I guess this falls under the “irony is officially dead” category.  Chris Matthews has Tom DeLay on his show (naturally–who better to discuss the financial crisis than a discredited former politician accused of financial shenanigans?) . Matthews told DeLay that he (Matthews) likes to invoke Bob Woodward’s “follow the money” expression when looking at the financial crisis and proposed bailout.  “Follow the money”, of course, comes from All The President’s Men, the famous account of Watergate and the Nixon administration’s crooked history, which included campaign finance improprieties.  Matthews may not realize it, but he is interviewing a former politician who was indicted on charges related to illegal campaign contributions.  Follow the money indeed.

Bravo, Chris Matthews.  What will he do for an encore, interview Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham from prison?

Reading today’s health care news clips you get a real clear picture of how the economic crisis facing this country is throwing people into the worse parts of our failing health care system.

First, the Detroit Free Press reports on a new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation on rising Medicaid enrollment in the face of the weakening economy:

Across the country, as more people lost health insurance, Medicaid enrollment grew 2.1% in the 2008 fiscal year, which ends today. Michigan’s Medicaid enrollment jumped 3.7%.

It begins the 2009 fiscal year with 1.58 million recipients, more than 1 in every 10 residents, up from 1 million in fiscal 1999.

While it’s not surprising or necessarily a bad thing that more people are on Medicaid, we have to remember that Medicaid is a health program for people with low incomes. By definition, these people are not profitable for private insurance companies and they can’t afford private insurance on their own, so they are forced into Medicaid. This means the insurance industry gets to keep its profitable customers and throw more people on government rolls, and apparently that’s ok. Don’t you dare mention that the insurance industry maybe, probably, should lower their rates. No, no, that’s not how we fix this mess.

Of course, higher enrollment in Medicare (and Medicaid), given the built in high-risk pool nature of both programs, leads to problems down the line. Medicaid costs are projected to skyrocket:

More please!

Following up on lgs’s excellent work on issues of voter suppression this election year, I’d like to highlight this email I got from Obama’s Ohio staff today:

Dear Alex,

Just hours ago, the Ohio Supreme Court and a federal judge in Cleveland issued two similar decisions, and they were loud and clear — the voters won.

In a cynical political ploy, the Ohio Republican Party filed suit to try to change a law that Republicans wrote and a Republican governor passed — a bill that established Ohio’s “One-Stop Early Voting” period, during which a new voter can register and vote at the same time from September 30 to October 6. One-Stop Early Voting occurred in Ohio without incident in 2006.

The Republicans were trying to keep new voices out of the political process. But their attempt at voter suppression was so brazen that the federal judge wrote in his decision, “Candidly, the underlying merits of issues are not even close,” and that the Republican position “would lead to illogical results, potentially disenfranchising large numbers of voters.”

Starting tomorrow you can vote early for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And until next Monday you can register to vote.

To find your own early vote location, download a voter registration form, and be among the first to vote for change, visit our new web site, VoteForChange.com.

Again, One-Stop Early Voting, which lets people register and early vote all at once, starts tomorrow. We have just 7 days to register as many voters as possible.

This unprecedented voter registration and Early Vote effort will only be successful with you. We’re counting on Obama supporters like you to make it possible.

All across Ohio we have early vote and voter registration events taking place this week. Join us at one of our 79 Ohio offices and get involved in this week’s organizing:

http://my.barackobama.com/ohoffices

In 2004, George W. Bush won our state by only 118,601 votes, or about 9 votes per precinct.

This year, Ohio is once again a crucial state. Every single registration and every single early vote could make the difference.

We can’t do it without you.

I can’t tell you how happy it makes me that the Obama campaign understands we’re fighting a two-front war: one within our democracy, for control of the White House; and one for our democracy, about whether Americans’ voices are heard, or only Republicans’. Obama doesn’t need Ohio to win, but Ohio remains ground zero for the battle over voter suppression and fraud.

America will be an extremely ugly place come November if millions of Americans are convinced that Obama lost by fraud. With concerted effort from the campaign, and the vigilance of American citizens and especially American lawyers and public servants, hopefully we’ll have a clean election this year - and will not taste the ugliness of another questionable Republican victory.

I agree, the bailout is flawed, I agree, more needs to be done for homeowners, to curb executive pay, to protect the taxpayer and all of these things can be incorporated into the current bill to save the financial system, but the last thing that anyone in the world needs right now is partisan bullshit and any radical new ideas from either side, sub prime worries have been present for years and last year was the time to think about different ideas of how to sort this mess out. What the world needs a plan and it needs one quickly.

The consequences of the failure of the US financial system would tear down industry not only America, but also around the world. Let me tell you how this might play out, banks stop lending, companies cant refinance their loans, companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, and production of goods grinds to a halt, no investment in the States would mean a collapse in the price of the dollar, probably made worse by the rush to sell off any dollar denominated assets abroad, so you wont be able to buy the stuff you can no longer make at home. The result of which would be a global recession, millions if not tens of millions of jobs lost and the possibility of an economic disaster that may result shortages of basic goods, leading to winter of intolerable hardship. All this could happen, so please, spare me your hollow cries of injustice, those of you who claim to be from the left put aside your put aside your anger for a second and think about how massive economic failure jives with your pro poor politics.

The ideas that have been floating around the blogosphere, such as giving a ’shot of adreneline’ and buying back the mortgages are not just wrong, they are irresponsible. When it comes to economics I prefer Krugman to Sirota and Welsh.

Firstly buying back the morgages from homeowners

Look I agree, paying back mortgages is probably a little better than paying back bankers. But doing so would be equally as stupid, and really make no difference to the bankers.

Doing that would still be bailing out the bankers because here is how it should work,

bankers make shitty loans, people cant pay back the shitty loans, bankers dont get their money back and go bankrupt, sucks for everyone, thats why no one should do it.

If you pay back the mortgages you get, bankers making shitty loans, people cant pay back the loans, government pays them for them, bankers get the money back, their profit, their bonuses and continue to make shitty loans.

The 150 billion ’shot of adrenaline’

Firstly where does this number come from? sounds like it was pulled out of someone’s arse, maybe it isnt but if it is, and it isnt believed to be enough, it will make little difference. In truth I think no one knows how much money will be needed but the bail out plan needs to be credible to work, and that is probably why Paulson has asked for such an incredibly large sum of money. If it isnt credible and the markets dont know that there will be more coming if it isnt enough then uncertainty will continue and the volatility that has been damaging the economy will continue.

On the extreme right? Rubbish about letting the market taking care of it is what got us here in the first place, so please Republicans, spare me.

So America, please stop, stop your partisan bickering, stop your ideological grandstanding and actually try to save the world from global economic crisis, something that no doubt we would all be grateful for

I argued in part one of this piece earlier tonight that we’re seeing the veil lifted off of Reaganism, and it’s being exposed to anyone who has eyes and ears that “fiscal conservatism” is a swindle.

In fact, it’s progressive thinkers who are showing fiscal discipline.

Conservatives love to talk about “tax and spend liberals” - the theory being that if you put leftists in power, they’ll waste a bunch of public money on frivolous policies. But isn’t that precisely what we’ve seen from Bush Republicans? The war in Iraq, the war on terror, Homeland Security, and now the bailout - all policies that wasted, or tried to waste, public money in exchange for no results.

Progressives are about solving problems, and we have a good track record. This bailout showcases the spirit of problem-solving within the progressive community, and guess what? Oftentimes our solutions are less costly than those proposed by “fiscal conservatives.”

In fact, tellingly, Republican opponents of the bailout have no real alternative ideas. Ideologies like Reaganism help score political points in the short term - but they don’t help America when it needs real leadership.

The main lines of a progressive response, on the other hand, have taken shape quickly. Thinkers like Stirling Newberry (see also here), Ian Welsh, and David Sirota agree, with some minor differences, that we could pass a bill that would:

1. Reduce the amount of the bailout, potentially to even as low a figure as $150 billion

2. Include measures that hold CEOs and corporations more accountable for their bad judgment

3. Give help to ordinary Americans in a way that’s fair, especially considering the help we’re giving to big business

and

4. Create meaningful oversight, as well as reforms like bringing back Glass-Steagall that would help prevent crises like this from happening again.

All of these are commonsense measures that many Americans will understand and agree with. And that’s why when the going gets tough, America has turned to progressive leadership time and time again: because progressives have good ideas, and because Republicans fail at governing, and whine like crybabies when the crisis hits.

Bush Republicans aka corporatists are screaming for money to bail out their incompetent friends on Wall Street. When Congress didn’t give it to them - or even before, it turns out - they started printing it, risking serious inflation.

House Republicans are running scared, scrambling to ditch the president and blame Democrats. But it’s clear they don’t have any real ideas for solving America’s problems. I’ll give you a hint, Boehner: we can’t drill our way out of this one.

What we’re seeing is no less than the death throes of Reaganism, finally exposed for what it is and was: a giant lie, a smokescreen of “fiscal conservatism” used to hide predatory business practices that hurt ordinary Americans.

Meanwhile, progressives in and out of office are lining up to offer workable alternatives to the crisis. Progressive solutions, unlike Republican gimmicks, show real financial responsibility - and that’s why progressive proposals require much less than $700 billion while offering much more in terms of help for suffering Americans and commonsense ideas to help prevent another crisis down the road.

Look at the differences in how progressives and Republicans explained their “no” votes. Republican minority leader John Boehner could offer no ideas about the bill’s flaws, just blame: absurdly, he blamed Nancy Pelosi’s speech for tanking the bill, as though Republicans are terrified of Pelosi. Other Republicans simply parroted worn-out slogans about “small government” and “economic freedom” as though they’ve never heard of a man named George Bush and never voted for his big-government policies like the Iraq war and scores of no-bid contracts to predatory corporations.

Now take a look at the statement from Tom Udall, Democratic House member and soon-to-be freshman Senator from New Mexico:

I cannot in good conscience vote for a rushed $700 billion taxpayer funded bailout to shore up Wall Street while ignoring our middle class and the nation’s underlying economic flaws that caused this crisis in the first place. I will, however, continue fighting to do what’s right and fix our financial markets to prevent similar crises from occurring again.

This is in addition to a statement from last week:

“The Administration’s proposal, as it has been presented to Congress, needs significant changes. First, any plan that puts taxpayer money at risk must ensure that taxpayers get paid back before shareholders, bondholders or executives—so that corporate CEOs do not get a golden parachute while taxpayers are left to pay the bill.

“Additionally, Congress should act further to keep Americans in their homes by addressing the crisis in the mortgage industry as well as the one in the financial sector. Any economic package that allows tens of thousands of Americans to lose their homes is simply inadequate.

“Finally, there must be accountability. If we invest taxpayer dollars to protect our financial markets, we should make sure that money is spent effectively and efficiently, with proper oversight and accountability. No administration should be given unlimited authority over the spending of $700 billion or more of taxpayers’ dollars. Any bailout plan needs to ensure that those managing the bailout are responsible to Congress and the American people.”

Those are ideas, and they come not from someone scared to death of losing his seat, but from someone whom polling has regularly placed in a double-digit lead over his opponent. This is a progressive speaking with the voice of confidence.

(Hey folks, this one’s from Health Care for America Now’s National Campaign Director, Richard Kirsch. But I thought it needed to be seen.)

1. McCain will tax your health care benefits at work

McCain’s health care plan will make people pay income taxes on the value of their health care benefits at work. So if your employer pays $10,000 a year for your health insurance, you will start having to pay taxes on that $10,000, just like you do on your wages or salary.

2. And give you a tax credit for less than five months of health care (after that you’re on your own).

McCain will give a family a tax credit of $5,000, – paid to your insurance company - but the average cost of a family health care plan in 2007 was $12,680. So McCain’s plan will give you enough to pay from January to May. You’ll need to come up with the money for June through December!

3. You may be one of 20 million people who will lose your health benefits

A study published in the respected journal Health Affairs found that 20 million will lose their employer paid for health insurance under the McCain plan, because many employers will decide they no longer have a responsibility to pay for health coverage for their workers.

4. And be forced to buy health insurance on your own

When you lose your health coverage at work, you’ll need to look for coverage in the individual market. But you’ll no longer have your employer doing the shopping for coverage and paying for coverage.

5. You won’t be covered for pre-existing conditions - and may not be able to get coverage at all

When you are on your own, health insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions and they often refuse to sell any coverage to people who have had asthma, cancer or other common diseases. The federal law that protects people who get health insurance at work doesn’t apply when you buy health insurance in the individual market.

6. But you will pay higher premiums as you get older or sicker or if you’re a woman

In the individual market, health insurance companies charge higher premiums to people as they get older and charge more for people who have been treated for illnesses. Younger women get charged more than men of the same age, simply because they can become pregnant.

7. You may have deductibles as high as $11,200 a year

You may only be able to afford insurance plans with high deductibles, which under current federal law can be as much as $11,200 for a family plan.

8. With barebones benefits and no consumer protections

John McCain’s plan would take away the protections that your state now offers people who buy health insurance on their own. Your state law requires health insurance to provide standard benefits and consumer protections. McCain’s plan allows health insurance companies to get out of following your state’s health insurance laws.

9. McCain protects health insurance profits - by passing the cost to taxpayers and the sick.

McCain’s solution for people whom health insurance companies won’t cover - because they’ve been treated for an illness - is to put them in a high-risk pool, paid for by state taxpayers and by charging high premiums.

10. Of course, John McCain won’t have to worry about any of this for his health care.

You may not be covered, but John McCain will. As a Senator, he’ll still get good coverage paid for by the federal government. As a veteran, he can also get cared for through the Veteran’s Administration. And as a senior, he can get Medicare. That’s three ways that the government provides health care for John McCain.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

Whatever your view on the financial bailout bill that the House of Representatives rejected earlier today, one thing was illustrated — that John McCain accomplished nothing by “suspending” his campaign last week. Remember, after getting President Bush to call that emergency White House meeting last Thursday, the Republicans wanted to show that John McCain was engaged in the issue and was doing the work of a leader to get it passed in the best possible way.  He injected himself in an area where he has little expertise and implied that he was the reason that the bill was going to pass. From an interview with The Columbus Dispatch:

Dispatch : Some commentators criticized you for what they called erratic statements and actions last week heading into negotiations on rescuing the economy. Describe how you played a productive role in all this.

McCain: I’ll leave that up to others to make that judgment. This was an issue that was transcendent. I suspended my campaign and came back to Washington because I thought that it was vital to do so. Sen. Obama said (initially) he was available to discuss the issue by phone. I didn’t want to phone it in. I’m proud that we were able to get this done and I’ll give the credit to everybody else.

McCain has been ubiquitous in explaining that others should judge his role, but there is no question that he has been trying to make it appear as though it was his intervention that was critical. Here he is just  this this morning taking credit for the bill – before it failed:

I put my campaign on hold for a couple days last week to fight for a rescue plan that put you and your economic security first. I fought for a plan that protected taxpayers, homeowners, consumers and small business owners.

 

I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington.

 

Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. Some of you may have noticed, but it’s not my style to simply “phone it in.”

Well in person you don’t seem to be doing any better, Senator McCain.

In truth this vote in  the House shows just how little influence McCain has in his party caucus. Plus if you read accounts of that now infamous White House meeting, not only did McCain inject very little, but the meeting itself was probably ill-advised:

Pelosi said Obama would speak for the Democrats. Though later he would pepper Paulson with questions, according to a Republican in the room, his initial point was brief: “We’ve got to get something done.”

Bush turned to McCain, who joked, “The longer I am around here, the more I respect seniority.” McCain then turned to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to speak first. …

Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: “What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?” he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.

One Republican in the room said it was clear that the Democrats came into the meeting with a “game plan” aimed at forcing McCain to choose between the administration and House Republicans. “They had taken McCain’s request for a meeting and trumped it,” said this source.

It was clear that John McCain injected himself for a photo op and to politicize the process. the Democrats took it seriously. And it has become obvious that John McCain did not know what to do when things turned serious. John McCain not only was not able to help teh process, but he may have actually harmed it.

If John McCain can not lead his own party in a time of crisis, how does he expect to lead the country?