Archive for June, 2012

It will take some time to digest the Supreme Court’s decision today, but it appears to have averted some terrible jurisprudence that might have very seriously restricted the government’s overall ability to regulate the economy and protect citizens.

In upholding most of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court lets stand legislation that offers some important benefits, but only to a portion of those who are uninsured, and will predictably fail to solve our nation’s health care crisis.

However the health reform law ultimately plays out, we know two things for certain: Tens of millions of Americans will remain uncovered as will tens of millions of under-insured who will remain at risk of financial ruin if a major illness strikes and it will leave the private health insurance and pharmaceutical industries in charge of prices and life-and-death treatment decisions.

There is a single solution to the challenges of providing coverage to the 50 million who are uninsured that would curb out-of-control health care costs and provide a humane standard of care to all who enter the medical system. That solution is an improved Medicare-for-All, single-payer system.

The improved Medicare-for-All approach starts with the premise that health care is a critically-needed right that must be afforded to all, irrespective of any individual’s ability to pay for care. It solves the problems of 50 million uninsured Americans simply and directly by establishing that everyone is covered by the improved Medicare-for-All system. Everybody in, nobody out.

Improved Medicare-for-All would prevent the deaths of the 45,000 Americans who die every year from lack of health insurance. It would eliminate the hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies — affecting millions of Americans every year — that occur because people can’t pay their medical bills. These deaths and economic tragedies are entirely preventable; a system that permits them to continue is morally repugnant and must be replaced.

The improved Medicare-for-All approach would eliminate the greatest waste in the health care system: the needless costs imposed by the private health insurers. These firms impose hundreds of billions of dollars of excess cost on us via their excessive profit-taking and executive compensation, their marketing expense, their vast bureaucracies devoted to denying care and their imposition of massive paper-pushing obligations on actual health care providers.

Continue Reading

We’ve all heard allusions to a “tsunami” of regulations battering U.S. businesses. The reality is there is no “tsunami” and, even if there were, it would be reduced to standing water once the federal rulemaking process is done with it.

Federal agencies are late on completing nearly 80 percent of the rules by congressionally mandated deadlines, a new Public Citizen report finds.

The report outlines several reasons for the delays, including cumbersome requirements upon federal agencies, lengthy reviews by the administration, industry pressure, political interventions, and, sometimes, agencies simply dragging their feet.

Several statutes and executive orders that created procedural obstacles for agencies to issue regulations were added to the rulemaking process in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, Executive Order 12866, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, requires agencies to craft the “most cost-effective rule,” not the rule that most effectively serves public health and safety.

The executive order also requires rules deemed “significant” to be sent to Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. This step creates delays on top of delays. Although the executive order calls on OIRA to complete its reviews of rules within 120 days, it often does not. For example, the data set for Public Citizen’s study — consisting of rules included in OMB’s fall 2011 semi-annual report — included 14 rules that are currently under review at OIRA. Each has been there for longer than 120 days.

Continue Reading

The politics of the global knowledge economy are shifting: from mercantilism to co-operation, from closed commercial regimes toward open source. Last week, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) passed a report recommending the rejection of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Since the European Union (EU) and its 22 member states signed ACTA in January 2012, ACTA has caused nothing but consternation in Europe. Citizens of Poland, Bulgaria and the Germany took to the streets to show their opposition. These protests initiated a pan-European movement awakening the spirit of 1968. Young Europeans asked policy makers and politicians in Brussels to respect their rights, privacy and freedom on the Internet.

The ‘old continent’ woke up to what people in the global South have known and fought for over many years. Intellectual property (IP) is not merely a commercial or trade-related issue or something we can allow to be monopolized by corporations. It’s about us. It touches human life. IP rules can dictate how we access, disseminate and share knowledge, technology and information. They are not only about corporations and their interests. They are also about our internet freedom, privacy, scientific research, textbooks and journals, traditional and cultural knowledge, stewardship of biodiversity, arts and literature. The current orthodox IP standards, largely imposed by corporations, create exclusive controls over knowledge and information and have proved to be inadequate and frequently inappropriate in today’s knowledge-based economy.

What ACTA did – albeit inadvertently – was provide an impetus for a new vision of prioritizing people’s rights over IP fundamentalism in the 21st century. In recent decades, there has been a rush to over-regulate this relatively new and rather conceptually confusing form of property. The IP maximalist perspectives create modern juridical bureaucracies; monstrous, absurd legal procedures and protocols. From the perspective of people, the over-aggressive rules pushed through agreements like ACTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are understood as a declaration of war threatening personal rights and freedoms on the Internet and in our daily lives. This is why the people of Europe raised their voice to warn policy makers in Brussels about the inadequacy of the current IP maximalist model, which places IP monopolies at its heart instead of sharing or disseminating knowledge, technology or information.

The ‘war against piracy’ turned into a revolution against the corporate internet. Brussels could not stay indifferent to the outcry. First, the Committee on Legal Affairs (Juri), Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) voted to express “opinions against ACTA”. If three strikes weren’t enough, a vote in the Development Committee gave a fourth. Finally, on June 21 the trade committee (INTA) dealt a serious blow to ACTA. The INTA vote shows that European politicians increasingly understand we, the people, will not let healthcare and internet policy be dictated by a very few outdated corporate interests. Rather, we need forward-looking, flexible policies for technology, knowledge and creative works that unleash our human genius. ACTA is a retrograde policing approach to the knowledge economy: it promotes IP fundamentalism, it treats competition like criminality and the internet as a threat.

We cannot count ACTA out yet. The final voting in the European Parliament will be held on the 4th of July. The Fourth of July is an important day for Americans, which honors the birthday of the United States of America and the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. But it seems that it would also be a memorable day for the Europeans, honoring the sense of European citizenship in today’s knowledge economy based on the values of individual freedom, equality, tolerance, privacy and democracy .

Thanks to Peter Maybarduk for his contributions to this post.

Read more here

Follow us on twitter: @PCMedsAccess

 

Washington, D.C., hit near-record high temperatures on Wednesday. But that didn’t discourage more than a hundred dedicated activists from making the two-mile walk from Dupont Circle to the headquarters of Crossroads GPS, one of those outside groups spending millions of dollars to sway the elections. These brave souls were marching to demand that Crossroads co-founder and GOP strategist Karl Rove be held accountable for selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.

As we journeyed together through the streets of our nation’s capital, I heard people talking about lots of different issues—from jobs and retirement to health care and elections. Ultimately, however, most of their grievances boiled down to a single word: fairness. These folks were out in the scorching heat because they believe that American democracy is about every citizen having a voice in government. Not about how many dollars a person (real or corporate) can spend on TV and radio ads.

At our destination, all one had to do was look around to see what real democracy looks like. It’s not the small group of people who were upstairs in an air conditioned room, figuring out how to manipulate voters into favoring the candidates that corporations want in office.  Democracy is those who cared about their country enough to brave the heat for a chance to shout in the streets that people, not corporations, should have the power in our system.

Continue Reading

"Bart Naylor" "Financial policy"As Congress conducts hearings about JPMorgan Chase’s multibillion-dollar trading fiasco, the Mighty Mouse of Washington regulators, namely the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), promises real action. Shortly, the CFTC may vote on “interpretative guidance.” Details of this unusual step will be revealed then. What’s outlined by the ambitious CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler provides hope that Morgan’s ill-fated position would have rung alarm bells well before it swelled and then erased 20 percent of the bank’s market value.

JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus loss didn’t precipitate a taxpayer bailout. But this fire drill highlighted that banks still suffer from inferior controls. Neither JPMorgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon nor his Washington overseers saw the loss coming, a chilling replay of the housing bubble, which banks and regulators also claimed they could not anticipate.
Dimon paid attention to the trade only after reading news reports sparked by disgruntled hedge fund managers who complained of market manipulation due to a mammoth trader they dubbed the “London Whale.” The Whale’s outsized trades prolonged pricing anomalies that the hedge funds aimed to arbitrage. When Dimon examined the trade—actually, he made a few phone calls—he proclaimed the news attention a “tempest in a teapot.”

In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on June 19, Dimon confessed to being “dead wrong” about the “tempest” comment. But confession rendered, Dimon adamantly rejected the concept that his bank should be restricted from making the London gambles that led to the loss in the first place. He grandstanded his “fortress balance sheet” of capital, conveniently ignoring the real bulwark, namely $25 billion in taxpayer bailout funds from TARP and $457 billion in cumulative cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, as documented by Levy Institute scholars. Dimon may believe JPMorgan is his car to wreck, but he forgets that Americans backstop the insurance. Dimon’s lack of contrition (other than for his shareholders) constitutes cold evidence that Wall Streeters won’t bridle gambling by themselves.

In an election year, when Wall Street constitutes the richest source of campaign funding for members of banking committees, and with Congress already paralyzed by partisan wrangling, little beyond hearings can be expected from Capitol Hill. Important reform initiatives, such as U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown’s proposal to limit bank size, and U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s proposal to reinstate the Glass-Steagall separation between taxpayer-insured, safer (commercial) and uninsured riskier (investment) banking, remain “message” bills. At best, Congress won’t approve efforts to gut Wall Street reform, such as the effort to let foreign-based transactions such as those by the London Whale, escape American oversight. Meanwhile, industry lawsuits and lobbying stymies rulemaking to implement Wall Street reform.

Of the regulators testifying before House and Senate, Gensler – a former Goldman Sachs executive – alone promised more than an investigation. He outlined a five-part proposal that accelerates implementation of key Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform provisions. Firms and even individual trades would be subject to basic prudential rules, including reporting. Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a former CFTC attorney, explained that “the losing nature of the trades, therefore, would have been obvious to market observers and regulators for quite some time and the losses would not have piled up opaquely.” Regulators would see the trades directly, as opposed to through news reports of complaining hedge funds.

Dimon and Wall Street don’t want American prudential rules reducing gambling opportunities, which is why many were conducted outside the United States in the first place. AIG, to whom American’s paid $180 billion in bailout money, operated in a London subsidiary of a French bank. Lehman and Bear Stearns conducted their mischief through Cayman Islands affiliates.

But however Wall Street dresses up these alien affiliates as necessary to match foreign competition, the risk rebounds to America taxpayers. JPMorgan shareholders and thereafter American taxpayers, not the Queen of England, absorb the losses from London Whale.

The CFTC is a tiny, underfunded agency – the smallest of Washington’s bank supervisors. But if Chairman Gensler successfully garners the support of two other commissioners to advance his “interpretative guidance,” Americans may well enjoy more protection from overseas bank shenanigans.

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.