The Founding Fathers believed that individuals would be elected by their fellow Americans based on character and opinions, not party affiliation. The Constitution does not mention parties, and parties play no role in how the federal government works under that revered document. Once the Constitution went into effect, America enjoyed about three years of non-partisan government. Then the first parties emerged, despite the disapproval of George Washington."
Read the rest here:
Dr. Philip Neches: One Party?: "Dr. Philip Neches: One Party?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Difference Between Liberalism and Progressivism -- In These Times
Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government’s Treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better health care (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subsidies). The idea is that taxpayer dollars can help individuals afford bare necessities and entice institutions to support the common good.
Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change — think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism’s central theory is that government, as the nation’s supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism’s profit motive into societal priorities — and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control.
Looked at this way, liberalism and progressivism once operated in tandem. But regardless of which of the two economic ideologies you particularly favor (if either), three of the recent epoch’s most far-reaching initiatives make clear the former now dominates both parties.
--------
It started in 2003 with Republicans’ Medicare drug benefit. Rather than go the progressive route — imposing price controls, permitting government to negotiate lower bulk prices or letting wholesalers buy drugs at cheaper foreign prices — the bill hinged on taxpayer money. Essentially, the government gave $1.2 trillion to the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for the industry providing medicines to seniors.
This became the bank bailout’s model. Instead of first responding to the Wall Street crisis with progressive, New Deal-style regulations, presidents Bush and Obama opted for liberal bribe theory: Specifically, they bet that giving banks trillions in loans, subsidies and guarantees would convince financial institutions to halt their riskiest behavior and start lending to small businesses again.
Now, it’s health care.
The Democratic bill began as a hybrid. On the liberal side, it proposed growing Medicaid and trading subsidies to insurance companies for expanded coverage. On the progressive side, the original legislation included measures like premium regulation and a government-run insurer to compete with private firms. But save for a few fairly weak consumer protections, the final bill was stripped of most major progressive provisions. Ultimately, the celebrated “reform” is based primarily on a liberal wager that Medicaid plus subsidies will equal universal health care.
Which, for a short time, may be the case.
The trouble, though, is what The Washington Post reports: “The (subsidies’) buying power could erode over time in an era of rapid medical inflation.”
There, of course, is the rub.
Liberalism sans progressivism—i.e., public money sans regulation—turns the Treasury into an unlimited gift card for whichever private interests are being sponsored.
The Difference Between Liberalism and Progressivism -- In These Times
Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change — think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism’s central theory is that government, as the nation’s supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism’s profit motive into societal priorities — and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control.
Looked at this way, liberalism and progressivism once operated in tandem. But regardless of which of the two economic ideologies you particularly favor (if either), three of the recent epoch’s most far-reaching initiatives make clear the former now dominates both parties.
--------
It started in 2003 with Republicans’ Medicare drug benefit. Rather than go the progressive route — imposing price controls, permitting government to negotiate lower bulk prices or letting wholesalers buy drugs at cheaper foreign prices — the bill hinged on taxpayer money. Essentially, the government gave $1.2 trillion to the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for the industry providing medicines to seniors.
This became the bank bailout’s model. Instead of first responding to the Wall Street crisis with progressive, New Deal-style regulations, presidents Bush and Obama opted for liberal bribe theory: Specifically, they bet that giving banks trillions in loans, subsidies and guarantees would convince financial institutions to halt their riskiest behavior and start lending to small businesses again.
Now, it’s health care.
The Democratic bill began as a hybrid. On the liberal side, it proposed growing Medicaid and trading subsidies to insurance companies for expanded coverage. On the progressive side, the original legislation included measures like premium regulation and a government-run insurer to compete with private firms. But save for a few fairly weak consumer protections, the final bill was stripped of most major progressive provisions. Ultimately, the celebrated “reform” is based primarily on a liberal wager that Medicaid plus subsidies will equal universal health care.
Which, for a short time, may be the case.
The trouble, though, is what The Washington Post reports: “The (subsidies’) buying power could erode over time in an era of rapid medical inflation.”
There, of course, is the rub.
Liberalism sans progressivism—i.e., public money sans regulation—turns the Treasury into an unlimited gift card for whichever private interests are being sponsored.
The Difference Between Liberalism and Progressivism -- In These Times
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) sponsored in the House by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY (who has degrees in both microbiology and public health) would phase out non-therapeutic use of "medically important antibiotics" in livestock and strengthen standards for approval of new livestock antibiotics while still allowing their use in sick animals.
"Eighty-four percent of grower-finisher swine farms, 83 percent of cattle feedlots and 84 percent of sheep farms currently use antibiotics non-therapeutically, according to the bill. Seventy percent of antibiotics are fed to livestock, not humans, in the U.S.
Nor is use in livestock the only resistance culprit. Antibiotics are also abused by hospitals, clinics and doctors to prevent infection and to 'treat' viruses when patients, especially parents of young children, want the psychological reassurance of a pill. Even antibiotic hand sanitizers and laundry detergents contribute to resistance, as do natural antibiotic treatments like tea tree oil. In fact AR might be the ultimate biological demonstration of the principle, 'That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'
Europe banned human-use antibiotics in livestock in 1998 and all non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock in 2006, making it a test kitchen for AR reduction, particularly in Denmark, the world's largest pork exporter. In Denmark, antibiotic use is down 51 percent and bacteria and AR bacteria are also down, says the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, with no increase in the cost of meat. Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have also reported AR reductions as has Australia."
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us | Personal Health | AlterNet:
"Eighty-four percent of grower-finisher swine farms, 83 percent of cattle feedlots and 84 percent of sheep farms currently use antibiotics non-therapeutically, according to the bill. Seventy percent of antibiotics are fed to livestock, not humans, in the U.S.
Nor is use in livestock the only resistance culprit. Antibiotics are also abused by hospitals, clinics and doctors to prevent infection and to 'treat' viruses when patients, especially parents of young children, want the psychological reassurance of a pill. Even antibiotic hand sanitizers and laundry detergents contribute to resistance, as do natural antibiotic treatments like tea tree oil. In fact AR might be the ultimate biological demonstration of the principle, 'That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'
Europe banned human-use antibiotics in livestock in 1998 and all non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock in 2006, making it a test kitchen for AR reduction, particularly in Denmark, the world's largest pork exporter. In Denmark, antibiotic use is down 51 percent and bacteria and AR bacteria are also down, says the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, with no increase in the cost of meat. Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have also reported AR reductions as has Australia."
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us | Personal Health | AlterNet:
Not Feeling Well? Perhaps You’re ‘Marijuana Deficient’
...the therapeutically active components in marijuana — the cannabinoids — appear to be remarkably non-toxic to healthy cells and organs. Further, they mimic compounds our bodies naturally produce — so-called endocannabinoids — that are pivotal for maintaining proper health and homeostasis.
Not Feeling Well? Perhaps You’re ‘Marijuana Deficient’ « SpeakEasy
In fact, in recent years scientists have discovered that the production of endocannabinoids (and their interaction with the cannabinoid receptors located throughout the body) play a key role in the regulation of proper appetite, anxiety control, blood pressure, bone mass, reproduction, and motor coordination, among other biological functions.
Not Feeling Well? Perhaps You’re ‘Marijuana Deficient’ « SpeakEasy
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Coffee vs. Tea: A political movement is brewing - CNN.com
HUH?
Let me see if I get this, according to teaparty folks...the coffeeparty, founded 6 weeks ago by a comment on Facebook, is manufactured, and the teaparty folks are all grass-rootsy...
Stepped in what...?
td
'This Coffee Party looks like a weak attempt at satire or a manufactured response to a legitimate widespread grassroots movement,' says Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit conservative organization that helps train volunteer activists and has provided much of the organizational heft behind the Tea Party movement.
'It's driven from the top down and it's not a grass-roots movement driven from the bottom up,' Jim Hoft of the St. Louis Tea Party said."
Coffee vs. Tea: A political movement is brewing - CNN.com:
Let me see if I get this, according to teaparty folks...the coffeeparty, founded 6 weeks ago by a comment on Facebook, is manufactured, and the teaparty folks are all grass-rootsy...
Stepped in what...?
td
'This Coffee Party looks like a weak attempt at satire or a manufactured response to a legitimate widespread grassroots movement,' says Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit conservative organization that helps train volunteer activists and has provided much of the organizational heft behind the Tea Party movement.
'It's driven from the top down and it's not a grass-roots movement driven from the bottom up,' Jim Hoft of the St. Louis Tea Party said."
Coffee vs. Tea: A political movement is brewing - CNN.com:
Congress is long overdue for serious effort at tax reform
"The Wyden-Gregg plan takes the six income brackets currently on the books and compresses them into three (15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent). It gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. It triples the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, which means that people don't need to spend as much time trying to itemize deductions and figuring out ways to game the system. It kills off the existing six corporate rates and eight corporate brackets, and replaces them with a flat corporate tax of 24 percent. And it reduces the task to a one-page form.
The result of all these changes? The average corporation and taxpayer would pay quite a bit less. But the system wouldn't be bringing in less money because fewer people would escape their burden altogether. That last bit is particularly important, says Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. 'If you're getting rid of loopholes and lowering rates, you get winners and losers, not just losers. So all of a sudden it's not only one side that cares. That's especially true on the business side, which is where the real action is in tax reform and lobbying. That's the dynamic that makes tax reform possible."
Congress is long overdue for serious effort at tax reform - washingtonpost.com:
The result of all these changes? The average corporation and taxpayer would pay quite a bit less. But the system wouldn't be bringing in less money because fewer people would escape their burden altogether. That last bit is particularly important, says Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. 'If you're getting rid of loopholes and lowering rates, you get winners and losers, not just losers. So all of a sudden it's not only one side that cares. That's especially true on the business side, which is where the real action is in tax reform and lobbying. That's the dynamic that makes tax reform possible."
Congress is long overdue for serious effort at tax reform - washingtonpost.com:
Why American health care costs so much
Ezra Klein:
...sat down with Kaiser Permanente CEO George Halvorson to talk about health-care reform. The conversation was long and ranging and will take a while to transcribe. But before we really got into the weeds, Halvorson handed me an astonishing packet of charts. The material was put together by the International Federation of Health Plans, which is pretty much what it sounds like: an association of insurance plans in different countries. But it showed something I've never seen before, at least not at this level of detail: prices.
...
"The administration has been very interested in the finding that some states are better at providing cost-effective care than other states, but not in the finding that some countries are better at purchasing care than other countries. "A health-care debate in this country that isn't aware of the price differential is not an informed debate," says Halvorson. By that measure, we have not had a very informed debate. But download this pack of charts (pdf), and you'll be a bit more informed.
Ezra Klein - An insurance industry CEO explains why American health care costs so much
Why Salads Are More Expensive Than Hamburgers | Food | AlterNet
You know what they call a quarter pounder in France?
Why Salads Are More Expensive Than Hamburgers | Food | AlterNet
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich? -- AlterNet
In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent. By 1990 it was 28 percent. The IRS says that the top 400 richest tax filers actually paid a rate of just 16 percent in 2007 (the latest numbers we have). Yep, the richest earners — people who took in an average of $343 million each — probably paid a lower rate than you did. Something to consider as you sign your 2009 return.
By the way, those 400 people who do so well on tax day have a combined net worth of nearly $1.37 trillion. (According to Forbes Magazine their wealth has gone up on average by more than 16 percent over the past year — the worst economic year since the Great Depression during which 29 million Americans are without work or forced into part-time jobs. )
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?Sunday, March 7, 2010
95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists - Times Online
And even if not...you're a passenger in a car, it's sitting on the tracks, there's a train coming...do you just sit there because you didn't park it there?
td
95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists - Times Online: "95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists"
The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.
td
95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists - Times Online: "95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists"
The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)