy- electing representatives, etc.. to also making decisions about the economy. What do we want to produce? How do we want to produce it?
This kind of public ownership and democratic planning process is the only sure mechanism that can ensure fair treatment of all people, conservation of vital resources and environmental stewardship. I say this because a truly democratic debate will bring all of the real social costs and benefits of production and consumption to the decision making table. Today, capitalists externalize as much as they can in order to increase their profit margins. They seek to lower wages and exploit the environment and resources as much as the law will allow them. They are able to do this because their employees and neighbors have no place in their business decision-making process. There is no economic democracy.
I think that one of the most important points for socialists like myself to make in order to demystify the “S” word is this: The Soviet Union and China were not socialist countries. They still had extreme class distinctions and of course a complete lack of democracy. These two practices are completely incompatible with the definition of true socialism: a classless society where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. In other words, socialism and democracy are one and indivisible.
Capitalism on the contrary only benefits more from a decrease in democracy; Less regulation, unfettered exploitation, no environmental laws, no pesky workers’ rights demanding minimum wages, etc… The most profitable free market system is one that has a dictatorship, like Augusto Pinochet’s model in Chile….hailed in the American media as “a miracle” with no connection being drawn between the human rights abuses, the extreme poverty and the ability of investors to rake in unimaginable profits…
So, my final comment here is that Socialism IS Democracy, and true democracy is socialist in nature.
Thank You"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
