Can we just have a reality-based
discussion of the policy?

Note by Evans Liberal Politics Owner Paul Evans: We’ve been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration’s mandated health insurance ‘reform’ on the net. I felt, however, that our readers deserved to look at the other side of the coin. This article, by an absolutely reliable progressive writer, Joshua Holland, is worth reading and thinking about. It really lays out a solid case in favor of the health insurance reform bill, (especially if some progress is made when the Senate version is reconciled with the House version).

Joshua Holland: I have no interest in defending the mandate that individuals buy an insurance policy. I think it’s self-evident that coercing people to shell out their hard-earned cash to Big Insurance is a distinctly sucky thing.

So I won’t.

I do, however, want people to take a deep breath, and at least have a serious discussion of the policy without all the hand-wringing and hyperbole that have been flying around of late.

I used to labor under the naive delusion that liberals tended to be rationalists — sometimes too nerdy in their reliance on factual arguments — and conservatives were the ones who appealed to our basest emotions, our fears. Thankfully, the health-care debate’s set me straight on this.

Over at FireDogLake, they have a petition to kill the Senate bill. It has one of those list of ten reasons for doing so. The first:

Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations – whether you want to or not

When I read that, I had to think hard about what it is they were talking about — there’s certainly nothing in any bill I’ve read that says you have to pay 8 percent of your income to the insurance companies whether you want to or not.

It turns out to be some Death-Panel quality spin. What are they actually talking about? The Senate bill requires everyone to have insurance, or pay a penalty. But, if the cost of getting insured exceeded 8 percent of your income, then the fine would be waived.

The maximum penalty is 2 percent of adjusted income, which is probably around 1.4 percent or so of the average person’s gross pay. That money would not go to “private insurance corporations,” but would in fact defray the costs of the uninsured on our public health system.

Or consider the following from David Sirota’s column in USA Today:

Worst of all, it doesn’t actually extend “new coverage” to 30 million more Americans. Through the “individual mandate,” it simply makes people criminals if they don’t buy expensive insurance from the private corporations that helped create the health care crisis in the first place.

Again, I’m not defending the mandate so much as calling David out for pushing the idea that people who didn’t buy insurance would be “criminals” — that kind of rhetoric could appear in Townhall or The National Review or some wing-nut blog.  Obama’s Gestapo will put you in a FEMA camp if you don’t carry health insurance!

The big problem as I see it is that lot of people are discussing this policy in isolation, free of context. And I think the most important bit of context is this: we’re not discussing a mandate alone — it comes with subsidies that make coverage much, much more affordable for working people. Consider some numbers for the Senate bill — again, much weaker than the House’s — that my colleague Daniela Perdomo brought to my attention the other day:
(please excuse the image quality)

So we’re mandating that people carry coverage while decreasing the costs of that coverage by up to 90 percent for the working poor, and 20 percent for a family making $85K.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we can’t forbid insurers from denying coverage based on previous conditions — something that absolutely everyone (except for the insurers themselves) believes is necessary without mandating that people carry insurance. If we did, no healthy person would have a policy — why would you pay premiums if you could just buy a policy once you become ill?

Another piece of context that I think is missing is this:  right now, if your family’s covered through an employer and you pay taxes, you are already paying approximately $1,000 dollars each and every year for the uninsured.

Almost all of my friends have always warned me off investigating any of the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Generally, in popular belief, these conspiracy theories have been constrained to the category of “loony tunes.” One day I was looking on YouTube for a video on a completely different topic and in the search results, saw this video entitled “Bush=McCain=Clinton 9/11″ and so I thought I’d have a look.

When I watched the video, with increasing interest and attention, there seemed to be a lot of sense to it. The idea that the destruction of the World Trade Center could have been a real, valid conspiracy seemed much less fanciful. Some of the evidence in the video includes that:

1.) It was partly a scheme by the owners to collect insurance on an aging, asbestos riddled complex which was a financial albatross.
2.) It was tied into the whole neocon scheme to catalyze the process of leading the world towards the “new world order”, which I had read about with interest before.
3.) The destruction of the Twin Towers was valuable to some very rich people because very damning finacial documents were stored there.
4.) The same people who had responsibility for the security of the Towers also had responsibility for security for the airlines’ security, and the officers of this security company included people high up in the Bush family heierarchy.
5.) FEMA arrived on the scene the night before.
6.) Finally, the video presents some of the very damning evidence about the fact that our government KNEW well in advance that the attacks were about to happen.

At any rate, the video below is highly interesting, even compelling, and Evans Liberal Politics wanted you to see it.

Copenhagen: Just a Cop Out?, Common Dreams.org, December 24, 2009, reprinted from Yes! magazine, by Tom Athanasiou, photo of Lake Cunningham Park © Alex Pears, quoted verbatim:

Despite its disappointments, the climate summit in Copenhagen marks
a turning point—the end of denial. What’s next is recognizing
that our climate problem is really a justice problem.

Copenhagen was obviously a failure—if you judge it by “the numbers,” the formal emission targets and financial commitments that are needed to support a fair, effective, emergency global climate mobilization. If you judge it, that is, by what is necessary.

The more pressing question, though, is whether Copenhagen was a failure when judged against what was possible. This is a much more difficult question, and has far more to do with judgment than with calculation. And much more to do with the immediate future of climate politics.

The good news is that the truth is coming out, and that people all over the world are seeing it. Everyone, and I imagine this includes Barack Obama, knows a hell of a lot more about the climate crisis, and its politics, than they did a year ago. Not, to be sure, that we didn’t already know that climatic destabilization is triggering a planetary emergency. This has been obvious for years. The difference now is rather that—thanks to the 350 movement, and here I mean not only the folks at 350.org, but also Mohamed Nasheed, the President of Tuvalu and a whole lot of terrified scientists—we know that we know it. And that we know it with appalling, quantitative confidence.

The bad news is that after Copenhagen, we also know that the elites are at their limits. That what is needed, as the Copenhagen street had it, is “system change not climate change,” and that lacking system change, our governments are quite incapable of organizing a decisive response to the climate crisis. The bad news, more particularly, is that if we in “civil society” are to do better than our putative leaders, if indeed we are to help the elites break their own chains of powerlessness, we’re going to have to actually dare to assign a bit of responsibility for the Copenhagen fiasco. The bulk of which, alas, will have to go to the wealthy world.

The NGOs grouped into CAN, the Climate Action Network International tried to come to Copenhagen prepared. They even had a scenario analysis close at hand, one that categorized the possible outcomes with names like Breakthrough, Foundation, Greenwash, and Collapse. It was a useful exercise, but the power of the Copenhagen drama, as it finally played itself out, defeated all attempts at easy characterization. I suppose that if you had to pin it down, the outcome would have to be placed somewhere between Greenwash and Collapse. Or, to put a finer gloss on it, in the “not done yet” territory, which is how CAN decided to frame the result.

Looking at the generalities of the Copenhagen Accord and the 2010 negotiating schedule, this may be fair enough. Obama himself took the same line, in a late-night press conferenceClimate Scorecard) to condemn us to about 3.9 degrees Celsius of warming. This is the “Four Degree World” scenario, and it’s a fairly magnificent understatement to say that we want to avoid it at almost all costs. that was actually pretty badly received, calling the accord a “meaningful agreement”, but adding that “This progress is not enough,” and “We have come a long way, but we have much further to go.” Which is a fairly obvious point, given that the accord, such as it is, seems (see for example the

But of course Copenhagen is not the end of the game. The negotiations will continue, as will the organizing, and with the next major climate conference scheduled for Mexico City in November of 2010, they are quite certain to have a major impact on the United States. And if, in the meanwhile, we in America can manage to pass halfway decent climate and energy legislation, we may yet discover that the Obama strategy—which John Holdren, his chief science adviser, characterized during Copenhagen as, simply, “getting started”—offers a plausible way forward, one that can make real progress even in a nation overtaken by insane right-wing ideologues.

Or maybe not. The difficulty here is that understanding can too easily degenerate into accommodation. Yes, we are paralyzed by our right wing, and yes this constrains our choicesthe dithering and dysfunction inevitable. Which of course brings us to the equity side of the story, and here there are several key points to report. [8], but the fact remains that, by not paying our way, by refusing to accept anything like our proper share of the responsibility for the crisis now threatening to overcome us, we make

One is that, in a signal development, several self-defined vulnerable country blocs emerged in Copenhagen to play extremely significant roles, and managed to do so while protecting not only their local interests, but the interests of the developing countries as a whole. The first of these vulnerable blocs, of course, was AOSIS, the Association of Small Island States, which face rising seas and, in extreme cases like Tuvalu, actual short-term inundation. But Africa, which has discovered the extent of its own vulnerability, also played a critical role, and by so doing helped to protect the South as a whole from being blamed for Copenhagen’s failure to deliver.

Not that the right-wing press won’t blame it anyway, but at this point I doubt that the gambit has real legs. For while the African people are among the world’s most innocent, in terms of their historical contributions to the climate crisis, they will also be among the most brutally impacted, and this is an injustice too obvious to easily set aside. Witness the open letter that Desmond Tutu sent to all heads of state during Copenhagen, a letter that noted that:

“If temperatures are not kept down then Africa faces a range of devastating threats such as crop yield reductions in places of as much 50 percent in some countries by 2020; Increased pressure on water supplies for 70-250 million people by 2020 and 350-600 million by 2050; The cost of adaptation to sea level rises of at least 5-10 percent of gross domestic product.”

With these sorts of prospects at hand, it’s difficult to be too sympathetic to the North’s domestic political problems. Which is why—and this might perhaps just be wishful thinking—I believe that the rich world will fail to effectively evade responsibility for Copenhagen. There are counter-arguments, of course, and gross media distortions by the score, but so far the failure to reach a better deal is not being blamed wholly on the South. And given that the large “emerging economies” signed onto the accord, it’s unlikely that it will be.

Indeed, given the wealthy world’s failure to adopt strong domestic emission reduction targets, and its equally egregious failure to put a decent mitigation or adaptation support package onto the table, the Copenhagen endgame—in which the emerging economies agreed to the Accord while the weaker and more vulnerable states balked-may well have been the best possible outcome. (Watch the final, 3:10 a.m. plenary here; you won’t regret it!)

In this regard, it may not be absurd to hope that, as Copenhagen passes into history, the overall framework by which we understand rich-world commitments will shift in significant ways. For one thing, and despite a clear desire to do so (it inconveniently requires them to “act first” to significantly reduce their emissions) the rich countries did not succeed in setting the Kyoto Protocol aside. But while Copenhagen laid out a two-track negotiating process, including a “Convention track” in which both the US and China can, perhaps, both be eventually coaxed into accepting their fair shares of the global effort, the “Kyoto track” has also been extended. This gives us a clear mandate—to continue the battle to force the wealthy countries to make commitments on the scale demanded by the science, and by their own historical responsibility and capacity to pay—and just as importantly it gives us a context within which to do so.

The road ahead is clear enough. The next big date is February 1, 2010, by which time countries of all kinds are expected to pledge their emissions reductions. When they do, the battles will predictably, and quite properly, flare up all over again.

For the moment, let me add only that Copenhagen, for all its disappointments, marked a turning point. The need for a global emergency mobilization is obvious, and with it, a set of social and political challenges that can no longer be denied. These challenges will get clearer in the days and years ahead, but the essential situation is already before us, ready to be discovered—with the atmosphere’s ability to absorb carbon now critically limited, we face the greatest resource-sharing problem of all time.

The climate problem, in other words, was and remains a justice problem. If we fail to solve it, it will be in large part because we refuse to see it as such.

Tom Athanasiou wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Tom is the author of Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor, and co-author (with Paul Baer) of Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming. He is the executive director of EcoEquity, a core member of the Greenhouse Development Rights [14] team, and a coauthor of The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework: The right to development in a climate constrained world.

The Pentagon is insatiable.
Here’s how to cut off its food supply.

It’s been a good decade for the Pentagon. The most recent numbers from Capitol Hill indicate that Pentagon spending (counting Iraq and Afghanistan) will reach over $630 billion in 2010. And that doesn’t even include the billions set aside for building new military facilities and sustaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

But even without counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense budget has been moving relentlessly upward since 2001. Pentagon budget authority has jumped from $296 billion in 2001 to $513 billion in 2009, a 73% increase. And again, that’s not even counting the over $1 trillion in taxpayer money that has been thrown at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if those wars had never happened, the Pentagon would still be racking up huge increases year after year after year.

And perhaps most disturbing of all, the Pentagon budget increased for every year of the first decade of the 21st century, an unprecedented run that didn’t even happen in the World War II era, much less during Korea or Vietnam. And if the government’s current plans are carried out, there will be yearly increases in military spending for at least another decade.

We have a permanent war budget, and most of it isn’t even being used to fight wars — it’s mostly a giveaway to the Pentagon and its favorite contractors.

What Can Be Done?

For starters, the Pentagon needs to cut unnecessary weapons systems that were designed to meet Cold War threats that no longer exist. A good place to look for these kinds of cuts is in the Unified Security Budget, an analysis provided annually by a taskforce organized by Foreign Policy In Focus. Its most recent recommendations call for over $55 billion in cuts in everything from unneeded combat aircraft to anti-missile programs to nuclear weapons spending.

To their credit, President Obama and his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have sought to eliminate eight such programs, from the F-22 combat aircraft to the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (a leftover from the old “Star Wars” program). An analysis recently produced by Taxpayers for Common Sense indicated that six of the eight proposed program cuts stuck. This is an impressive record, given the need to fight the weapons contractors and their pork-barreling allies in Congress to get the job done. But as the analysis also notes, additional spending on other programs added up to $1 billion more than the amount saved by the cuts.

This shouldn’t be surprising. As a candidate for president, Obama told a rally in Iowa that it might be necessary to “bump up” the military budget beyond the record levels established by the Bush administration. And in announcing the administration’s proposed weapons cuts in spring 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made it clear that he was seeking to rearrange priorities within the Pentagon, not reduce its budget. Gates sought more funding for equipment that would support counterinsurgency operations — like unmanned aerial vehicles — and less for systems designed to fight a Soviet threat that no longer exists — like the F-22 combat aircraft. And he got pretty much what he asked for.

Reducing U.S. Reach

Another area for savings would be to cut the size of the armed forces. But Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out a troop increase of 92,000, mirroring proposals made by the Bush administration. And his commitment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan might set the stage for even larger increases in the total U.S. forces at some point down the road.

Finally, any real savings in U.S. military spending would need to be accompanied by a reduction in U.S. “global reach” — in the hundreds of major military facilities it controls in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. But — in parallel to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan — U.S. overseas-basing arrangements have been on the rise, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan themselves but in bordering nations.

So, barring major public pressure, don’t expect the overall Pentagon budget to go down anytime soon. We can certainly still achieve some real reforms, from the elimination of outmoded systems like the F-22, to cracking down on war profiteering, to supporting the Obama administration’s indispensable efforts to cut back the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. At least for now, though, making the Pentagon do with less when most communities in the country are suffering from the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression is not in the cards. Not unless large numbers of us make it an issue.

UPDATE: See World’s Sole Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop $1 Trillion Wars, OpEdNews, December 24, 2009, by Rick Rozoff.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.