Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Senate CIA torture report

Some of this was already known or suspected by us, but the confirmation and surprising excesses just make me ashamed to be American. It's a black mark on all the Americans who previously or currently fight for freedom and human rights honorably, or in some cases they do it smartly/peacefully so they don't need to fight at all.

Of course the CIA regurgitated the same tired lines that this disclosure will put US personnel and interests in danger overseas, and their tactics (albeit ugly) prevented attacks. Well on the first point, there is no such thing as secrecy in our social media connected world. Even if there was no Senate report, people all over the world have experienced or know of relatives and neighbors getting kidnapped, tortured, or assassinated. Do you think they don't care and just forget? They hate us for it and it breeds new security threats for the US. So don't blame the Senate for exposing what foreigners already know. The Senate is just forcing the apathetic, aloof public to look at ourselves in the mirror - which is a critical requirement of a functional free society that we may overlook.

Re: their second point, that the ends justify the means - well we know where that argument leads. Technically, it will probably make America safer if we nuke Pakistan tomorrow. Are we prepared to do that? Of course not. From a utilitarian perspective, you have to draw the line on how much evil you are willing to commit to do good, and I think our society wants to have a very low bar for that (as we should). If the outcome is good, you can rationalize and make all the excuses you want. But what if you're wrong and you failed? You committed all that evil for no gain, and we have to deal with the consequences of the evil too. The Senate report suggested that torture did generate some actionable intel, but they weren't critical pieces of intel, and in many cases that info was also obtained through more ethical means. So it was a lot of evil for very little benefits, and there were better ways to get the same benefits. Of course intel under duress is full of lies and false leads, which wasted intel resources. The CIA is a gov't agency too - so hawkish conservatives need to remember that it's not immune to similar screw-ups as we've seen at the VA, HHS, IRS, etc.

Like the recent NSA abuses, this is what happens when we as a society get so lazy/fearful/egocentric that we let our perceived security trump everything else, and entrust it to sociopaths with little to no scruples or accountability (and plenty of ulterior motives). Maybe that is not fair; I do believe that many in our security apparatus (even the criminals) do really love America and believe that they are doing what is best for our safety. But like Wall Street, they fail to take a broader, longer view of what safety truly means. Their mission at hand is not necessarily compatible to the overall mission of the US. And maybe like US law enforcement, we give the CIA more credit than they actually deserve in terms of brainpower and competence. Because it's pretty scary to ponder - are our protectors actually inept and immoral? Well it's better that we ask and find out, rather than just hope for the best and get a rude awakening (like 9/11, or Bay of Pigs, or Iran-Contra, and the list goes on and on).

Anyone who has worked a corporate job knows how easily it is for depts and teams to get fixated on their immediate objectives and success criteria, without considering the implications/significance on the overall company's success. I think this probably occurred at the CIA and NSA. Their narrow success criteria are "intel" and kills (in the case of the CIA), and they are the ones who get to tell their "customers" how good of a job they're doing. So without due diligence, attribution, and independent scrutiny, who is to say whether their intel and kills are actually low or high value? So of course, each morsel of info they gather is a home run, and each target they murder was an immediate threat to the US. They are incentivized to get as much info as possible, by whatever means available (and under Bush and Obama, they got the keys to the kingdom).

Sure there is some federal oversight, but most of it is classified and never gets public review. I don't think that is a very smart way to structure things. But we can't really expect the CIA and NSA to not go hog wild if we give them such freedom, mandate, and budgets. The bigger blame is on our civilian leaders who let the beast out of the cage, and the US public who failed to hold any of them accountable (until it was too late). And I doubt anyone will get fired or go to jail over the report, which adds to the tragedy. 

---

Regarding points 1 and 2 I would offer a less cynical approach:
1.  It will endanger Americans because the truth being exposed is ugly.  I heard some official say there really isn't a good time to release this kind of info.  So pragmatically speaking, they should expect backlash.  So not a reason to stop the release but an accepted cost of release.
2.  Whether this is true or not I can imagine an insider wanting or needing it to be true.  Not that the ends justify the means but that the means, having been done, provided something worthwhile.  The alternative is all loss and nothing redeeming.
So hopefully some of these people are making these assertions for the right reasons instead of political ones.

----

Thx, M. Yeah as you said, there's never really a good time to announce bad news. But if the CIA was worried about this stuff getting out and endangering Americans, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place. It's the act, not the revelation, that is damaging. And so far, I haven't heard of any attacks on US targets. An optimistic way of looking at it might be that foreigners will respect America more for investigating its dirty laundry rather than burying/denying it like Putin or Kim might.
Like the VA hearings a while back, this is of course is prompting calls for a "total review" of the Agency and cultural change, but as we know, that stuff happens slowly or never. Congress seems upset that they were misled/not fully informed, although the CIA denies it. No president (incl. Obama) has tried to stand up and rein in the CIA. There was some talk that Kennedy wanted to after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but obviously didn't get the chance (and some believe that the CIA had a role in his death, but I don't mean to bring up conspiracies).

I think the timing of the report is slightly political, as the Dems are losing the Senate next month. But based on the sheer volume of the report, I guess it was years in the making. There was a push within the Dem party to investigate and try to hold someone accountable for the errors during the Bush years (they already did 9/11 and WMDs, so torture/Gitmo was the last one).

---

Why are they beyond reproach? They were created by the state, and the state represents the citizenry. It's not like they're some rogue kingdom like North Korea that we have to handle with kid gloves. But I guess they do act like a "state within a state" at times.

Maybe our leaders don't have the stomach for it, but with a stroke of a pen, Congress and the President could require the CIA to expose its finances, data, and emails each year (to the right eyes of course), and we could appoint an independent watchdog that needs to be present at all high level intel and strategy meetings - and also has to approve any tier 1 action. Just knowing that someone is watching you is often enough to clean up behavior and reduce risk taking. And if this is done delicately, it won't degrade our security readiness at all. In fact, could be the opposite. Sure the CIA will bitch about it (no one likes a micromanager), but then they should have behaved better in the first place.

---

Isn't that sort of not true though?  I mean the whole part that is in contention is whether and/or to what extent the CIA fed lies to the overseers.  The classic who watches the watchers dilemma.  So watchdog all you like there will never be a guarantee that an agency whose sole agenda is covert ops will be fully forthright with anyone but themselves.  Not to say we quit and take it but these gaps in information are sort of the cost of entry to this type of game.

---

I see your point, but that is why the CIA can't be trusted to self-report truthfully (just like you have to take a defendant's testimony with a grain of salt unless corroborated by others). We have to go beyond the Congressional committees (even though they swear oaths when they testify), and have non-CIA people embedded at the Agency to watch the watchmen. It's also like SOX compliance, public companies have to hire a third-party audit firm for the accounting - they just can't tell the SEC to trust them that it's all good.  

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Campus sexual assault - an indictment of the college system and US society?

The Cosby stuff was bad enough, but this just made me want to puke:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119?page=5

College sexual assault has been in the news fairly often in the last few years, and unfortunately the stories keep getting worse. The issue may affect a shocking 1/10 to 1/4 of all college women in the US. It got so bad that Obama had to address the nation about it this year, and 76 problem schools are under investigation (and let's remember that rapes still happen on the exempt campuses too).

Unfortunately rape has been with us since the dawn of humanity, and I don't know if our current justice system has processes and harsh enough penalties on the books to properly deter it. But what also really bothers me is the attitude of the "enablers" or bystanders that let this criminality persist (or even suppress/cover it up). As the RS article described, some students seemed more concerned about the "reputation" of frats and UVA over the welfare of the victims (and justice/human decency). "Keep your mouth shut, or you will find yourself an outcast and give our school a bad name." Unfortunately, we've heard about the same crap in the military and Catholic church (and the Paterno-Sandusky tragedy).

There is a Senate bill aimed to hold college admins more accountable and increase punishments. There is also backlash from big, brave, anonymous voices on social media about this. They piss and moan, blame the victim, and such. Maybe there are some imbalanced women who do cry wolf and just want attention, but if there is even 1% legit victims out there from all the accusations, I think rape is one of those subjects where over-reactions is totally warranted. There are some mitigating circumstances where a defendant can justify a theft, lie, or even murder. But rape is 100% unjustifiable, end of story. I know our discussion group tries to be open to diverse opinions and ambiguity, but I really don't see how that is possible here. A person is not going to die without sex. No bad will come to young lovers if she is a bit tipsy tonight and he tries to make his move another time. The only costs are their "reputation" among peers and how they may measure up to juvenile notions of manliness (warped by media and unchecked by other adults who should know better).
The US rightfully slams fundamentalist Muslim societies for how they abuse women, and we were all disgusted by the stories coming out of India. But are we any better? I would say that the US is fairly strong on child protections, but what about women - who are 50% of our country? I know the vast majority of women are treated decently by men and thankfully never have to go through this hell. But just 1 case is too many.

What is even more disturbing is that these incidents happen at college, and often at good schools. College is where our best and brightest learn to be productive adults, where America (and the world's) future is being cultivated. I don't mean to be a prude, tisk tisking our young people for being so much worse than we were. I regret how I misbehaved, goofed off, and didn't fully capitalize on my precious time in school. Maybe this horrible stuff was going on but kept under raps when we were students, or maybe it is actually worse now. Technology makes casual sex a lot easier (or at least more visible) for young people, and egotism, hedonism, and entitlement seem to be bigger issues with Millennials vs. Gen X'ers (maybe I'm biased).

College is becoming more and more of a haves vs. have-nots game, and fierce competition (or family/wealth connections) make it more about status than learning/meritocracy, so these factors could be exacerbating the problem. "You are a UVA man and a Kappa Sig man; the world is your oyster and no one can hold you back." Just like the celebs that some kids idolize. And these folks will graduate, go to work, and perpetuate the attitude to their kids. Maybe some will actually mature and teach others from their experience (if I could, there is hope for anyone).

Sorry that I keep repeating TR's quote, but it keeps being relevant! At college, we educate kids in book knowledge, but not about life and morals. Well to be honest, I wouldn't want most university employees to teach my kids about those subjects (but they could hire qualified "life coaches" instead). Also, coddling parents may cry foul if the school dares to insinuate that their perfect angels don't already know how to behave. Most airline passengers are not a danger, but everyone still has to go through the metal detector. So even if many college kids are pretty mature and know how to treat others, unfortunately there are still bad apples in the bunch, so everyone has to go through training - sorry. What we learn in college is mostly useful for grad school, but is really not that valuable for the rest of our lives. Therefore, why waste our kids' precious time on that, and instead teach them about life? It's such a wasted opportunity if all they get are equations, exams, football, and spring break. I am not well versed in the classics and ancient Greece, but isn't the origin of the university system rooted in philosophy, ethics, and such? The humanities are dying at US colleges, but maybe we should bring some of that back in order to avoid generation after generation of "menaces to society." Maybe then, kids would learn about and practice empathy, respect, and honor, instead of becoming the next Wolf of Wall Street. Maybe then we'll come to value or fellow humans over peer pressure, ego, and tribalism.

I think most of us (especially men) would agree that we were kind of idiotic assholes at age 18-20. Maybe that is just the natural growing up process, and we have a lot of bad social influences. Is 18 too young for American kids to go off on their own to school? Maybe we should have post-secondary, gender-segregated, college prep for 2 years like the Europeans do? Because it's a dangerous time when you get a lot of adult rights and freedoms, but you are still operating on juvenile judgment and experience. This is nothing new, but clearly we haven't figured it out yet if thousands of women's lives continue to get ruined, during what should be a great time in their lives. Zero tolerance for Greek orgs (who really provide no constructive value to colleges or greater society) - one rape conviction or other serious crime, and they are banned from the school for a decade. Three convictions nationwide and the frat is shut down for good.

I know I sound like a square, and I really wish it didn't have to come to this, but if Americans behave like children and savages, then unfortunately we should be treated as such until we show improvement.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The US political merry-go-round

I haven't really been following the midterms, but just wanted to share some general concerns. It just seems like Groundhog Day to me. The incumbents screw up (real or perceived, but the more interesting question is: how was their performance vs. the hypothetical alternative?), supporters are demoralized and fail to mobilize compared to the fired up opposition, and the other party sweeps into power.

If it's a divided gov't, nothing gets done (and it's so unlikely for one party to control 60 Senate seats). If one party has a monopoly on the Executive and Legislative, then they invariably overstep their "mandate", attempt to reverse the recent progress of their rivals, and make their fair share of screw ups too. Then the whole cycle repeats in 2-4 years, and the American people (and the world) are stuck in this futile cycle. For example, the GOP has tried to repeal Obamacare dozens of times, even when they didn't have the Senate. Now that they do, I am sure they will try again, even though it won't get past the Obama veto. And all the while infrastructure, education, climate change, immigration, etc. initiatives just languish while the problems get worse.

The only exceptions to this pattern seem to be (hopefully) rare, unifying security events like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 (Bush's GOP gained seats in 2002), or an especially bullish sustained bubble economy combined with terrible behavior by the opposition legislators (Clinton's Dems gained seats in 1998).
I'm not sure what can be done about this in the short term. Obviously the usual ideas surface: a more active and educated electorate, voting rules reform, a truly popular vote, longer terms and/or term limits, less unlimited dark money in politics, more time on politics and less on campaigning/fundraising, more competitive districts, and frankly better parties and candidates who can behave like gentlepeople and put country first. Clearly our representative gov't is dysfunctional when a majority of the public want tougher gun control, but our leaders are much less amenable. Same goes for bipartisanship, climate change, pot, gay rights, taxes on the rich, even Obamacare (when you peel away the misinformation).

http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/14/a-study-in-plutocracy-rich-americans-wield-political-influence-the-rest-of-us-dont/

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Immigration reform bill, amnesty, and path to citizenship

I am really intrigued by the whole illegal immigrant bill and associated debate going on right now.  There seems to be a lot of effort and general support from dems to provide amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  I also see opposition to reporting those here illegally as part of booking them for other crimes.  What i never hear is the justification for amnesty or the justification for not considering someones immigration status when booked for other crimes.


To me I get that there is a human rights aspect to this.  A family moves here with a 1 year old child illegally, child grows up here for 10+ years, does it really make sense to deport him back to wherever?  Is breaking up that family ok?  On the other hand I think of the analogy of someone struggling to feed their family breaking into a home and robbing them.  He uses that money to feed his children, raise them right, and send them off to college.  But if he is caught after all that time, he still owes the money back.  He still stole it.  What legal or moral right does he have to any of it?  Sure it isn't his families fault he got the money illegally but tough cookies he broke the law.  

So what exactly is the argument for giving those currently here illegally citizenship?  Is it similar to the drug war where making something illegal doesn't solve any problems and creates new ones to boot?  What do we say to those who are still in the waiting line for the legal option?

------------

Thx for your thoughts. I am not aware of the fine print, but I also agree that the Dems' push for a path to citizenship is a bit excessive. I mean, Reagan gave the last amnesty with very few strings attached, so the GOP don't really have much credibility to be hard on the Dems - though to be fair Reagan would not really be identified as a Repub. today on many issues/practices. Citizenship is a pretty big deal (and as you said the legit line is very long), and for sure not many of the illegal immigrants currently here would qualify or see it through if it were law tomorrow. But still, it may send the wrong message. I would be OK with giving them work permit/legal resident status instead as the ultimate goal. Why should there be a path to citizenship specifically vs. residency status? I didn't see really compelling arguments for that online. Maybe the rationale for granting citizenship is kind of ideological: as you said these folks have demonstrated "American-ness" in every other way possible, so why not out of respect grant it to them after paying some fines? Or as the GOP says, maybe it's a hand-out to win Latino votes.

I would disagree regarding your burglary analogy. In that case, the thief is hurting an innocent private citizen and taking something from them. For illegal immigration, in most cases it is a "victimless crime" where no one is harmed and in fact many Americans may benefit without even realizing it. Of course that immigrant (if amnestied) may be "taking a spot away" from someone in line who played by the rules. And if that immigrant got some gov't assistance, that is fewer resources for others in need. But in general I think immigrants contribute more to the US than they take.

Did you know that you can also buy your way to a green card? Doesn't that also disadvantage the immigrants who are waiting patiently but can't afford a $0.5M-1M fast-pass?
For individuals booked with a crime, depending on the severity I guess it's valid to ask for immigration status and deport/imprison bad offenders. But I think the big problem was in states like AZ, they passed profiling laws where authorities could ask anyone they wanted for proof of citizenship on the spot. And of course they tend to ask people who look a certain way.

Tangentially, Maher commented that the GOP's insistence to "militarize" the southern border (Border Surge) as a prerequisite for imm. reform is a direct consequences of our draw-down in the War on Terror. Many contractors are going to be assed-out, so they need to replenish their revenue with more ludicrous spending on high-tech hardware and troops (in this case B. Patrol agents) we don't really need. Supposedly in the Senate bill there are specific provisions for the purchase of certain tactical systems from certain companies. In total the Surge would be $38B in additional spending - advocated by the austerity-or-bust party. For scale, all food stamps spending in the US in 2010 was $64B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/immigration-deal-would-boost-defense-manufacturers/2013/07/01/d1c115e4-df63-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html?hpid=z1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/10-states-with-the-greatest-food-stamps_n_860233.html

Also an interesting side-note about drones: I thought they would be a lot cheaper than manned craft. But according to "The Newsroom", an F-16 is about $500M while a Predator is about $300M - not much savings! Well if you include the pilot training and future care costs, maybe that's another $5M to the manned craft bill? How the hell can an oversized RC propeller plane (that is lower tech, can be hacked, and is slower than an F-16), cost 3/5 as much!?!

Friday, June 7, 2013

Guarding and Post break story of the NSA's PRISM domestic spying

We know that some quasi-legal, mostly-secret spying programs were launched post-9/11 by the Bushies, and were continued/reauthorized by Obama. The Senate Intel. Cmte. has sent a letter to AG Holder expressing concern for the magnitude of domestic surveillance that our intel. infrastructure wants legal authority to conduct. They think that there is a major gulf between what Americans think the gov't is entitled to do, and what the gov't actually interprets their authority to allow.

The FISA (Foreign Intel. Surveil. Act) was recently reauthorized and grants the gov't the power to monitor int'l and non-American comm. But recently the Guardian and WP broke the story that the NSA has had a program called PRISM since 2007 that would basically grant them direct access to the data on the servers of major internet comm. companies like Microsoft, Skype, Google, Yahoo, and most recently Apple - for the purpose of domestic spying that FISA doesn't allow (they were tired of FISA's legal red tape too). And the program was conducted with basically zero oversight. This is all described in a PowerPoint training deck that was leaked (BTW the NSA makes really crappy slides). So far the NSA has not denied the legitimacy of that source.

The Director of Nat. Intel., James Clapper, has also not denied the existence of PRISM (and its $200M/year budget). In line with the Obama admin's "war on whistle-blowers", he lashed out that leaking the story would harm national security. Right, like how Jane Fonda helped the Viet Cong. By Clapper's own words, secret surveillance has foiled one (= 1, uno) domestic terror plot on record since the program started (target unknown, potential losses averted unknown). Democrats on the Senate Intel. Cmte. say they have no evidence that surveil. stopped any plots. So the benefit of the program is 0-1 plots stopped over 12 years. I don't think exposing the program is going to matter at all, except maybe compromise their surveil. budgets and autonomy. Also, what terrorist worth his weight in salt doesn't already know to "stay off their airwaves"?

Interestingly, the tech companies issued statements saying that they have no knowledge of PRISM, and do not give the gov't a backdoor to their servers. So either they are lying and actively colluded with the gov't, or the gov't broke a ton of laws and hacked into those companies totally discreetly (eat your heart out, China). I have no data to back this up, but my suspicion is the cyber security folks at those prestigious companies are a lot better than the hackers at the NSA. So the likelihood that Google would get caught with their pants down is low. But maybe those were the terms of the agreement: they would let the gov't snoop, but in return they get full denial and release of liability, so their users don't revolt and sue.

Another revelation is that the gov't got access to the "metadata" on Verizon's telco network. So they weren't actually eavesdropping without a warrant on calls, but instead knew which #s were talking to each other, when the calls were made, and what was the closest cell tower. Tracking and call patterns in other words. While that was probably clever by "Zero Dark Thirty" standards, I am not sure if it is legal to do it indiscriminately without probable cause.

This leak comes at a horrible time for Obama, who is about to sit down with Chinese leaders to chastise them for hacking US companies (we previously blogged about this). It kind of undermines his credibility and moral high ground when our gov't is caught hacking its own people and companies too.

What I don't understand is why Greenwald was permitted to publish these articles. I saw "Bourne"... isn't he supposed to get whacked in a London train station?

--------

He was on DN this morning.  Amy Goodman asked him, 'Are you concerned that you will be attacked for publishing such things?'  His response was basically, 'I'm emboldened by the attacks.  Let them attack me.'  Basically, he can't be silenced.  What are they going to do?  Out him?  Um, too late.  If i was boarding a plane and saw GG and Jeremy Scahill boarding, I would take a different plane....those two will very soon NOT be seen on MSM, is my guess.  GG will never be on Bill Maher after his calling Maher out for being an Islamophobe(and, he is).   These two are the heroes of our time.  Oh, add Bradley Manning and you got the makings of a superhero cartoon!

---------


Yeah the Manning case is interesting. He has already pleaded guilty to some major crimes, but the gov't wants to convict him for "aiding the enemy" (presumably his leaks helped Al Qaeda? Impossible to prove unless we have a smoking gun - which we don't). And they won't even accept all his prison time up to this point as time served, to reduce his remaining sentence (not to mention the torture).

But I think what makes him ineligible for hero status is his indiscriminate data dump to Wikileaks. At least with the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg "edited" them and only leaked snippets of the docs that would tell the story with minimal exposure of gov't sources/processes (apart from the guilty parties). In Manning's case, he didn't even know all the stuff he was leaking, and just trusted Wikileaks to decide what was fit to print. I am glad that he exposed some horrible war crimes from Iraq that the gov't was trying to bury. But I think he also set back our peaceful State Dept. diplomatic efforts in other parts of the world. Clearly people like Rummy and Cheney have hurt this nation a lot worse than Manning ever could.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201306030900




--------


I don't know if it helps the moral high ground but the verizon thing was signed by a judge.
I just have a hard time understanding who, anywhere in the us, thinks this should be an ok thing to do.  Who thinks it makes sense to have a secret court issue secret orders unreviewable and unchallengeable by those it affects?  And it always begs the question what are they doing we DON'T know about?

Extra embarrassing with a nominally dem president in charge.


--------


Yeah, though a judge also approved Bush's harsh interrogation and rendition policies too. Heck a judge ruled that Bush won the election. :)

As you said, lord knows WTF is going on that we don't know about. Makes those conspiracy guys a little more credible at times. It was embarrassing to see Obama in Si Valley today defending the programs like a stooge. Same argument with the drone kills: TRUST us that we are making these decisions carefully (in secret) and we are protecting you from the bad men. Either Obama doesn't truly believe that and is just delivering lines that will please the defense establishment (which makes him a coward, appeaser, and poor leader), or he really believes it (which makes him dumber and less moral that I previously gave him credit for). Nixon would have loved the 21st Century.

M sent me this which was thought-provoking: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/306288/?mrefid=twitter

Thanks, I haven't seen this before. I think the author has a point. 9/11 was a freaking OUTLIER. Yes the stakes are higher now with WMDs and the borderless global world, but even an event as horrific as 9/11 was not a society-ender (we'll it was... for Iraq). "Sacrifices for freedom" are often much smaller than that, and would be even smaller if our brash and unjust foreign and economic policies didn't piss off so many. Even today, Obama said "We can't have 100% security and 100% freedom." It is a false choice as many have said (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201306070900). But we're NEVER going to have 100% security, even if we have 0% freedom. Random violence and tragic accidents are part of the human condition, even in the Utopia of Scandinavia (Brevik shooting, car accidents with reindeer, suicides inspired by 6 months of darkness). Americans are hysterical and selfish, and they don't want to fear that one day they may be the victim of a crazy bomber. So they endorse all these stupid policies to just "feel safer". The soccer mom philosophy of "I'll do anything to protect my kids", even if that means ironically supporting policies that put many other no-less-worthy people's kids in danger. And we wonder why they hate us.

Strangely this line of thinking doesn't apply to the gun debate, where the opposite psychology reigns: freedom is the precious thing worth dying for (or letting children die for), where thousands more brown-skinned youth have to be sacrificed each year just so said soccer mom's husband can dream about stopping a home invasion (perpetrated by Mookie Hernandez) with his Bushmaster. And in the gun debate, there can be no gray area; limitless magazines and no paper trails of gun purchases. Any encroachment on that is fascist tyranny. It's not like the constant pushing-of-the-envelope with the privacy-security debate as the tech evolves (that has gone on since the times of J. Edgar), where it's "OK" to secretly gather metadata, but not actual telephony content. And we promise to not cross that line. It's OK to kill Americans without trial, as long as they're overseas and saying hateful things. But we won't go past that, trust us.

Should we find new ways to use technology in uncontroversial ways to make our society safer (not just from terrorism, but from car accidents, sickness, etc.)? Certainly. Should we have a debate on when other priorities need to trump privacy? Sure. So let's talk it out in public rather than let a few scheming powerful men make all the decisions in secret, because we're too scared to live up to our civic duty.



Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The dysfunctional US Senate

“Sit and watch us for seven days,” one senator says of the deadlocked chamber. “You know what you’ll see happening? Nothing.”

And if something does happen, it's bad:

Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, was secretly blocking the confirmation of seventy Obama appointees over a dispute involving defense earmarks for his state. (His tactics exposed, Shelby—whose office maintains that he was responsible for fewer than fifty holds—lifted all but three.) Later that month, [KY GOP Senator] Bunning spent several days and a late night on the Senate floor, filibustering to prevent benefits from being paid to millions of unemployed Americans. When [OR Dem Senator] Merkley tried to reason with him, Bunning responded, “Tough shit.” (Eventually, Republicans persuaded Bunning to stop.)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201008170931

Of course this story is an outsider's take on the modern Senate, and he leans left. Maybe the author can't or won't capture all the less publicized, complex good work that the Senate does for us every day, but the problems he describes are obvious to most Americans who aren't committed to a political agenda of making sure Obama accomplishes nothing.

Unlike previous generations, the Senate is not a debate forum among intellectuals for the good of the country. No one even discusses anymore; Senators just talk past each other, read canned statements written by their staffers (often inexperienced, ideological go-getters), and then go home without hearing other views. Maybe they would even prefer to stroke their egos and talk on the press rounds instead. Modern political pressures and 24-7 mass media have turned the Senate into a joke. Of course our founding fathers designed the Senate to be inefficient, unparliamentary, and act as a brake against populism and knee-jerk legislation. But it wasn't meant to be a brick wall, which is what the GOP minority has resembled since Obama took office. So what is the future of government? When a Dem is president, nothing gets done, except for urgent crises like wars and recessions? And when the GOP is in power, maybe the Dems would do the same, or they would blink and cowardly give a rubber stamp, as they did with Dubya? So basically the country can only hold course or swing right, which doesn't represent the interests of at least 40% of voters. Sometimes you hold the line and fight, and sometimes you have to make deals, but you can't be a brick wall all the time.

We already know that lobbying and special interest money contaminate the Congress, and the use of filibuster has changed in purpose and drastically increased since Reagan's time (especially when the GOP is in the minority). Pointless "secret holds" delay uncontroversial, qualified presidential nominees from doing their jobs for months (again, the GOP has taken this to another level with Obama). Many junior senators are pumped up to do good and get bills passed, so they hate the loopholes and philosophically would like to change some rules, but what if their party is in the minority next session? They don't want to lose out on that leverage, just in case (like the problematic super-majority to pass a budget in CA: everyone hates it but fears that they may need it one day). For the minority party, it's become like a degenerate game of curling (and just as exciting) rather than legislation. Don't worry about winning, just find sneaky ways to frustrate and block your opponent from scoring. Then eventually the public will get fed up and kick that party out, and you will get your chance. Who cares about the precious legislative calendar you've wasted? Your term is 6 years, you will most likely be re-elected even if you sucked on the job, and you enjoy fat compensation. And even if you lose your office, just wait the 2-year "cooling off period" and become a big time lobbyist on the Hill instead, which has even higher pay. But that job security and privileged status breeds an attitude of arrogance, apathy, and exclusivity I think.

Senators and their families used to live and socialize with each other (even with the other party) in Washington, so it's easier to talk and be cordial with friends. But now they mainly don't know each other, so it's easier to hate (especially when the rest of your caucus pressures you to). In order to save money, and due to the fact that they're only in DC half the week, some senators even eat and LIVE in their offices. So they're isolated from their peers (and the real world), even for lunch, since they're probably busy courting donors or hearing out special interest pitches downtown. The "old lions" of the Senate, who knew it when it was actually bipartisan and orderly under LBJ, are now dead or dying/retiring, and new senators came up in a more nasty, ideological climate. Unlike the past, more younger senators are coming from the House, which is an even more short-sighted, partisan institution. Also senators have to fly to their home states, maybe several times a week, in order to attend to local business or engage in the endless re-election campaign (Senator Harkin estimates that he and his colleagues spend 50% of their free time on fund-raising activities, instead of better serving the public interest). They are scheduled on the Senate floor literally for 15-minute blocks, and then they're whisked away by their staff punching away on their smart phones. In fact, most Senators aren't even on the floor, even during major business and votes.

[OR Senator] Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a Republican and a Democrat. “The memory I took with me was: ‘Wow, that’s unusual—there’s a conversation occurring in which they’re making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.’ And yet nobody else was in the chamber.”

So if no one gives an honest effort at outreach or even basic participation, there can be no debate and compromise. Would we survive at our jobs by being absent most of the time and saying "no" to everything? And if Senators are too over-scheduled with other matters to really think about public policy and governance, how can they do their jobs and represent the people? But our government is a reflection of us and our culture, so we deserve our leaders and their broken system. It's just a shame that it's so difficult to change. But if things got this bad so quickly, they can also improve quickly with the right people, conditions, and motivation.

-----

Some highlights of a typically long New Yorker piece:

The Republicans had turned this old rule [requiring unanimous consent for debate to extend past 2PM] into a new means of obstruction. There would be no hearings that afternoon... Like investment bankers on Wall Street, senators these days direct much of their creative energy toward the manipulation of arcane rules and loopholes, scoring short-term successes while magnifying their institution’s broader dysfunction.

.........

The Republican goal in [blocking Obamacare with endless, pointless amendments] Vote-O-Rama was to embarrass the Democrats while appearing to suggest useful changes; the Democratic goal was to prevent any change to the bill, so that it wouldn’t have to return to the House, where it might be voted down. Several of the Republican amendments had been designed to make Democrats look hypocritical, by forcing them to vote against policies that the Party typically supports.

.........

Each senator sits on three or four committees and even more subcommittees, most of which meet during the same morning hours, which helps explain why committee tables are often nearly empty, and why senators drifting into a hearing can barely sustain a coherent line of questioning. All this activity is crammed into a three-day week, for it’s an unwritten rule of the modern Senate that votes are almost never scheduled for Mondays or Fridays, which allows senators to spend four days away from the capital. Senators now, unlike those of several decades ago, often keep their families in their home states, where they return most weekends, even if it’s to Alaska or Idaho—a concession to endless fund-raising, and to the populist anti-Washington mood of recent years. (When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, in 1995, he told new Republican members not to move their families to the capital.) Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader, said, “When we scheduled votes, the only day where we could be absolutely certain we had all one hundred senators there was Wednesday afternoon.”

......

[Former Dem leader] Daschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: “Sometimes, you’re dialling for dollars, you get the call, you’ve got to get over to vote, you’ve got fifteen minutes. You don’t have a clue what’s on the floor, your staff is whispering in your ears, you’re running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double check—but, just to make triple sure, there’s a little sheet of paper on the clerk’s table: The leader recommends an aye vote, or a no vote. So you’ve got all these checks just to make sure you don’t screw up, but even then you screw up sometimes. But, if you’re ever pressed, ‘Why did you vote that way?’—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope nobody asks, because I don’t have a clue.”

........

For some Federalists, [the Senate] also had an aristocratic purpose: to collect knowledge and experience, and to guard against a levelling spirit that might overtake the majority. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate, in 1832, he was deeply impressed by the quality of its members: “They represent only the lofty thoughts [of the nation] and the generous instincts animating it, not the petty passions.” But he also recognized that “a minority of the nation dominating the Senate could completely paralyze the will of the majority represented in the other house, and that is contrary to the spirit of constitutional government.” As long as the Senate continued to be composed of America’s most talented statesmen, Tocqueville implied, it would restrain its own anti-democratic potential.

..........
But the Senate's history was not always intellectual and lofty:

After the Civil War the Senate was captured by wealthy and sectional interests, ending a more high-minded age when Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun engaged in brilliant debate. Aside from spasms of legislation at the start of the Presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, Caro writes, the Senate remained controlled by an alliance of Southern racists and Republican corporate shills, and was “the dam against which the waves of social reform dashed themselves in vain—the chief obstructive force in the federal government.” By the fifties, the Senate had become far more conservative than the public. And not just conservative: William S. White, in his 1956 book “Citadel,” called the Senate “to a most peculiar degree, a Southern Institution . . . growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly” and “the only place in the country where the South did not lose the war.”

.........

The Senate’s modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981. “The Quayle generation came in, and there were a number of people just like Dan—same generation, same hair style, same beliefs,” Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, recalled. “They were harder-line. They weren’t there to get along with Democrats. But they look accommodationist compared to Republicans in the Senate today.”

.........

The weakened institution could no longer withstand pressures from outside its walls; as money and cameras rushed in, independent minds fell more and more in line with the partisans. Rough parity between the two parties meant that every election had the potential to make or break a majority, crushing the incentive to coöperate across the aisle. The Senate, no longer a fount of ideas, became a backwater of the U.S. government. During the Clinton years, the main action was between the White House and the Gingrich House of Representatives; during the Bush years, the Republican Senate majority abdicated the oversight role that could have placed a vital check on executive power.

.........
Between 1998 and 2004, half the senators who left office became lobbyists. In 2007, Trent Lott, a Republican leader in the Senate less than a year into his fourth term, abruptly resigned and formed a lobbying firm with former Senator John Breaux, just a few weeks before a new law took effect requiring a two-year waiting period between serving and lobbying.

.........

Under McConnell, Republicans have consistently consumed as much of the Senate’s calendar as possible with legislative maneuvering. The strategy is not to extend deliberation of the Senate’s agenda but to prevent it. Tom Harkin, who first proposed reform of the filibuster in 1995, called his Republican colleagues “nihilists,” who want to create chaos because it serves their ideology. “If there’s chaos, things will tend toward simple solutions,” Harkin said. “In chaos people don’t listen to reason.”

.........

“If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away money and interest groups,” he said. “But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things considered, it’s better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives [CO Dem Senator] Michael Bennet nutty: here you’ve arrived in the United States Senate and you can’t do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet.”

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Comparing the House and Senate Health Bills


Kind of funny (or not): in order to get conservative Dem. Senator Nelson from Neb. to vote for the health bill, Reid and Co. cut a deal.

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

... [The Senate] bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

Comparing some aspects of the House and Senate bills:

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93274

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aim3g2AJwUHI

Obama's (d)evolution on the public option:

Candidate Obama, 2008: The Obama plan will establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees. And again in another statement.... For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program. (though he never once verbalized this in a speech)

President Obama, July 2009: I am pleased by the progress we’re making on health care reform and still believe, as I’ve said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.

President Obama, Aug-Dec 2009: [The public option was only a] sliver of my health care proposal.... I didn't campaign on the public option.

http://salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2009/12/22/obama_public
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-Health-Care-Reform/

Monday, December 21, 2009

Health care bill making progress


By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 17, 2009 NYT
Times Topics: Health Care Reform
Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

* Read All Comments (190) »

The first reason to support the Senate health care bill is that it would provide insurance to 30 million more Americans.

The second reason to support the bill is that its authors took the deficit issue seriously. Compared with, say, the prescription drug benefit from a few years ago, this bill is a model of fiscal rectitude. It spends a lot of money to cover the uninsured, but to help pay for it, it also includes serious Medicare cuts and whopping tax increases — the tax on high-cost insurance plans alone will raise $1.3 trillion in the second decade.

The bill is not really deficit-neutral. It’s politically inconceivable that Congress will really make all the spending cuts that are there on paper. But the bill won’t explode the deficit, and that’s an accomplishment.

The third reason to support the bill is that the authors have thrown in a million little ideas in an effort to reduce health care inflation. The fact is, nobody knows how to reduce cost growth within the current system. The authors of this bill are willing to try anything. You might even call this a Burkean approach. They are not fundamentally disrupting the status quo, but they are experimenting with dozens of gradual programs that might bend the cost curve.

If you’ve ever heard about it, it’s in there — improved insurance exchanges, payment innovations, an independent commission to cap Medicare payment rates, an innovation center, comparative effectiveness research. There’s at least a pilot program for every promising idea.

The fourth reason to support the bill is that if this fails, it will take a long time to get back to health reform. Clinton failed. Obama will have failed. No one will touch this. Meanwhile, health costs will continue their inexorable march upward, strangling the nation.

The first reason to oppose this bill is that it does not fundamentally reform health care. The current system is rotten to the bone with opaque pricing and insane incentives. Consumers are insulated from the costs of their decisions and providers are punished for efficiency. Burkean gradualism is fine if you’ve got a cold. But if you’ve got cancer, you want surgery, not nasal spray.

If this bill passes, you’ll have 500 experts in Washington trying to hold down costs and 300 million Americans with the same old incentives to get more and more care. The Congressional Budget Office and most of the experts I talk to (including many who support the bill) do not believe it will seriously bend the cost curve.

The second reason to oppose this bill is that, according to the chief actuary for Medicare, it will cause national health care spending to increase faster. Health care spending is already zooming past 17 percent of G.D.P. to 22 percent and beyond. If these pressures mount even faster, health care will squeeze out everything else, especially on the state level. We’ll shovel more money into insurance companies and you can kiss goodbye programs like expanded preschool that would have a bigger social impact.

Third, if passed, the bill sets up a politically unsustainable situation. Over its first several years, the demand for health care will rise sharply. The supply will not. Providers will have the same perverse incentives. As a result, prices will skyrocket while efficiencies will not. There will be a bipartisan rush to gut reform.

This country has reduced health inflation in short bursts, but it has not sustained cost control over the long term because the deep flaws in the system produce horrific political pressures that gut restraint.

Fourth, you can’t centrally regulate 17 percent of the U.S. economy without a raft of unintended consequences.

Fifth, it will slow innovation. Government regulators don’t do well with disruptive new technologies.

Sixth, if this passes, we will never get back to cost control. The basic political deal was, we get to have dessert (expanding coverage) but we have to eat our spinach (cost control), too. If we eat dessert now, we’ll never come back to the spinach.

So what’s my verdict? I have to confess, I flip-flop week to week and day to day. It’s a guess. Does this put us on a path toward the real reform, or does it head us down a valley in which real reform will be less likely?

If I were a senator forced to vote today, I’d vote no. If you pass a health care bill without systemic incentives reform, you set up a political vortex in which the few good parts of the bill will get stripped out and the expensive and wasteful parts will be entrenched.

Defenders say we can’t do real reform because the politics won’t allow it. The truth is the reverse. Unless you get the fundamental incentives right, the politics will be terrible forever and ever.

---------

I've gone back and forth on this bill; but in the end, I come out with Krugman and Victoria Kennedy. It's far, far from ideal, but the system it will create is better than what we have now. The fight for a better and democratic (note the lower case "d") health care system will have to continue. For now, the corporate/insurance interests are still controlling the democracy through 'divide and conquer' techniques based on misleading information and arguments. The fact that Palin's 'death panel' arguments (or Glen Beck's idiocies) can resonate with any appreciable segment of the U.S. population tells us all we need to know about the failure of our basic (K-12) education system to teach critical thinking. In the meantime, the fact that 30 million more Americans will be able to get health insurance is no small matter, nor is the fact that a person, who now can't get any insurance because of pre-existing conditions, will be able to (even if the premium will be higher, so long as it can be paid, it beats a family losing everything it owns in order to pay for health care for a sick or injured family member). - - -


Paul Krugman: Pass the Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&scp=3&sq=krugman&st=cse

Victoria Kennedy: Health bill 'imperfect' but necessary: Kennedy widow
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j0m7LbkCWtIOGK-kQWO3bZQDnuug

--------

even without lowering the cost, of course the whole point to the health care reform was to extend health care to millions of "healthy" americans without healthcare so that we can keep them healthy and keep them from having catastrophic events that could have been prevented earlier.... this is the biggest way to save healthcare spending in the decades to come. But if we were to simply lower the medicare age, we lose on this point because now we are enrolling younger retired age population who may already have catastrophic event, only now on medicare. without lowering the cost then truly, where is the benefit besides more "old=potentially sick but yet undetected" people get sick on government plan and increase our health care spending. then we fall back to our last weakest point of passing health care reform, we just pass something so that it is easier for us to modify this one in the future than try to write the whole thing from the beginning and also have the pop get used to the idea so that next modification comes around ppl are less scared.. so we hope...

----------

I see where Krugman is coming from, and if I was a Senator (heaven forbid!), I would be forced to support the bill too. But it's tragic that our legislative system allows one or two senators to take a major historic reform hostage, and it's unfortunate that there is so much misinformation and so little support for single-payer reform and inevitable health care rationing.

Surely passing this bill is preferred to the status quo, and yes some incremental improvements can be made to the legislation over time, but I think the bill squanders our current rare opportunity (with all the stars in alignment) for fundamental reform of cost-incentive-accountability structures that is truly needed. Obama and others have said that if we don't pass health reform now, we'll have to wait another generation as costs continue to rise. Politically that is possible (hard to get a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate to coincide with an administration of the same party), but I think the huge economic pressures of pricier care, plus the retiring Boomers, will compel us to revisit the health debate more frequently. Who knows if future presidents will be more Bush than Obama, and when the next Ted Kennedy will emerge to keep the Senate morally grounded? I think many progressives are disappointed that this is the best "change" we can get with Obama at the helm and a solidly Democratic (though still centrist-conservative) Senate.

The House version has the public option, foreign drug imports, tougher abortion restrictions, and more mandates for insurers (85% of premiums must be paid out as benefits, more oversight, less monopoly). All of those are toxic to Senators, so they'll probably be scrapped. But without the abortion amendment, I don't know if the Blue Dog House Dems will be on board with 2010 midterms around the corner (does Pelosi have a majority without them, Joseph Cao notwithstanding?). Liberal Reps have a right to be pissed about this bill, but I think they will end up voting for the Senate version rather than causing trouble and fragmenting their own party that is desperate for a political win. The Senate wants to tax Cadillac health plans and curb the wasteful Medicare Advantage program, but both are very unpopular with the rank-and-file, pro-union House Dems. So I guess it's not a sure thing Obama will sign this sucker by Christmas, and of course the GOP will do everything they can to stall and let the holidays sap momentum away.

What sucks is that the "party of no" GOP more or less walks away clean. The right wing spin suggests that they were the "patriots" who fought to protect the "good ol' American values of freedom and small government" in health care from a radical Obama who hates white people, but really they were just boulders in the road of inevitability. They'll declare victory because they killed the public option and "socialized medicine". If we want to go broke continuing to over-medicate patients, over-pay doctors/insurers, and under-perform in this country, then by all means do nothing. But the GOP literally didn't offer any constructive alternatives during this whole 6-month process. Obama should have never tried to take the bipartisan route - he'd have better luck negotiating with North Korea. Did he really expect them to cooperate on making him look good? The minute the right started mouthing off and misbehaving, he should have put them in their place. If he came down on them in the bold, righteous manner that he delivered his Nobel speech, we'd be in much better shape now. But instead the Dems were timid all summer while the tea parties and talk show hosts sowed the seeds of confusion and misplaced anger.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Importing foreign drugs?


Here's another disappointment that isn't totally surprising: there was an amendment under vote in the Senate yesterday on whether to allow cheaper foreign drug imports to the market to keep US drug pricing more honest. But the measure failed 48-51. Sponsored by Sen. Dorgan, he estimates that the provision would save $10B and also includes some rigorous safeguards. A similar measure is already in the House health bill that passed. As you would expect, the Senators who voted nay to block cheaper imports received on average 70% more funding from pharma-related sources than the yay votes (see list in first link at the end). But maybe the vote is a moot point anyway, since the Obama administration already cut a boneheaded deal with PhRMA that I previously emailed about (http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-care-overhaul.html), and the Dorgan amendment would violate that agreement.

I know there are safety and quality issues associated with drugs from any origin, but we currently allow imported food, vehicles, toys, building materials, and such - all of which can and have sickened and killed Americans. European laws enabled drugs to cross their borders to different markets for the last 20 years, and their safety record is no worse than ours. Even according to Pfizer's (biggest pharma in the world after merging with Wyeth) former marketing VP Dr. Peter Rost, drugs that are made at the same plant and have the exact same safety profile are sold in the US for prices up to 10X higher. Why? He was fired from Pfizer soon after he made these claims on "60 Minutes". I find this issue ironic because those "socialist Europeans and Canadians" actually maintain a mostly free market for drugs and private insurance, while capitalistic, laissez-faire America practices protectionism and monopoly. And then they play the "safety" card any time their profits are challenged.

Safety huh? Foreign-made stuff is always worse than American (tell that to Detroit). Let's not forget that some "American" drugs are already manufactured overseas for cost savings and tax evasion (but still are FDA-approved as if the plants were on US soil). Pfizer alone has plants in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and Puerto Rico. In fact they may not have any US manufacturing, or due to the Wyeth merger it will be heavily downsized. Plus plenty of American-made and FDA-inspected drugs have hurt people too (Vioxx, Yaz, Celebrex, heparin, and most recently a recall of H1N1 youth vaccine that isn't toxic but sub-potent).

If the laws are written intelligently and regulators and manufacturers cooperate on due dilligence, then threats to public health should be minimal, or at least not much worse than at present. 6% of the world's people live in North America, yet our region accounted for 43% of global drug sales in 2007. And I don't think most of those drugs went to people in Chiapas or Winnipeg. We are the drug maker's cash cow, so obviously they will do everything they can to preserve the status quo.

http://maplight.org/dems_senate_pharma_prescription_drugs
http://www.seniormag.com/canadianpharmacy/articles/safe-medications.htm
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/11/13/4479586.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/03/60minutes/main699606_page3.shtml
http://www.drugrecalls.com/

------

Unfortunately, this is all about what you describe as 'the boneheaded deal with PhRMA.' For some reason, and maybe he was right, Obama felt he had to cut the deal (caveat: I don't think this has ever been officially admitted to) in order to get national health care reform. The deal was apparently intended to get PhRMA on the side of "reform" and not use its vast resources to lobby and advertise against it. A deal with the devil, perhaps, but there's nothing pure or angelic about politics.

-------

But that's what worries me. Obama stated that he would make the health bill negiotations transparent and even broadcast the Congressional discussion on C-SPAN. That hasn't really happened. I think it's unrealistic to expect lawmakers to go on camera with their various proposals and deals anyway. But there shouldn't be such secrecy with the industry reps either. You're right that the White House initially denied any PhRMA deal, but the Huffington Post obtained a leaked memo, and later the WH eventually admitted to it, as reported by the LA and NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1

It shows disrespect for the public when he claims to shun lobbyists and keep the people first, yet he practices politics as usual (well, not as bad as Cheney and the oil companies at least). Who knows what deals are going on with doctors and insurers now? As you said, Obama needed to get PhRMA on his side of the health debate (or at least not fighting him tool & nail), but that hush-money comes at a huge price. He claims $80B in drug savings over 10 years (meager vs. the total cost of the health bill), but he's also protecting PhRMA's $1 trillion/year (and rising) bloated revenues. Like loan sharking, getting a little now, but paying a lot later. And obviously no business would agree to a deal unless it was a net gain for them (AOL-Time Warner notwithstanding haha). PhRMA's financial analysts are a lot better, and better paid, than Obama's.

------

"The FDA has stated that it does not have the funds nor bear the responsibility to inspect on a regular basis overseas manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients such as heparin."

Currently the FDA expects companies to inspect their foreign subcontractors or facilities, and report findings to them. The FDA only has the resources to inspect US sites like once every 1-2 years anyway.

The Chinese case was just plain counterfeiting. They usually sell heparin derived from pig blood, but in the case of Baxter's subcontractor, they diluted the heparin with cheaper, heparain-mimicking chondroitin sulfate from shellfish. So there were allergic reactions and deaths of patients who can't handle shellfish proteins or chondroitin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/01/eveningnews/main3896578.shtml
http://www.drugrecalls.com/heparin.html

Monday, December 14, 2009

More on health reform


The Democrats have to be very careful if a health insurance 'reform' bill is passed and Americans (majority, at least) don't like it. Social Security and Medicare have passed the test of time; that's why to tamper with the benefits is considered to be a political "third-rail." What finally emerges and Obama signs has to have the same positive and enduring reception by the people as social security and medicare. We'll see. I am for a robust public option not any public option (actually, I'm for single payer, but that's off the table due, in my opinion,to the vast sums of money that have been poured into the fight against it and the public option by the health insurance companies). But I'm with Obama on the point that the object of the exercise isn't a public option, per se, but an effective mechanism to control price (premium) gouging by the insurance companies, and to make sure people are insured for all (including pre-existing) conditions with no lifetime maximums imposed. As the saying goes "the devil is in the details," so let's see.

Offhand, it is the older Americans who will have more pre-existing conditions, so taking them into Medicare and out of the pool that the private insurance companies have to insure, will lessen the costs to the private insurance companies since younger people, thankfully, will have fewer pre-existing conditions. This may turn out to be a win-win compromise. The Republicans get to say they like and are supporting the expansion of Medicare (even though it is in fact a public option) while at the same time saying they've defeated the public option. The Democrats get to say they've expanded Medicare to a large segment of our population (and, by the way, while it may not be said - have opened the door to future expansion of Medicare to the entire population, perhaps incrementally, but nevertheless opened, and if Medicare one day becomes open to all, that's the end of the private, for-profit, insurance companies -- that in itself is a hammer that can be dropped if the private companies don't do right by the American people).

But let's see what finally emerges; we're getting closer, but all of this can go down if one of the so-called 'fiscally moderate' (read 'in the pocket of the insurance industry') Democrats doesn't stay on board.

--------

Yes I agree that single-payer can be the most efficient system if administered properly. Some commentators I heard thought that the leftist Dems should be happy with the Medicare extension to 55-and-overs, because Medicare is America's single-payer plan, and now at least it's available to more Americans. And if the bill passes, insurance will be more or less mandatory, so insurance companies will gain millions of new customers. So everyone is happy? I guess the real trick is how to pay for it, since unions fought the Dems to remove the "Cadillac plan tax". Maybe there will still be a tax on the rich? But I think the administration and CBO think that the savings from not having to treat the uninsured will pay for expanded coverage for all?

I just don't think there is much in this legislation to control the costs of premiums and fee-for-service doctors. I thought in big bills like this, everyone has to give back a little, and then get a little. Insurers won't be able to turn away sick people any longer, but in return they get more customers. I don't know if they will still maintain their regional monopolies or not. But what have doctors had to give up? Maybe with a cap on lawsuits, they can pledge to charge less for services, and not turn away Medicaid/Medicare people because reimbursements are lower than private customers. As a legal professional, how do you feel about the medical malpractice situation?

Yes as you said, the voting is so close that just one senator can derail it all - might be Lieberman. But I also think the Dems and the administration should not just throw all sorts of proposals and amendments out there and hope they get their 60 votes. As you said, a good bill needs to stand the test of time and be well researched to have a meaningful positive impact, and can't just be an exercise in throwing darts until you get a passage. The Medicare plan seemed to come out of thin air, and I don't think it was publicly discussed in the fall. I worry about these last-minute desperation ideas. If the negotiations aren't public, that leaves even more room for industry lobbyists and the like to tamper. And when you're in a hurry, you make mistakes of course, like the rushed TARP plan and Wall Street bailout. They were necessary (I suppose), but obviously flawed.

---------

All I can say is the details are not all public and we don't know what the final version will look like. As for me, I'm disgusted with the thought that we have a for-profit health insurance industry. I'd like to simplify this with single-payer and extend medicare to everyone. I agree with you completely as to last-minute, ill-conceived deals and the influence of lobbyists. But I voted for Obama because I had confidence in his judgment and so for now I have to assume he will not sign off on any legislation unless he believes it will indeed benefit the vast majority of Americans and not turn out to be a debacle which will hurt the country (and the Democratic Party).

As to the medical malpractice situation, in my opinion at least, the tort system is what keeps the powerful in check, and having financial incentives for lawyers to take cases for plaintiffs is important to justice in our country. "Tort reform" is code for the insurance industry (again!) wanting to maximize its profits. The fact is that insurance companies and major U.S. corporations have armies of lawyers working for them at very high hourly rates. And these armies of lawyers at the top corporate firms are typically the top legal minds coming out of law school (law students usually go for the gold upon graduation, and those who get it are usually the top 10% of the graduates from the top law schools in the country. (Obama, by the way, was one such graduate, but he resisted the temptation and became a community organizer -- talk about taking the long view, 'out of the box' thinking' and deferred gratification.) The average person cannot afford to pay a lawyer in anything resembling a major case. He/she must find a lawyer willing and able to take cases on a contingent fee basis and have pockets deep enough to advance costs and expenses. A big case is usually hard fought by the companies being sued. It's not uncommon for a lawyer to take a case and put in a thousand hours and have many thousands of dollars in expenses paying for depositions and expert witnesses. Since the plaintiff can't pay for this, the incentive has to be there for the lawyer to take the case and take the risk of coming up with nothing in the end. Thus you have the typical contingent fee of 33 or 40% of the recovery. If you cap damages, say in a medical malpractice case, it means lawyers don't take them unless they're potentially huge cases, and they pass on cases that may in fact be meritorious but where the potential damage recovery will not justify the expenditure of the attorney's time and expenses to be incurred. Take a look at this link for an example of the injustice of capping pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases in California: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit13.htm. I had a professor once who was adjunct faculty and took a plaintiff's antitrust case on a contingent fee basis. He was up against many corporate lawyers. He came in one morning after being up all night working on a brief in the case, and said he'd like a rule that limits the number of hours any side can put into a legal brief, but without it he had to just work harder to be able to meet the arguments of 3 or 4 lawyers on the other side working against him. The insurance companies may want tort reform by limiting damages, but I can guarantee you they would oppose a rule limiting the number of lawyers, their pay, or the hours they invest or in working on a case for them.

--------

Thanks for writing. I think even if McCain won, there would be some sort of health reform now because the status quo is just so unsustainable (16% GDP on health spending and rising). He might have some crazy GOP ideas about health spending accounts (can be more efficient than Medicare if regulated properly and used wisely, though I doubt Americans are up to the challenge), but they would pass something. So I don't think it's a great accomplishment if Obama just passes some watered-down token bill, as any American president now should be able to do at the minimum (a lot of urgency and political momentum). I think if health reform was a heavyweight boxing match, it's Round 7 and the Dems are down 64-68. Though as you said, a lot of details remain unresolved so it is possible to turn things around. But sad to say that the GOP hate and misinformation campaign seems to be working, as usual. Public option would have changed the playing field in the people's favor, but I guess for now that looks doubtful. Lieberman said he wouldn't support the P.O. or the Medicare-to-55 plans, and without him the Dems don't have the 60 votes. Though maybe he can still be bribed?

But after so much media coverage, fighting, and PR blitzes, each party needs to leave the health care issue claiming that they won. The Dems will pass some version of health reform by February or so, and they can claim a victory for the people. It will cover more of the uninsured poor and make private plans more accessible to people, so I don't want to make light of those gains. But the bill won't likely contain any sweeping reforms, so the GOP can claim victory that they didn't let America go socialist, and all the while the insurance, physician, and drug industries are fat and happy as always.

As you said, for-profit health is borderline immoral, if not completely obscene. I know medical workers should be paid fair compensation for their services, but insurance companies reap huge profits while not really providing us with any service at all (just headaches mostly). But like the prison system, now these behemoth bureaucracies are "too big to get rid of" (or even regulate it seems), and they have billion-dollar legal and PR teams to lobby Washington and fight any challenges to their earnings. Actually working for a large biotech/pharma (even one rated highly in the field), I am tired of seeing the mismanagement, propaganda, and decisions based on profits rather than patients. I plan to switch careers this year and am applying for a "green MBA" program to work on business development for biofuels or green engineering in the future. I hope it works out better, but I am sure there will be plenty of hypocrisy and BS there too.

I agree with what you said about tort reform. It's pure lies how the doctors & HMOs claim they need to keep raising fees because of the "rising" threat of malpractice. As the attachment shows, malpractice payouts per capita have remained flat in the last decade, while medical costs have gone up sharply, so they're uncorrelated. But aren't most malpractice cases settled without ever going to court? Like the MD's malprac. insurance basically tells him to settle, and he has little choice since fighting a court battle will take him away from his practice for months, thereby costing even more money (even if he is innocent). I guess in the single-payer health care nations, malpractice suits are much less common and for less money? Maybe that is due to better quality of care, but probably also fewer ambulance chasers? Lawyers should have financial incentive to take on these cases, but if the incentives are too great, they will over-pursue cases, like fee-for-service doctors over-prescribing procedures. Obviously doctors need to be held accountable for mistakes, but they can't be "practicing scared" and prescribing care based on lawsuit paranoia. It's not good for the doctor or the patient. Medicine is not exact and some people will die even if the doctor goes by the book perfectly. Angry patients and grieving families have a right to be upset, but of course we can differentiate between honest mistakes and negligence. Though if the industry favors settling out of court, then the truth will never be able to come out.

Wow, I didn't realize CA had a cap that was so low and enacted so long ago. It's just a tough situation because obviously HMOs, MDs, and hospitals pass on the costs of malpractice protection onto the government and customers. Yes as you said, maybe it would be more fair to not have lawsuit caps, but instead a cap on legal hours per side. Not just in malpractice, but I think it's terrible if one side can afford an "OJ-sized" legal defense All-Star squad, while the other has an overworked rookie public defender. It would be hard to regulate and enforce of course. Or maybe doctors shouldn't just fear the financial repercussions of malpractice, but fear losing their license instead. Too many repeat-offender doctors still practice and make lots of money. If an independent agency can evaluate malpractice cases, like the Trustee's Office for debt cases, and bar guilty doctors from practicing medicine (either a fixed time period or permanently), then doctors will be more careful for their own career's sake. And then they won't have the excuse of needing to charge more to cover their malpractice insurance, because they won't be financially liable for any damages. Maybe the agency can make payments to victims, funded by a tax or modest penalties to offending doctors. I don't know, just brainstorming. It's a frustrating situation for everyone I think.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Health bill narrowly passes House


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120220977

"The House bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats."

I called in a favor to my cousin there! You can thank me later, Obama. Well I guess Cao was in a tough spot, getting fluke elected in a mostly Dem district just because the FBI found blocks of cash in his opponent's freezer. He voted yes to hopefully get re-elected (doubtful) by his liberal constituents, but pissed off the GOP in the process. So even if he does get another term, no one will want to work with him (as if anyone wants to work with a guy named Cao to begin with).

The bill narrowly passed the House, which has a much bigger Dem majority than the Senate. So if 39/258 Dems opposed the bill (15%), and the same percentage holds in the Senate, then they can't get the 60 votes needed (even with Snowe). Lieberman said that he feels "morally obligated" to filibuster any bill with a public option in it. So I guess anything that passes the Senate probably won't have a public option.

And Blue Dog Dems even had to inject a sneaky abortion proposal into the House bill for it to pass. These conservative Dems (they should just register Republicans and stop trying to have it both ways) are so worried about their re-election if they endorse the health bill, that they supported an amendment essentially making the ban on federal assistance for abortions permanent. And Pelosi caved. Apparently the ban is currently yearly and needs to be renewed (but it always is), stemming back from Clinton times when he needed a big bill passed and the GOP stuck that provision in there, so he had no choice but accept it to move his bigger policy priorities forward.

Of course it's not like DC is handing out free abortions all the time to piss off Jesus, but that's what conservatives fear I guess. They think that federal subsidies to help the poor afford health insurance will allow them to get abortions covered by their health plans (and currently many health plans do cover abortions), so I guess in a convoluted way that could be seen as gov't assisted abortion. But abortion rights groups worry that with this ban in place, that will encourage private insurers to drop coverage of abortion, because why should they when their gov't-subsidized competitors aren't? So I guess abortions will still be legal, but you will pay out of pocket (assuming the bill passes in current form).

And it's not like Obama would veto this huge bill (and the main mission of his presidency) over a polarizing issue like abortion.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The New Yorker: How Chicago Shaped Obama


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Some interesting tidbits about Obama's political experiences in Chicago prior to his US Senate run. Not sure if they're all true, but they certainly paint him in a different light than we usually see. Instead of the idealistic dreamer and agent of change from his acclaimed autobiographies, we find a shrewd, cunning insider who is very skilled at playing the connections and money games in politics. Actually, it seems he has gone with the flow and accommodated the establishment more than he has "worked for change". He is a cocky tactician who is able to reinvent himself when advantageous, adapting to various constituencies and aggressively pouncing on opportunities for upward movement. And his strategy has been tremendously successful. He came from nothing and has risen faster than most politicians in US history. In a sense, he is quite like Bill Clinton.

Since his early days walking the streets as a community organizer, he often took career advancements as springboards towards the next larger goal (some say that he dreamed of becoming president since the 1990's), instead of doing his best in the current position he had just won. Some former allies and supporters even felt that Obama was quite disloyal, shunning them and not showing appreciation for their help after they had outlived their usefulness to him. He often clashed with and sidestepped the "old guard" of black politicians who lived through the civil rights struggle, and actually he was more popular with white professionals in Chicago. I don't really fault him for these aspects of his record, as it mimics the biographies of 99% of politicians out there. The ascendancy stories of people like Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Nixon are fraught with conflicts. Obama still might become an excellent president, and frankly one needs a big ego and ruthless ambition to win the head of state job. But when his campaign and some in the media seek to paint him as cut from a different cloth and a visionary who will clean up Washington, I am now a little skeptical. Well, I guess a great leader has to be a tough-nosed asshole to fight his or her way out of obscurity, and once they reach the top, then they finally have the power to do a lot of good?

Excerpts from the long-ass New Yorker article in italics, my synopsies in normal text.

----------
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago's churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. "You have the power to make a United States senator," he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.

Obama's establishment inclinations have alienated some old friends. During the 2004 Senate primary, Obama sometimes reminded voters of his anti-machine credentials, but at the same time he shrewdly wrote to Mayor Daley's brother, William, who had backed one of Obama's primary opponents, asking for his support if he won the primary. As he outgrew the provincial politics of Hyde Park, he became closer to the Mayor, and this accommodation, as well as his unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reëlection, have some of his original supporters feeling alienated and angry. "I am not thrilled with Barack, simply because we elected him as an Independent, and he switched over to Daley," Alan Dobry said. Ivory Mitchell, speaking of Obama's Senate race, said, "When he won the primary out here and he went downtown, it appears as though Daley took over the campaign for him. . . . We were excluded." David Axelrod told me, in response, that some of the Independents on the South Side blame Daley for just about anything. "I think there's kind of this Wizard of Oz mystique," he said. "Daley had virtually no role in the Senate campaign."

Another transition from primary to general election is now under way for Obama, and it is causing him a similar set of problems, all of which stem from a realization among his supporters that superheroes don't become President; politicians do. Judging by the reaction to Obama's most recent decisions—his willingness to support legislation to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, his rightward shift on interpreting the Second Amendment, his decision to "refine" his Iraq policies—some voters will be crushed by this realization and others will be relieved. In another episode that has Obama's old friends feeling frustrated, Obama recently blamed his first campaign manager, Carol Anne Harwell, for reporting on a 1996 questionnaire that Obama favored a ban on handguns.

Obama's rise has often appeared effortless. His offstage tactics—when he is engaged in the sometimes combative work of a politician—are rarely glimpsed by outsiders. Penny Pritzker, a friend and fund-raiser for Obama, remembers meeting with him at her office in 2006 to discuss his Presidential campaign. "We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not," Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, "As I see it, the two things that you're going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn't have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security." Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. Obama has frequently been one step ahead of his friends and the public in anticipating his own rise. Perhaps it is all those people he has met over the years who told him that he would be President one day.

----------
Although many of Obama's recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn't. "I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," she told me. "I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure that's the way that he approached his public life—that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have."

On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. "It's a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners," she said. As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle's current view of her onetime protégé. "I don't think you should forget who your friends are," she said.

There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, "My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won't understand or like. But it's your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect." Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama's neighborhood—considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side—was one of Obama's earliest backers. Today, he says, "All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn't seem too appreciative." A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Some Obama supporters professed shock when, recently, he abandoned a pledge to stay within the public campaign-finance system if the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, agreed to do the same. Preckwinkle's concern about Obama—that he is a pure political animal—suddenly became more widespread; commentators abruptly stopped using the words "callow" and "naïve."

----------

In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year's long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, "Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn't respect their role"—Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—"in the struggle and the movement. He didn't engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack's cheap, too. If you can't do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you're not going to work with him." Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama's neighborhood, says of Obama that "he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that 'I can do anything and I'm willing to do it overnight.' "

----------

If Project Vote and Miner's firm introduced Obama to the city's lakefront liberals and South Side politicians, it was his wife who helped connect him to Chicago's black élite. One of Michelle's best friends was Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita, who became the godmother of the Obamas' first child. Michelle had worked as an aide to the younger Daley—hired by Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of Obama's closest advisers. It was also through Michelle that Obama met Marty Nesbitt, a successful young black entrepreneur who happened to play basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig. Nesbitt became Obama's closest friend and a bridge to the city's African-American business class.

----------

Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness. He had good reason to be self-assured. A number of his accomplishments had been accompanied by adoring press coverage. When he was named president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1990, he was profiled by, among others, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vanity Fair, and the Associated Press. Even then, the essential elements of Obama-mania were present: the fascination with his early life, the adulatory quotes from friends who thought that he would be President one day, and Obama's frank, though sometimes ostentatious, capacity for self-reflection.

His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain's Chicago Business reported that Obama had "galvanized Chicago's political community, as no seasoned politico had before," and an alderman told Crain's, "Under Barack's leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I've ever been involved with." When "Dreams from My Father" was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a "guide to some of the best books of 1995."

----------

In October, he was one of the thousands of African-Americans from Chicago who travelled to Washington for the Million Man March. (Obama criticized the march, telling a local alternative newspaper that it was a waste of energy.) When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer's congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents—Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked "to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment"—so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.
But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine's tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the "conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms." Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer's name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. "He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win," Mikva said, laughing at the recollection.

Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. "He had created some enemies," Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: "It established a reputation that 'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.' I think it established him as a threat. You have his independence with Project Vote, you have his refusal to knuckle under during the Alice Palmer thing, and so now you have a series of data points that have some established leaders in the black community feeling disrespected. And so the stage is now set for the comeuppance during the congressional race. That was their payback."

The payback refers to the 1999 US Congressional race between Obama and Bobby Rush in their home district of South Side Chicago. Obama thought he had a good chance, because Rush had recently lost a mayoral race against Richard Daley and was perceived to be politically weak. Then-Senator Obama was trailing badly in the fundraising battle (which, by the 1990's, became much more important to winning elections than the door-to-door get-out-the-vote battle), and eventually lost to Rush (who had the support of the established black community that was hostile to Obama) by 30 points. He was also plagued by bad luck, as Rush's son and father both died during the campaign, making him a sympathetic figure. Obama also went to Hawaii to visit his ill grandmother during a crucial gun-control debate in Springfield that failed without his vote, which caused a lot of negative press for him (the media accused him of going "on vacation" to the islands, instead of fighting for a bill that he had previously endorsed in the papers). This was his first big defeat, a defining moment in Obama's young political career, and he almost considered quitting politics.

But instead of leaving the game, he decided to play differently. He honed his oratory skills (before 2000, he rarely had a memorable speech). He shed his roots as an inner-city Hyde Park politician, and courted white voters more than blacks. And most importantly, he enlisted a Democratic consultant to help him redraw his Senate district in Chicago after the 2000 census. His old district encompassed poorer, black neighborhoods and the University of Chicago (a by-product of the 1990 Republican redistricting to concentrate black Democrat voters into the fewest districts). His new district still encompassed his home neighborhood and was majority black, but also contained some of the Gold Coast - richer North Side lakefront property. The poorer areas in the district also belonged to Tony Rezko and other developers friendly with Obama, who were in the process of gentrifying those blocks.

In an article in the Hyde Park Herald about how "partisan" and "undemocratic" Illinois redistricting had become, Obama was asked for his views. As usual, he was candid. "There is a conflict of interest built into the process," he said. "Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves."
The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama's early political life. It immediately gave him the two things he needed to run for the Senate in 2004: money and power. He needed to have several times as much cash as he'd raised for his losing congressional race in 2000, and many of the state's top donors now lived or worked in his district. More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama's party would take over the State Senate in 2002, an event that would provide him with a platform from which to craft a legislative record in time for the campaign. Obama's political activity from 2001 to 2004 reveals a man transformed. The loss to Rush drained him of much of the naïveté he once exuded.

----------
Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor's office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.

Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, "Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly—effective government on one side, connections on the other."

----------
E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. "They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest," Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

----------

Almost as soon as he got to Springfield [as a State Senator], he was planning another move. He was bored there—once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting—and frustrated by the Republicans' total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America's more notoriously corrupt state capitals. Obama spent little time socializing with "the guys basically from Chicago," the veteran senator Emil Jones said. "He hung around a lot of the downstaters. They became good friends."
Obama voted—a parliamentary error, Obama says—to block funding for a child-welfare facility in [rival Senator and Alice Palmer-ally Rickey] Hendon's district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. "It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close," Nottage told me. "I didn't think anything good could come of that."

Hendon told me, "He's the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That's when he came over to my desk." Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, "I'm going to kick your ass!" Hendon said, "He said something like that." He added that more details will appear in a book that he's written, entitled "Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma."

---------

Obama took at least one concrete step to turn this notion of the legislator as community organizer into a reality. In his first column in the Hyde Park Herald, the same one in which he addressed welfare, he announced that he was "organizing citizens' committees" to help him shape legislation. He asked his constituents to call his office if they wanted to participate. That kind of airy talk about changing politics gave way almost immediately to the realities of the job. I asked a longtime Obama friend what ever became of the committees. "They never really got off the ground," he said. By 2001, if there was any maxim from community organizing that Obama lived by, it was the Realpolitik commandment of Saul Alinsky, the founding practitioner of community organizing, to operate in "the world as it is and not as we would like it to be."

---------

In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama's speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, "He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!"

The sensitive language of his September 11th statement was gone. Instead, Obama distanced himself from the pacifist activists who were surely present. "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances," he told the crowd. He then went further, defending justifiable wars in almost glorious terms. "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." It took some nerve to tweak the crowd in this way. After all, it was unlikely that many of the protesters knew who Obama was, and in a lengthy write-up of the event in the Chicago Tribune the following day he was not mentioned. Yet the speech reads as if it had been written for a much bigger audience.

During this period, Obama also became more of a strategist, someone increasingly comfortable discussing the finer points of polls, message, and fund-raising. According to his friends, Obama does not delegate campaign planning. This was in 2002, and things seemed to be going his way. The incumbent Republican, Peter Fitzgerald, was unpopular, and the race was attracting a large field of Democrats. "He didn't start telling people he was interested in running for Senate until he figured out what the road map was," Nesbitt said. "He had a good sense of the odds, and he knew there were certain things that had to happen. . . . The first thing he said was, 'O.K., nobody with approval ratings like this has ever been reëlected, so it's not gonna be him, right?' And then he said there's a bunch of candidates who can potentially run, one of whom was Carol Moseley Braun. And he said, 'If she runs, I probably don't have a chance, because there's gonna be certain loyalty within the African-American community to her, even though she had some mistakes, and I'm probably not gonna get those African-American votes, which I need as my base if I'm gonna win. So if she runs, I don't run.'

"Then he just laid out an economic analysis. It becomes about money, because he knew that if people knew his story they would view him as a better candidate than anybody else he thought might be in the field. And so he said, 'Therefore, if you raise five million dollars, I have a fifty-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise seven million dollars, I have a seventy-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise ten million dollars, I guarantee victory."

---------

In the State Senate, [Senator Emil] Jones did something even more important for Obama. He pushed him forward as the key sponsor of some of the Party's most important legislation, even though the move did not sit well with some colleagues who had plugged away in the minority on bills that Obama now championed as part of the majority. "Because he had been in the minority, Barack didn't have a legislative record to run on, and there was a buildup of all these great ideas that the Republicans kept in the rules committee when they were in the majority," Burns said. "Jones basically gave Obama the space to do what Obama wanted to do. Emil made it clear to people that it would be good for them." Burns, who at that point was working for Jones, was assigned to keep an eye on Obama's floor votes, which, because he was a Senate candidate, would be under closer scrutiny. The Obama-Jones alliance worked. In one year, 2003, Obama passed much of the legislation, including bills on racial profiling, death-penalty reform, and expanded health insurance for children, that he highlighted in his Senate campaign.