Amos's River of Justice

Tag: lobbyists

  • The Southern Firewall

    Remember after New Hampshire when the Clinton campaign was talking about its firewall in South Carolina? I assumed it was a reference to black voters. I was wrong. The Clinton ‘firewall’ in the South is part of the general Clinton milieu—a milieu that is becoming so all-pervasive that it deserves its own name. I propose to call it, the ‘too-clever-for-its-own-good-milieu’.

    First characteristic of the Clinton milieu: a willingness to be loose with the truth.

    The flap over that picture of Bernie Sanders doing civil rights work in the 60s is a good example. Last fall the question was raised about whether that really was Bernie Sanders in the picture. The Clinton campaign grabbed ahold of that doubt and held on to it like a life-preserver until the evidence ripped it to shreds. In the meantime they brought Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga) forward to say how he’d never met Bernie Sanders in the 60s, and also how he did meet the Clintons. This in spite of the fact that no one has disputed Bernie Sanders’ involvement in civil rights during this time and no one has ever claimed that the Clintons were involved in civil rights work in the 60s. This ploy met its demise when the photographer who took that picture, Danny Lyon, came forward with additional pictures from the University of Chicago archives and was able to prove that it really was Sanders in the picture, ((Veterans For Bernie, 1016, New Pictures Emerge of Bernie Sanders’ Civil Rights Activism. Available: http://vetsforbernie.org/2016/02/yes-bernie-sanders-protested-for-civil-rights/)) after which John Lewis was forced to ‘clarify’ his previous comments.

    Second characteristic of the Clinton milieu: strategic connections that if known would not be quite so useful, and therefore are kept hidden.

    Lewis’s casting of doubt on Sanders occurred during the press conference where the Congressional Black Caucus PAC announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. What the press failed to explain was that the Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC PAC) is not the same thing as the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). This is why it was necessary for Rep. Ellison, a member of the CBC who supports Senator Sanders, to release a statement saying that the CBC had not endorsed Hillary Clinton. So what is the PAC exactly? Concerning this confusion, Amy Goodman quotes Lee Fang: in a Democracy Now video, ((Democracy Now, Who Endorsed Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Black Caucus or its PAC Filled With Lobbyists? Feb. 12, 2016. Available: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/12/who_endorsed_hillary_clinton_the_congressional))

    “Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former [Rep. Albert] Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.

    “And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC […] was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.”

    Of course the CBC PAC’s chair, Rep. Gregory Meeks insists that this money does not affect any of the votes cast by the CBC members who are on the board of the PAC. Who doesn’t say that? Apparently we have a veritable miracle going on here—a whole political system in which large amounts of money have no corrupting influence at all.

    But that’s not all. There is also the question of the South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman’s ties to the Clinton camp. Jaimie Harrison is a principle at the Podesta Group, a lobbying firm founded by Tony and John Podesta—the same John Podesta who is chairman of Hillary Cllnton’s presidential campaign. Furthermore, he was already a principle at the Podesta Group when he became chairman of the South Caroline Democratic Party. It’s not surprising that his analysis of the presidential race favors Clinton.((Kelly Ridell, S.C. Democratic Chairman’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s Camp Raise Fairness Questions, Washington Times, Feb. 11, 2016. Available: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/11/jamie-harrison-south-carolina-democratic-party-cha/))

    If the Washington Post is correct that Hillary still has a lead in South Carolina, and unless South Carolina’s voters are all part of the elite, I think the majority of them are going to have a bad case of buyer’s remorse come next year.

  • American Healthcare and the Caduceus of Hermes

    Several article on this website deal with the connection between American Healthcare and the Caduceus of Hermes. This one focuses on the evidence of failure in real time.

    I have already cited Mike Stathis’ book, America’s Healthcare Solution. Stathis’s book is the source of the following summary.  I chose a few connections that seem the most crucial.  It is not my purpose to fully describe the debate and the proposed solutions. I will use this information in pursuit of a new way of talking about healthcare. (As you might expect, Stathis has been heavily censored on investment sites. It is impossible to find a copy of his book.)

    Healthcare and American National Security

    At this time, healthcare is the fundamental national security interest of the United States.  To put this into perspective, Libya could never match healthcare in economic urgency.  Furthermore, the decision to ignore Libya will not cure what ails us.

    The healthcare crisis has overriding potential for harm largely because of its effects on American business. This is especially true since the advent of NAFTA. Since NAFTA became aw, healthcare costs have increased much faster than other basic necessities.  The extreme nature of cost increases in the United States are due to the fact that health insurance has been employer-based since World War II. For this reason, high costs have directly affected employers’ ability to compete with foreign companies whose governments provide universal healthcare.  This turn of events leads to strategies of outsourcing, freezing pensions, and relocating overseas.  For Americans, the ensuing loss of jobs means the loss of health insurance.

    Republicans and Democrats Are Equally Responsible for This Failure

    Regardless of politicians’ claims, there is no fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. The democrats have proposed and continue to defend a plan that won’t solve anything.  They would like us to believe that forcing the uninsured to buy insurance will help solve the crisis.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

    In fact, many Americans with full health insurance are not covered adequately.  “Of the two million personal bankruptcies each year in America, more than one-half are attributed to medical bills or medically related events, accounting for the nation’s number one cause of bankruptcies.  Furthermore, of the one million Americans filing for medical bankruptcy each year, most had full medical insurance…in fact one could argue that America’s health insurance system does not provide true medical insurance.  Rather, it resembles a pre-paid medical plan with co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses that can add up fast.”

    And for their part, the Republicans simply obscure the issue with patent lies meant to retain the old system with all its fatal flaws.

    The Lobbies

    Lobbyists who continue their treasonous activities for the “medical-industrial complex” deserve much of the blame.  Whatever the initial cause may be, their activities have led to widespread abdication of responsibility on the part of lawmakers and even healthcare professionals.  Again, the same interests control both Democrats and Republicans, so any perceived differences are illusory.

    Is Healthcare the Core Problem or is it Something Else?

    As so often happens, once the seriousness of the problem is understood, it only seems to illustrate the impossibility of a solution.  One begins to wonder whether healthcare is the problem, or something more fundamental.  How can a solution be found or implemented when all parties have become so invested in the status quo?

    On the surface, the question provides the answer.  Feasible, short-term corrections have been proposed; the failure to act indicates a lack of will.  The problem with this analysis is it lumps all the players together as the source of the problem and discourages further attempts at reform.

    The Use of the Commerce Clause as a Legal Basis

    That said there is an interesting element of the current reform legislation that might tie this debate to its underlying structure, the bedrock of principle.  I refer to the use of the commerce clause as a legal basis.  In order to discuss the significance of the commerce clause as a justification in current healthcare reform, it will be necessary to examine the history of the symbol of medicine in the United States since 1917, the caduceus of Hermes, god of messengers and merchants.

error: Content is protected !!