The G Spot

Yet another reason why the bailout was a terrible idea

By Kathy G.

The Journal was chockfull of goodies today.

For instance, there is this important article, which describes an important effect of the bailout which surprisingly has attracted very little attention. It's this: the bailout's huge subsidies to firms that are failing are grossly unfair to its competitors.

The Journal article deals specifically with the insurance industry, and with complaints by ACE Ltd., the Chubb Group, Liberty Mutual, and other insurers that, because of its apparently unlimited access to the federal teat, A.I.G. is benefiting unfairly. Here's why: because A.I.G. is being so heavily subsidized by Joe and Jane Taxpayer, it can bloody well afford to slash prices -- and it has done so, aggressively. It has cut prices by more than 30% in some instances, which has enabled it, says the Journal, "to fend off rivals and to keep or win contracts." This type of extreme price-cutting may in fact be illegal, and investigations are underway by the GAO and state insurance regulators in New York and Pennsylvania, to determine whether A.I.G. is violating the law.

This story is deeply disturbing, on many levels.

First of all, it goes without saying that, especially in this distressed economy, being subsidized by the taxpayers is enormous advantage for any firm.

And consider: A.I.G. was run in such a reckless and disastrous manner that by all rights -- certainly by all free market principles -- it deserved to die. In contrast, however, its competitors in the insurance market appear to have run their businesses competently and responsibly. And yet, we are heaping lavish financial rewards upon the bad actor here, which in effect punishes the good actors.

This is not just grotesquely unfair to A.I.G.'s rivals (let alone the taxpayers), but it also undermines the free market system in a profound way. As regular readers know, I'm far from a cheerleader for the free market; I'm European-style social democrat who believes that mixed economies work best.

But I do believe that there are many things that markets do very well. However, for markets to work, competition is vital. And when, to the detriment of our social welfare and the public good, the government weighs its thumb so heavily on the scale in favor of certain firms but not others -- and, moreover, when the firms it is favoring are among the worst-run and most spectacularly incompetent ones in our history . . . Well, it's so outrageous and insane and perverse, that I despair.

And, like Paul Krugman, I despair not merely because of the continuing A.I.G. follies, or the ongoing bailout debacle. I despair because, despite everything we now know, and despite the depth of rage that has been expressed from Americans of every conceivable type and ideology, the Obama administration seems determined to go forward with basically the same shitty bank rescue plan that the Bush administration tried, and failed, to foist upon us. It basically amounts to taking piles of money of earned by ordinary working Americans and forking it over by the shovelful to many of the most greedy, out-of-control, and dangerous corporate assholes in our nation.

Obama was this country's one great hope, but now I see all too clearly the potential that this administration could soon be going down in flames. Universal health care, the Employee Free Choice Act, an energy bill, court appointments -- all of that could be fading away in a puff of smoke, all too soon.

And it's all because Timmeh, and Larry, and most important of all, Barack -- have minds that have been warped by corporate propaganda, or souls that have been corrupted by power, or spirits that, for whatever reason, are pathetically timid -- and thus are unable to do the right thing. And not merely the right thing, but the only reasonable thing. Which is, of course, to tell the corporate elites to go fuck themselves, and start nationalizing the banks ASAP.

I pray that I am wrong. But the administration is rapidly heading in a very dangerous direction, and there's not a lot of time to change course. As of now at least, as Atrios says, it certainly looks as if all this is going to end very badly indeed

Quote of the day

By Kathy G.

Let it not be said that the Wall Street Journal does not know its readership base all too well.

While paging through today's paper, I came across this extraordinary sentence -- in the sports section, no less:

If you like to see the strong slap around the weak -- and deep down, you know you do -- this was the sports weekend for you.

Wow.

Just -- wow.

Our corrupt elites -- medical science division

By Kathy G.

Buried on page 7 of today's Wall Street Journal is a rather astonishing article that is a remarkably vivid illustration of how corrupt an institution the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has become.

The facts are these: as the article's author, David Armstrong, reports, "a study [JAMA] published last year on the use of antidepressants in stroke patients was authored by a University of Iowa psychiatrist [Dr. Robert Robinson] who failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the maker of the drug studied." This information came to light when a medical researcher, Dr. Jonathan Leo, published a letter in another medical journal which mentioned Dr. Robinson's conflict of interest and criticized the way the findings of his study were reported. Leo said he discovered the conflict of interest via a simple Google search.

What happened following the publication of Leo's letter is extraordinary.

For one thing, it caused JAMA to institute a sweeping and unprecedented new policy: from now on, says JAMA, anyone filing a complaint about a study author's conflict of interest must "remain silent about the allegation until the journal investigates the charge." And when they say silent, they mean silent --from now on, says JAMA, anyone making such a complaint will "be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while an investigation is under way."

This policy is highly unusual and has been sharply criticized by the editors of other medical journals.

But JAMA's attempts to silence and intimidate its critics don't stop there. Its editors appear to have launched a campaign of attacks and threats against Dr. Leo and the medical school where he teaches, Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee.

Morgan Stanley is blocking employee access to a site that's critical of the banks

By Kathy G.

For me, when it comes to following the financial crisis, one of the go-to sites has been The Baseline Scenario. It's written, in part, by Simon Johnson, an M.I.T. economics professor, who has been a relentless critic of the banks. Time and again, Professor Johnson has made the argument that the political power of the banks has grotesquely distorted our economy and our democracy, and that in order for sane, fair, and effective economic policies to prevail, the banks must be broken up.

Today, Johnson reports something disturbing: Morgan Stanley is blocking employee access to this invaluable site.

Access to our site has been blocked in the past by China - for reasons that should be obvious (if you want to pretend there is no global crisis).  But what kind of firm would not want its employees to access our macroeconomic analysis, Financial Crisis for Beginners, or your continuing debate about how to handle the world’s myriad financial sector problems?

Oh, yes…

Morgan Stanley.

No doubt there is a simple and reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with our views on banks, their executives, and the political power of the financial sector.  And it must be pure coincidence that Morgan Stanley was mentioned in a less than completely positive light during my February interview with Bill Moyers.

When it comes to the banks, there is so much to be outraged about these days that this may seem like a minor matter. But it's illustrative of just how profoundly out of touch and divorced from reality the financial sector has become. Morgan Stanley won't even allow their own employees to have access to a site that consistently mounts powerful critiques of the financial sector and the public policies that involve that sector. How can Morgan Stanley possibly defend itself successfully when its own employees don't have a clue as to the nature of the criticisms against it?

The corrupt cronyism and astonishing insularity of the financial sector has bred a level of denial so deep that I believe it will be death of them, in the end.

As someone once wrote in a not dissimilar context, "Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."

Happy St. Patty's Day to one and all

By Kathy G.

So much for that

By Kathy G.

Well, yesterday we got our asses handed to us, didn't we?

I fully expected us to lose -- but I did not expect us to be thrashed so thoroughly. I'll have more to say later, but I have to admit, right now I don't have the heart. Losing is never fun, but losing this badly is excruciating.

Congratulations, though, to Mike Quigley. He ran a strong campaign, and he's certainly a better-than-average Dem. He's too fiscally conservative for my tastes, and I don't trust him on foreign policy (in the first candidates' forum, he sounded hawkish about Iran, and said he opposed investigating the Bush administration for possible war crimes).

But Quigley is pretty good on most other issues, and he's an honest and capable public servant. And unlike so many in this race, he is not a hack. He has a genuine independent streak -- which is why Mayor Daley loathes him.

There's no question that he is several steps up from Rahm Emanuel, the previous holder of this seat.

All things considered, it could have been much, much worse.

But right now that feels like very cold comfort indeed.

Election Day -- Hildy says go vote, go volunteer, and then party!

By Kathy G.

 

Hildy, the official mascot of the Geoghegan for Congress campaign, wants to remind you to vote for Tom today if you're eligible, volunteer for the campaign if you're able, and join us for the party tonight!

1. First of all, today, March 3rd, is Election Day. If you live in the Fifth District and you're a registered voter, please vote in today's primary for Tom Geoghegan.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m., and Tom's place on the ballot is #11.

To find your polling place, visit this page. To check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?"). And if you need a ride to the polls, call (773) 853-0687.

2. Secondly, if you have some time, please volunteer for the Geoghegan campaign's election day and get-out-the-vote activities. At this point, it's probably best if you just show up today at the field office at 4419 West Irving Park Road. There will be plenty for you to do.

3. Third, if you're interested in keeping up with the coverage of this race and following the election returns, I recommend that you keep checking the local blogs. Coverage of this race in the mainstream media, especially the local mainstream media has, alas, been abysmal, as Adam Doster points out in this post from one of the go-to sites for following this election, Progress Illinois. Thank God for the local political blogs, who have really come through on this story, and are taking up the slack.

Okay, here are some sites I recommend:

The Capitol Fax Blog

The Chicago Tribune's Elections Page (okay, their coverage does kind of suck, but sometimes there's something worthwhile there)

David Ormsby

Gapers Block

Jesse Greenberg

Prairie State Blue

Progress Illinois

Other blogs that occasionally cover this race have been the Chicago Reader blog, Clout City, and the blog of veteran Chicago Sun-Times political reporter, Lynn Sweet.

4. Finally, beginning at 7 tonight, join us tonight for election night party. Here's the info from the campaign website:

What: Celebrate Election Night with volunteers and supporters!

Where: Paddy Mac’s
4157 N Pulaski Road, Chicago

Pulaski and Berteau, 2 blocks north of Irving Park Road blue line and Metra stops,
Irving Park exit off the Kennedy

When: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 7 pm

Free Appetizers, $2 Old Styles and 35¢ wings.
TV coverage, free wi-fi, and speeches.

For more info please call Joanna Belanger or Catherine Slaughter: (312) 346-3659

Mr. G Spot and I will definitely be there, so please stop by and say hello. Tell 'em Hildy sent you!

Geoghegan campaign: final pre-primary round-up

By Kathy G.

It's been a long day for me today, and it will be an especially long day tomorrow, election day. I don't have time to do a proper post, but I will post some links to some of the best things that have been written Tom Geoghegan and the campaign over the past couple of days.

Digby has contributed not one, but two posts, and her co-blogger DDay has weighed in with a post of his own. Tom recently made this interesting appearance on Laura Flanders' GRITtv. Todd Beeton of MyDD gives us his thoughts about the race. John Nichols of The Nation writes about Tom's campaign as a paradigm for progressive politics.

And here's Tom's 30-second sound bite about why he's running. As Progress Illinois notes, Chicago Public Radio posted a 30-second clip from each of the candidates in the race, including the Republican and Green Party candidates, and Daniel Strauss of Gapers Block rated Tom's as the best.

All of those links, posts, and articles are well worth your while, but to me, there are three additional recent pieces that stand out as particularly noteworthy.

First, there's this piece about Geoghegan by veteran journalist David Moberg of In These Times. It's titled "The Anti-Blago," and among other things, it looks at the labor politics of the race -- a subject that Moberg, a distinguished labor reporter, is especially well-qualified to cover.

Secondly, as Mickey Kaus has noted, the latest endorsement of Tom's candidacy comes from a most unexpected source -- that Wicker Park hipster hang-out, the Hideout Bar:

In the above-mentioned post, here's what Tim Tuten, Geoghegan supporter and owner of the Hideout, had to say:

The Hideout has been a bar since 1934. It's located in a Manufacturing District on the Chicago's North Side. It has always been a place for steelworkers, construction workers and other working people. In the last few years, as our factories have closed and "down-sized," the Hideout has become a new home for hardworking musicians, artists and writers. Through all these years though the conversations at the Hideout have remained incredibly true to our history, a history that celebrates the hard-working spirit of Chicago.

For 30 years, Tom Geoghegan has fought on behalf of these very steelworkers, nurses, taxi drivers and immigrants, union workers and those trying to unionize. He has fought for lost wages due to plant closings and for health care for the uninsured. As a regular who became an owner of the Hideout, I wholeheartedly support Tom Geoghegan for Congress and ask that you do the same.

It's a wonderful post, and I strongly urge you to read the whole thing. Earlier in the campaign, Tom did a live interview at the Hideout, which you can view here.

One thing this campaign has not lacked is a plethora of wonderful writing by people who have supported Tom. There have been so many excellent articles, posts, and editorials written about Tom and his campaign that it's hard to point to any single one as being especially memorable, because there have been so many that have been outstanding. We could publish a book made of these damn things.

But of the recent pieces about Tom, it was Joe Conason's article in Salon that moved me the most.

First of all, I loved the pic that accompanied the article:

Photo credit: Shelley Anderson

Secondly, I appreciated the fact that Joe emphasizes that behind Tom's soft-spoken exterior, he is actually pretty tough:

In personal terms, Tom could scarcely be more different from the man he has set out to succeed. He is polite, thoughtful, usually soft-spoken and almost painfully principled -- in short, not much like the stereotype of a Chicago pol, except that for a nice guy he is also exceptionally tough. He has grit that is rare among intellectuals and academics but not so rare in labor, where the going is hard for anybody who doesn't just go along.

Thirdly, I'm glad Joe is telling this story:

Without breaking a confidence, I can offer an example from my own knowledge of Tom's work. Not so long ago, he took the case of a group of workers who, like so many others in the declining industrial companies of the Midwest, had been screwed out of their pensions and healthcare in a corporate takeover. What made the case different is that among the new owners, there happened to be a very prominent Democratic investor who is accustomed to having liberals smooch his ring (or some other place). Tom had very little to gain by taking on those obscure workers as his clients, not only because they probably couldn't pay him much, if anything, and weren't at all likely to win against a phalanx of expensive corporate attorneys, but also because he might well make a very powerful enemy for himself. He didn't care at all, any more than he worried when he fought the local Teamster chieftains who sent goons around to intimidate him from time to time (but never did). He didn't court publicity, didn't call any grandstanding press conference; he just fulfilled what he saw as his commitment to people who are forgotten or unrepresented or screwed over.

I know the case Joe is describing, and believe me, you have heard of the "prominent Democratic investor" to whom he refers. In fact, when I talk about Tom to other people, I've sometimes mentioned this case as a shining example of how Tom's deepest motivation is to do the right thing -- not the most expedient, or the easiest, or the most self-serving thing. As I've written before, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable is what Tom is all about.

Finally, and most importantly, I was touched by what Joe has to say here:

But there is another reason I am compelled to say a few words about Tom. It feels as though someone is looking over my shoulder. That would be Maria Leavey, my late friend who was also da close friend of Geoghegan's and spoke about him often to me. Like him, she was a believer against all odds, a fighter who dedicated herself to the long, hard, grinding and often unrewarding work of progressive politics. If she were still here, Maria would not have let a single day go by without hectoring me to write something about Tom, and she would have been right, as she almost always was. He will fight like crazy for the universal health insurance that just might have saved her life.

I never met Maria Leavey, but I felt that I knew her. She was a member of a listserv I am on, was a friend of Tom and other friends of mine, was a well-known figure in the netroots, and lived her life as a tireless activist for the progressive cause. She was also one of Tom's biggest fans in the whole world. I have little doubt that, were she were alive today, she would be moving heaven and earth to get him elected.

About two years ago, Maria Leavey died suddenly on the day before her 53rd birthday. Tragically, she did not have health insurance. It's virtually certain that, if she had, she would have lived.

Whenever I think of Maria Leavey, it strengthens and deepens my support of Tom Geoghegan in this election.

First of all, obviously, there's the personal aspect of it. There is little doubt that, had she lived, Tom would have been Maria's top choice in this race. And since she's not around to do the hundred million things, big and small, that she would have done to promote Tom's candidacy, I've pushed myself to do just a bit more, work just a tiny bit harder. Her absence is a huge loss for this campaign. We all need to do our best to help make up for it.

And secondly, and even more importantly, there is Maria Leavey as the tragic symbol of our profoundly dysfunctional and viciously inhumane health care system. In a country this rich and an economy this advanced, there is no reason why anyone should go without health care. And so help me God, I never again want to be faced with the death of someone, and be haunted by the sickening question -- but what if they had had health care?

And that's why it's imperative that we elect not just Tom Geoghegan, but many more like him. Tom's uncompromising vision is a national health insurance system that provides quality care for all, regardless of income or physical condition, with all costs picked up by the government. And he won't rest until that dream becomes a reality.

If you're a registered voter in Illinois's Fifth District, please be sure to go out tomorrow, and vote for Tom Geoghegan in the primary. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.To find your polling place, visit this site. To check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?"). And if you need a ride to the polls, call (773) 853-0687.

You can volunteer for the all-important Election Day and get out the vote effort here. Alternatively, you can just show up tomorrow at the field office at 4419 West Irving Park Road. There will be plenty for you to do.

Please do vote, if you're eligible, and volunteer, if you can.

Do it for Maria Leavey.

A really, really bad reason not to vote for Tom Geoghegan

By Kathy G.

I feel like I need to do what I can to put this one to bed.

One argument I've heard for not voting for Tom Geoghegan in the IL-05 race is that "it will throw the race to Fritchey." The argument is, Geoghegan is a liberal, and he'll be splitting the liberal vote with the other leading candidates in the race who are at the progressive end of the spectrum, Sara Feigenholtz and Mike Quigley. And taking votes away from those two will pave the way to victory for John Fritchey, a candidate who, as this post at the terrific site Progress Illinois (one of the go-to sites for coverage of this election) points out, is to the right of Geoghegan, Feigenholtz, and Quigley.

I don't disagree with the point that Fritchey is more conservative than those other three. But I do disagree, strongly, with the argument that a vote for Tom = a vote for Fritchey.

Here's why: as the Geoghegan campaign explained in a blogger call last week, their strategy is not to challenge Feigenholtz and Quigley amongst their base -- that is, the lakeside liberals in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc.

Rather, Geoghegan's strategy has been to focus on the working class neighborhoods at the western edge of Chicago, and in the western suburbs. In other words -- Fritchey territory. Tom will likely be taking a lot more votes away from Fritchey than he will from Quigley or Feigenholtz. That's the terrain where this race will be fought.

One other thing: this election is likely to be close. Just the sheer number of candidates makes that exponentially more likely. That's why it's important that you vote -- every vote will count. For all we know, this election will end up in Coleman/Franken, endless recount territory.

Why do I believe it will be close? Here's one reason: I don't know of a single poll that's been done in this race for the past month, which has been released to the public.

Now, it's unclear if polls in the race will be of any use, in any case. Turnout special elections is notoriously difficult to predict -- let alone when it's a primary, and when there are twelve candidates in the race. Remember all those polls about the Barack-vs.-Hillary primaries, which turned out to be way off?

But as I said, In the past month, no polls concerning the IL-05 race have been released, and that tells you something. Some of the candidates (albeit not Geoghegan) are definitely doing polling -- their financial reports reflect this. If these polls showed good news for the candidates doing the polling, they'd release the numbers to the media -- that's what campaigns do. But since no one has done this, that tells you that the race is probably close, and none of the leading candidates are doing that great in the polls.

Which means -- it's wide open. Your vote counts -- it may well count a lot, actually.

That is why you need to participate. Voting will occur on Tuesday, March 3rd, between 6 am and 7 pm. To find your polling place, visit this site. And to check your registration, visit this page (under the heading, "Not sure if you're registered?").

To volunteer for the Geoghegan campaign on Election Day, sign up here.

Talk about awkward . . .

By Kathy G.

Via Andrew Huff of Gapers Block:

A reader reported to us that she happened to fly back from a trip to DC on the same American Airlines flight Thursday as both Illinois senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris. The flight was delayed three hours, during which time Burris worked the gate, shaking hands and talking with other passengers. Durbin was nowhere to be found until the plane began boarding.

The senators turned out to be seated right next to each other -- Burris by the window, Durbin in the middle seat, with a large gentleman on the aisle. Durbin and Burris didn't speak the entire flight, according to our source, who was two rows in front of them. Burris reportedly stared out the window the whole way, while Durbin appeared to be sleeping. They went in opposite directions once the plane landed at O'Hare. Considering their recent meetings have been tense, it's no surprise -- but you'd think they would have been able to switch seats.

And you do know about the lawsuit Geoghegan filed last week, to force a special election to replace Burris, right? The argument that Tom makes in his suit is that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution requires such elections, and hence appointments of U.S. senators by state governors are unconstitutional.

Of course, that's the argument Tom has been making all along -- well before allegations surfaced that Burris's appointment might be tainted. You can read Tom's argument in more detail in this op-ed he published in the New York Times back on January 6th.