Thursday, June 18, 2009

As Geithner Attempts to Defend the Indefensible - We're Making Sure We'll Never Be Able to Choose Single-Payer

This is the same Fed that didn't investigate Madoff or anyone else properly for the last eight years. And this is the same Tim Geithner who presided over the New York Fed when everything went to hell. Right? Even Mish gets into the act. Read it and weep.

Blueprint For A Power Grab Obama and Geither call this "reform". It's not. Abolishing the Fed would be reform. Giving the Fed more authority is a power grab, not reform. Obama's Blueprint for Reform Concentrates Still More Power in Hands of the Fed. Fed Uncertainty Principle In Action Inquiring minds are taking another look at the Fed Uncertainty Principle.
Read on.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner defended the administration’s proposal to give the Federal Reserve increased powers in his first public tussle with lawmakers skeptical whether the central bank is up to the job. Advocating for President Barack Obama’s regulatory overhaul on Capitol Hill, the Treasury chief faced repeated questions from senators who cited previous regulatory failures at the Fed and potential conflicts with its monetary-policy duties. “The Federal Reserve is best positioned” to oversee the biggest financial companies, Geithner told the Senate Banking Committee in Washington, adding that the Obama plan gives the Fed only “modest additional authority.” Most central banks around the world have some responsibility for monitoring systemic risks, he said. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, quoted one critic’s view that giving the central bank more power was like awarding a son a “bigger, faster car right after he crashed the family station wagon.” He added that he hadn’t made a conclusion on the issue. Geithner said that the Fed has “greater knowledge and feel for broader market developments” than any other U.S. banking agency. He added that giving those powers to a council of regulators wouldn’t work. “You don’t convene a committee to put out a fire,” he said. The president’s announcement yesterday marks the beginning of what promises to be a political battle that’s likely to alter the administration plan, with some lawmakers opposing any expansion of the Fed’s power. Obama, who has called the “sweeping overhaul” of regulation one of his top domestic priorities, said he wants to sign legislation by year-end.

Susie Madrak brings up the obvious after viewing Sebelius' (Obama's) health care plan.

You know, I'm not a Democrat to protect our politicians. As far as I'm concerned, they're little more than tools to execute the policies I support. But I know not everyone else feels that way, and that's why it really makes me furious to see them use people by promising one thing and delivering something completely different - you know, like this expensive mishmosh of a healthcare "reform." The Kathleen Sebeliuses of the world, those timid souls who can be found out in the middle of the road hugging the center line with the rest of the road kill, can go take a flying leap if they think we're going to support backward thinking like this: As lawmakers on Capitol Hill hammer out legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says that a single-payer option is not on the table. "This is not a trick. This is not single-payer," Sebelius told Steve Inskeep. She added: "That's not what anyone is talking about — mostly because the president feels strongly, as I do, that dismantling private health coverage for the 180 million Americans that have it, discouraging more employers from coming into the marketplace, is really the bad, you know, is a bad direction to go." [...] Republicans have also raised the specter that a public option could evolve into a single-payer health care system where funding comes from one source — usually the government. The GOP says that such a system would lead to health care rationing and long delays in treatment. Asked if the administration's program will be drafted specifically to prevent it from evolving into a single-payer plan, Sebelius says: "I think that's very much the case, and again, if you want anybody to convince people of that, talk to the single-payer proponents who are furious that the single-payer idea is not part of the discussion." Sebelius says such concerns are unfounded because a single-payer plan is not under consideration, and these "draconian" scenarios have muddled the conversation over the president's proposal for a public option. If Obama does, in fact, include language to prevent the public health plan from becoming a single-payer option, we might as well kiss this Democratic majority goodbye. Because, as history shows, given the choice between a fake Republican and a real one, people will pick the real one every time! (You can let the Secretary know how you'd feel about that. HHS - 202-619-0257. Better still, Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now and Open Left join Stand With Dr. Dean in a project to pin down the politicians on where they stand.) Send an email asking the following four questions: Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?

If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?

Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?

Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies? The goal is to remove all hedges and dodges. We want to know where they stand on the public option. Add your responses to the form at Stand With Dr. Dean.

Now there's a plan. Thanks Susie! Suzan ________________

No comments: