Ralph welcomes back retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson to talk about American military policy, including the record $816.7 billion Pentagon budget, the war in Ukraine, the insanity of nuclear weapons, potential conflict with China and what the right-wing caucus in the House of Representatives really wants when they say they want to cut military spending.
I almost started "with all due respect," but had a change of heart, because it appears your position is to uphold the false impression that a handful of coding agents are calling the shots to block a nationalized healthcare system. While I am under the impression, based on factual evidence, that a handful of pharma/insurance/corporate med LOBBYISTS are PAYING to block it and exert COMPLETE control over every decision coming out of Washington DC - against the will of the people, where reportedly up to 80% of tax-paying citizens favor a nationalized system....That the fundamental problem in achieving it is a corrupt government with their hands down corporate pants, paid-off government officials paid to favor profits over people, ever increasing taxation without representation (because those same lobbyists also write the legislation that barely tax morbidly rich, OVER-represented corporate-persons), gerrymandered districts ("necessary" BECAUSE it's the ONLY means to thwart the will of the true majority), and masters of mis-direction who steadfastly, ever so subtly or blatantly purchasing control over media, to convince themselves that it must be because enough people didn't show up to vote *against corporate control.*
And Pharma and its lackeys have been pushing hard to maximize their profits in every way conceivable, they say it is their fiduciary duty! Blackrock and the other hedge funds are 100% in on the frauds and perpetating the sick care system. Sadly I have seen many nursing homes go up, 5 floors, huge facilities, sick care is devastating people's lives.
Yes, there will be insurance industry propaganda if healthcare reform is ever seriously on the agenda again. That said, individuals will not want to lose their jobs or feel any sense of job insecurity. The insurance industry propaganda will play to that, but it is an issue even without propaganda. How many people do you know who would gladly accept job loss? How many people do you know who would gladly vote for the cessation of a field that they went to community college for just to enter that field?
The number of employees affected by healthcare reform is more than just a few. For one, there are all the employees employed by the insurance industry. Insurance industry employees may not receive much sympathy, but these people are mostly regular wage earners and are just looking for stable employment. It is hard to fault our neighbors for such employment. Beyond that, it is our problem as a society if these neighbors become unemployed without any governmental plan or process to guarantee employment.
In addition to those working in the insurance industry and those working for doctors/clinics as coding experts, there are those working in all kinds of organizations as HR staff dealing with insurance matters. Presumably, healthcare professionals such as nurses and doctors will not be as affected, but doctors will be concerned about their compensation if private insurance does not exist. One of the inefficiencies of private insurance is that it does allow for excessive billing by clinics. For this reason, I believe the American Medical Association, the professional group representing physicians, has strongly lobbied against single-payer healthcare.
The AMA’s lobbying in favor of inflated prices for healthcare is, of course, terrible. There’s much that can and should be said about that. Perhaps a future guest on the RNRH can address the issue of the AMA lobbying against healthcare reform.
Back to the topic of ordinary wage earners. These citizens need not feel threatened by healthcare reform. There are many things the government can do to ensure their employment and wages while there is a transition. It will require government, and the electorate, to move past an austerity mindset in terms of government spending on social matters. Will that assuage everyone when they vote? Probably not, but it’ll give at least some people more confidence that single-payer will not harm employment. That might be the difference between progressive candidates, real progressives who push for healthcare reform, winning and losing.
With regard to the conflict in Ukraine and the bloated military budget, the Biden administration and Congress are out of touch with ordinary Americans. Some members of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus stuck their toes in the water, and quickly pulled back. Outside of the government, there are anti-war voices (Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern, Marcy Winograd, Laurence Wilkerson, etc.). Is there one member of Congress with moral courage willing to stand up and say we need to change course--instead of sending more weapons, we need negotiations and diplomacy to bring an end to this conflict?
"Is there one member of Congress with moral courage willing to stand up and say we need to change course--instead of sending more weapons, we need negotiations and diplomacy to bring an end to this conflict?"
Elizabeth, to answer the above question, I’m afraid the answer is probably not. I’m not sure if you saw this back around August 2022 or so, but did you see the reaction in the UK when Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, made comments essentially saying that what was needed in Ukraine was more diplomacy and less arms or else Ukraine will become infested with war for years to come?
Corbyn was strongly condemned by the now-dominant corporate Blairite wing of the Labour Party. This is, of course, the same ‘New Labour’ faction led by Tony Blair that strongly supported and aided George W. Bush’s Iraq War. Moreover, Corbyn was lambasted by the British corporate media. Corbyn still has his supporters in the British public, but he is now on the political fringe merely for standing up for peace and diplomacy. Granted, the denunciation of Corbyn by corporate ‘centrists’ had already started long before Ukraine because Corbyn questioned British support of Israeli war hawks.
Now, it should be stated that the sensitivity to Ukraine is higher in the UK/Europe than it is here in the US at the current time. Day-to-day life for American citizens is not materially harmed by the situation in Ukraine. Yes, there was the spike in energy costs last year, but things are returning to ‘normal’ now. This is not quite the case in Europe. The response by pro-US European governments is to strengthen their propaganda campaign regarding Ukraine. Ukraine continues to top newspapers and news websites there. Here, Ukraine has become more of a secondary story...if that even. For better or for worse, the weakened propaganda for the war here, at least relative to Europe, is probably a sign that the Ukraine situation has a similar status here as many of the other ‘forever wars’ the US is engaged in in the Middle East and so forth.
With that, a US politician with a good sense of what’s happening is probably in a better position to make a statement about the war than someone in Europe , but anyone doing so here will certainly be vilified by corporate Democrats even if the level of vilification might be a bit less than what Corbyn faced. With the media acting as State Department puppets, support for the war, like all wars, is popular until there is that tangible material harm mentioned earlier. Body bags containing US soldiers coming from Vietnam and Iraq, for example, did a lot to change the tenor of those wars. That won’t happen with Ukraine since the US is using Ukrainians as their soldiers and most Americans, or Europeans for that matter, just don’t care about Ukrainians no matter how much they may waive flags or whatever.
Republicans who are against just about anything President Biden does may start questioning the war more loudly as we get closer to the 2024 elections. That might be something to keep an eye on. I would be wary of any Republican politician who seemingly takes an anti-war stance as they are probably hawks, as Col. Wilkerson alluded to, but it might be worth engaging Republican-leaning voters who oppose the war. I’ve already met some. Many of these Republican-leaning voters view the war as a matter of corruption and are suspicious of Biden’s past business ties to Ukraine. My experience here in Houston is that a progressive willing to discuss corruption may get an opportunity to do so with a Republican-leaning voter if they willing to discuss corruption, or at least the chance of corruption, committed by corporate Democrats. If nothing else, this type of citizen diplomacy does open doors at least a little bit.
Medea, Ralph, Wilkerson.... They are carrying water for putin bthe Fascist thug. They repeat the same fascist propaganda about Nato, Nazis, etc. The Eastern block nations joined Nato because their colonial history proves they can't trust russia. Ukraine is fighting for its existence and deserve all the material support we can give them. Nader shoulde stick to discussing insurance rates and such. In international affairs, he is way out if his field. Long live a free Ukraine,Tibet,, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
I have waited months to hear Wilkerson's analysis. Thank you. Negotiation is needed, not more belligerence. I watch the YouTube presentations by a retired military person, Douglas MacGregor, who maintains that Russia will win, the question is how many will have to die. He was a commander of a tank brigade in the 2003 Iraq war. Very quickly Wilkerson mentioned that total annual spending for the military was either $1.6 trillion or $2 trillion, not $0.858 trillion. The $1.6 trillion figure I first read in an article by James Cypher at the Monthly Review (he has another article at Union for Radical Political Economists). And The Nation magazine publishes a $1.25 trillion figure in articles by Smithberger and Hartung, neatly laid out item by item. The military budget, officially at $0.858 trillion or 15% of federal spending, is more accurately either 22% of federal spending (with military spending at 1.25 trillion), or 28%, or 34% -- not 15% (which is $858 billion divided by $4.792 trillion for 2023). Roughly speaking it's around 25% of all federal spending. It's a lot, and too much. The national income, taken from the Joint Committee on Taxation, was $18.7 trillion in 2022 (Overview, page 36), therefore we spend 7% to 10% of all income on the military. We could spend about $0.3 to $0.4 trillion an do just fine -- we could reduce military spending by 2/3rds to 3/4ths. It is a weird insanity. Wilkerson failed to mention as fear-inducing instigators of the Ukraine war the U.S. missiles placed in Poland and Rumania, possibly other nations, that are pointed at Moscow. Where is the peace movement? The military veterans need more support, need to be replaced by vocal widespread protest.
Thank you so much for this wonderful interview. Please do consider inviting environmental lawyer and former water regulator in NJ Michael Diamond to add to the discussion. His latest article proposes that there be civil action against the executive and congressional branches of government for breaching their constitutional duty to protect the American people, and that there is legal precedent for such an action in Marbury v Madison (1803). https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/12/23/the-mandate-to-end-war-in-ukraine/ He also has fascinating ideas about how to combat large scale environmental crimes through the use of the domestic violence clause, and the use of district attorneys or county prosecutors and grand juries. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/02/18/ending-corporate-tyranny-solutions-to-the-plague-that-afflicts-us-all/ I think a discussion between the two public advocates would be fascinating and enlightening.
Politics on this topic and attacks on DeSantis? Why not be more inclusive and not attack US Senators, Representatives and Governors on the supposition that the Dems are somehow better than the GOP.
At least if Trump were still President there would have been no Ukraine war and diplomatic solutions would have been more likely. At least Maga was about focusing on US issues as hypocritical as it was.
And you are apparently out to lunch on how damaging and unhealthy the "vaccines" are which are still under the corrupt "emergency" where people cannot sue for the injuries and deaths. Please do proper research; it is crystal clear that the last few years have been a corporatist and kleptocrat's dream scenario with hideous censorship and power grabs. And that all started with Trump and Alex Azar and his other power players.
As a member of Veterans for Peace, I want to suggest to everyone, like me, you don't have to be a Veteran to join this terrific organization. For Colonel Wilkerson and everyone my question is do you agree or disagree that Tulsi Gabbard (who quit the Democratic Party) would be a great Peace Candidate for President in 2024? #Tulsi2024
Col. Wilkerson makes many sage points in this episode of the RNRH, but I want to highlight one point he made towards the end of the radio part of the program. Wilkerson is exactly right when he says that the Republicans advocating for reductions to the military budget are the Republicans who at least want to project themselves as being small government, tax-averse politicians. At the same time, these politicians are often foreign policy hawks. Confront one of these politicians about US support for Israel, to name one thing, and their small government, monetarist convictions will fall apart very quickly.
From a policy perspective, what we see from the majority of our national Republican and Democratic Party politicians is the marriage of neoconservative and neoliberal political thought. When it comes to empire building and an expansion of opportunity for commercial interests, the monetarist economic beliefs of the neoliberals are ignored in favor of neoconservative goals. This is to say that there is little concern for spending limits in expanding militarization. While this goes against the austerity beliefs of the neoliberals, just about everything else is aligned with neoliberalism including the privatization of government (use of government contractors, etc.). Both parties are generally very happy with this marriage. Neoconservatives see fruitful gains in their empire building and neoliberals see an expansion of privatized business opportunities.
I’m thinking there will be some conflict within this marriage when it comes to China. On the one hand, while China’s economy is largely liberalized, the Chinese state funding and protectionism which remains rankles western neoliberals. Some probably want to see regime change in order to expand economic liberalism in China, which excites the hawks, but others (rightfully) see this as an impossible goal. Even if it is viewed as possible, military action against China will likely shatter globalism, at least for a number of years, and certain neoliberals do not want to see that. Neoconservatives might see China’s growing influence in forming relationships with developing nations and this might weaken organizations which ensure the US’s dominance such as the IMF. It may also make resource extraction difficult for the US/west which will give Chinese industry a distinct advantage. It would be interesting to get Col. Wilkerson’s thoughts on this potential source of ‘marital difficulties’.
Wilkerson is correct in saying that France and Germany are not excited about the increased militarization against China. These countries wish to expand business ties with China to fuel their export economies, but these countries are in a subservient position with the US and they will ultimately support US policy no matter how destructive it might be to them. Beyond that, both countries are rather hypocritical if they speak against militarization since both, especially France, have no problem with militarization when they are able to sell weapons, subs, military aircraft, and so forth. US arms deals, such as the AUKUS deal for subs with Australia, may have infuriated France, but it was only because France thought they were going to sell subs to Australia when the US and UK stepped in and snatched that business deal away from them.
Anyway, while the Republicans and Democrats have no trouble spending for empire building and for the benefit of private business interests, social spending continues to be mostly verboten. Austerity principles of neoliberalism only seem to apply to spending which benefits the citizens, not spending which benefits corporate interests. While progressives might be vaguely familiar with this contradiction, they seem to struggle to understand that the same economic principles which makes current military spending possible also make social spending possible. Single-payer healthcare? Nationalizing and reducing the fossil fuel and military industries? It is all possible if the public ignores the false monetarist claims of the neoliberals that the federal government has a very constrained ability to spend without causing hyperinflation, ‘bankruptcy’ of the country, and other implausible nonsense that obviously has not occurred from the abundance of military spending and corporate welfare.
Has anyone questioned these economic contradictions when Republicans and Democrats support seemingly unlimited funding for militarization and such when they are so unwilling to spend for the benefit of society because of claims of ‘financial responsibility’?
This is just a Technical Help note-- all past RNR Hour i can easily download as MP3 to my desktop &
listen without (sometimes) internet interrupts/bad connections on my end. However, with newest episode "Inst Insanity" I cannot complete the MP3 process -- is this perhaps Substack not allowing?
I can direct listen on my computer here BUT i want to create the MP3 as well.
I'm ole analogue type and so appreciates your patience with my issue. \Listen On---- Download either Substack or MP3 choice BUT if I choose MP3 directs me to a unsavable Substack type connection
Re: Healthcare "employment cuts" garbage......when the privatized, for-profiteers insurance/corporate medical industries ARE STOPPED from siphoning trillions into their own pockets, there will be MORE cash available than EVER before pouring back into abundantly STAFFING healthcare. That guy's comment should never have been aired or addressed. Has NOTHING to do with redistribution of workers, and EVERYTHING to do with redistribution of monies to the where it belongs. Shame on steve, dave, ralph for falling asleep at the wheel on that one. Further, why not round up some statistics on how CORPORATE medicine model arrives at their payroll "efficiencies" (of commodifying our health) - - i.e. what percentage of their slashed workforce LOST THEIR JOBS at the onslaught, to squeeze every drop of profit into shareholder portfolios - - and drive over-worked remaining staff to exhaustion & on the brink of strikes (that biden will resolve by favoring corporations as he did in the rail industry recently).
We answered that question with eyes wide open, because that's what a lot of people think and it is certainly what the health insurance companies put out there when they are threatened. We felt it needed to be addressed and addressed forcefully, put to bed once and for all. In fact, I would recommend you refer people - who are not as enlightened as you are - to Ralph's answer. The transcript will post in the next few days. Thanks for listening and commenting! Steve
Susan and Steve, I’m glad that Andrew’s question was aired. I don’t agree with Andrew’s assertion. I believe Mr. Nader had an appropriate response to Andrew’s comment. That said, as I’ve mentioned in the comments here at the RNRH website before in previous episodes, there are many people who work in, or have family who works in, the fossil fuel and military-industrial industries who are sympathetic towards environmental and peace causes. Living in Houston, I see it myself with petrochemical refinery employees. Many of these people are blue-collar workers, racial/ethnic minorities, and are most harmed by the pollution and industrial accidents from the chemical plants here. They may hate many things about the Republican and Democratic Parties, but even with this, they will not vote against the oil industry because they don’t see any alternative for well-paying, stable employment especially given modern globalist economic policies. Here in Texas, especially this part of Texas, these workers are enough to swing elections.
Of course, the same is true with healthcare industry workers. A nurse or insurance coding specialist who went back to school in their 30s while raising a family, just to name one common circumstance, is going to be sensitive to the potential for losing their job, having to relocate, having to go back to school while raising a family, and so forth. I’m sure many healthcare workers see the need for healthcare reform. They have a front row seat to the problems of American healthcare, but like many American workers, they don’t have the resources to deal with a disruption in employment.
Progressives have often made the labor side of energy, military, and healthcare reform a secondary issue. Well, that is if progressives have even addressed it at all. In fact, I sense a rather large gulf between progressives and modern labor. This is a big, big problem, but it really doesn’t have to be a problem if we understand economics and have some compassion for labor. In addition to compassion, progressives, and I consider myself a progressive, must understand that labor from these industries represent a significant group of voters. When we talk to the public, we must present an informed policy plan which accounts for what happens to people working in these industries. Just saying that workers will be accounted for without presenting an informed and tangible plan will not be taken seriously by the public.
To Susan’s point about redistribution, there is no need for redistribution of anything to fund very comprehensive public healthcare. The US national government can fund world-leading single-payer, or even single-provider, healthcare for all Americans, rural or urban, without cutting funding from anything else. Along those same lines, the US government can fund a transition for healthcare workers such that there is as little disruption as possible for them. How to best achieve this will require some discussion, but is anyone even having these discussions?
I think there are some policy goals which should have broad support. Those needing to go back to school to learn new skills should be able to do so while receiving child care. Employers, and it may have to be the government as the employer to some degree, will need to provide training to employees and not just count on people leaving the workforce for a year or two while going back to school. Employment for essential healthcare workers, and other laborers, should be guaranteed at salaries at least as high as what they are making now. Of course, this would be easier to do with a single-provider healthcare system.
If Susan, or anyone else, is not sure how this is economically feasible, I can provide many resources which discuss these matters further. Just to summarize, we must all formulate and present policy which accounts for the needs of labor when we advocate for reform. Without labor’s vote, we’re never going to see much reform. Of course, the policies we present must be informed by proper economic theory, but this theory exists so this need not be a hindrance.
As I heard Mr. Nader, he did mention briefly that more money would be available for staffing healthcare since more people would have healthcare under a Medicare for All plan. The demand would go up, hence the need for more staff.
Paul, there will be more need for medical professionals if healthcare is expanded as it should. While this may allay the fears of some healthcare professionals, it won’t do much to allay the fears held by those working for insurance companies and other insurance-related fields such as insurance coding experts.
Even when looking at the medical professionals, many doctors and nurses already feel overworked as it is. While many would probably love to see healthcare expanded, they may also fear their overburdened schedules will become even more overburdened. It is a legitimate issue and that is why any sort of healthcare reform must also contain additional funding for more healthcare staff hiring, if possible, and the development of new healthcare workers without poaching the developing world of their healthcare workers just to fill our needs. Money needs to go to schools to improve STEM education and money also needs to go to community colleges and universities to help them develop more nurses and doctors. Money must also go towards new public health facilities especially in undeserved cities and rural areas.
Policy must account for this and this policy must be communicated to the public. It can’t just be something briefly and vaguely mentioned or else people won’t take it seriously. There will be those who wrongly say that such funding won’t be possible or won’t be possible without raising taxes. We need to be educated to counter those claims because it really is balderdash.
It is my contention that a big reason why we (progressives) cannot achieve the policy we want is because we don’t even know how to discuss this policy. We have a lot of work to do in this regard.
My take on this is that there is already PLENTY of money in the system. It’s simply being put in the wrong bucket. Move that money out of the hands of the greedy bosses and shareholders and into the hands of the folks who provide direct care. With the money you save by elimination of the fraud, waste and abuse now in the system, I imagine we could accomplish much. No additional funding needed.
Paul, I agree with the concept that the privatized healthcare system, whether funded by Medicare or via private insurance, is terribly inefficient financially. In many cases, the debt burden is shifted to the individual rather than the national government who does not really have a debt burden the way an individual or business would. There is a lot of truth to that and that must be stated when pushing for reform.
That said, in order to achieve high-quality healthcare for all US citizens, there will need to be public organization of clinics and possibly of healthcare professionals. We can choose the privatized approach, which has already been dismissed above, or we can choose a public approach. The public approach, if funded by the US national government, is the best approach economically.
This may or may not require more funding than what is already put into healthcare with the current inefficient privatized system. Regardless, the same monetarists who (wrongly) argue that privatized healthcare is more efficient than public healthcare are the same monetarists who (wrongly) say that any public spending will lead to inflation, bankruptcy of the nation, and other economic maladies. This is not true and policy must state that or else the public, who believe monetarist myths since that is what is promoted in schools and the media, will be wary of reform.
We must remember that the goal of healthcare reform is not just to expand healthcare, but also to improve public health. If people in small towns and cities cannot get good healthcare in their areas, having health insurance won't be of much use. Policy must account for the needs of all Americans. Expanding access to doctors will not be of much use if patients cannot get access to medications. There are numerous policies which can be implemented to reduce the cost of medication, but for some, any cost is a high cost and so there needs to be comprehensive drug coverage as well. Funding needs to be made available to make health/science education better and more accessible so we have more medical professionals and better trained medical professionals.
This may require more funding. Regardless, if progressives understand economic theory, they can use economic theory, which absolutely can be on the side of progressives, to promote policy rather than progressives having to defend against the myths of monetarism. The reality is, as things are, many progressives aren't even in a position in terms of economic knowledge to even be on the defensive against the faulty arguments for privatization and austerity. We must do better or nothing will be achieved. We already see where healthcare reform efforts have broken down.
What recently happened in the House with the selection of speaker being derailed by a small handful of extreme MAGA Republicans is quite interesting. A small group of elected officials pried numerous, onerous concessions from the majority. What if an equally small group of progressives followed their example and pried concessions from the corporate democratic leadership? Ralph keeps saying, "it's easier than you think." So, come on progressives. Stick it to those corporate dems.
The Australian economist and progressive Bill Mitchell wrote a timely blog post today about what the US would need to do economically to achieve demilitarization without harming employment. Mitchell's commentary, while a bit long, is simple reading even for those without an economic background. I'll copy and paste the relevant summary of Mitchell's commentary that Mitchell wrote in his blog post.
For reference, 'JKG' in the text refers to John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist Mr. Nader who has been spoken about glowingly in the past (for reference, refer to Mr. Nader's commentary 'Galbraith – A Public-Spirited Economist'). Galbraith was a proponent, as am I, of nationalizing the US military industry. 'MIC' is the military-industrial complex.
Bill Mitchell: "As JKG noted above, progressives are somewhat stuck when they criticise the MIC and the amount of funding it receives from national governments.
Progressives like to think that the MIC expenditure can be simply replaced by spending on hospitals, schools, public transport and the like.
However, as JKG noted, if you reduce the MIC outlays down significantly, there is a huge spending hole that would be hard to fill without expanding the size of the public sector considerably.
I would support that sort of shift.
But, all of that sort of ‘progressive’ expenditure is the type that leads to manic criticism from those with political power, unlike the military outlays which are ‘exempt’ from such criticism.
So the question that progressives have to answer is how can they create the political conditions whereby the public sector expands significantly in its as corporate profits shrink.
And as Biden said in his speech at Lockheed last May, the MIC creates jobs, often in poorer states."
From this, it should be obvious why progressives need to move from an austerity mentality and understand why it is vitally important to understand how government spending can be used to achieve full employment in order to craft solid demilitarization policy.
Steve, given current and recurrent circumstances, is Public Citizen advocating for the elimination of the debt ceiling?
The current debt ceiling legislation are relics of the early 20th century. In the post-Nixon Shock of 1971/Bretton Woods environment, there is no need for a debt ceiling. While some Democrats recognize this, neoliberals/corporatists such as Biden do not and certainly the Republicans are using this as a political tool. Both the Republicans and some Democrats may also use this to push for social spending austerity and privatization. The Gephardt Rule of 1979 somewhat ameliorated the issue, but that rule was repealed in 1995.
I realize pushing for the elimination of the debt ceiling might seem contradictory given the topic of this episode is about a bloated military budget. While I completely agree that the military budget is bloated, the problem with this bloat is not that it risks economic harm to the nation or that it is taking away from social spending. The problem with the military budget is that it enables militarization that is mostly oriented towards benefiting private industry rather than benefiting national and international security and diplomacy. Congress should be pushed to end excessive militarization on those grounds, not on the grounds that the current military budget is taking away from social spending.
As far as I know Public Citizen has no official program or campaign that takes on the issue of the debt ceiling at this time. It is a function of a larger dysfunction with Congress. But here is a link to a letter written by president Rob Weissman from 2011 when the first debacle occurred. https://www.citizen.org/news/by-popular-demand-robert-weissman-debt-ceiling-irrationality/
Steve, points 1-3 made by Weissman in that 2011 letter are very accurate. They apply just as much today, if not more so, than they did in 2011. I really like Weissman's point about the federal government giving states grants for school and library funding.
Point no. 4 is where things are a bit confused. I'm certainly in favor of demilitarization, healthcare reform, and fighting tax avoidance, but the reasons for those positions are not that these reforms would free up funding for social programs. There are very good reasons for taxation, but taxation does not fund federal government spending.
That said, there's been considerable growth in the economic literature since 2011. With that, I'm not going to judge something from 2011 too harshly, but hopefully Public Citizen will use economic knowledge to more aggressively advocate for more social spending. Elimination of the debt ceiling is certainly going to have to be a part of that. I agree that the use of the debt ceiling by Congressional Republicans and Democrats claiming to be 'fiscally responsible' is just theatrics which leads the public to adopt an unnecessary and destructive austerity mindset.
Klassik, I understand that you're coming from a Modern Monetary Theory point of view, but that is not yet the language people speak when they discuss these issues. It's more confusing to try to explain the wonkier, academic idea that taxation does not fund spending than it is to talk about spending priorities no matter where you think the money is coming from. How a society budgets its resources is the leading indicator of what that society thinks is important. That's the issue. And you need to speak the language people understand as primitive as you think that may be.
It doesn't really matter what 'language' people might be familiar with. If it maintains what is a completely factually false idea it is worthless. It is in fact merely prolonging neoliberal framing of the entire discussion. What is the point of that? Taxation not funding spending is not a 'wonky' idea, it is widely understood even in mainstream economics. That it isn't properly addressed in mainstream public policy discussions is the entire problem! It is the duty of every person aiming to inform the public that false information employed to make the public believe certain things - that government could 'overspend and go bankrupt' or that it relies on the private sector for funding and therefore the concept of national debt - is indeed false and not in their interests.
Defaulting to a false narrative in order to make the audience feel 'at home' within a narrative with which it is familiar is surely a mistake. Do we default to religious explanations of the origin of life to placate the misguided notions of religious voters? I would hope not.
"Defaulting to a false narrative in order to make the audience feel 'at home' within a narrative with which it is familiar is surely a mistake."
Ferdy, I agree with this. I think that some people are afraid of correcting themselves if they erroneously said in the past that the national government is funded by taxpayer money. I don't think offering a corrected view of things takes away from credibility. If anything, continuing to offer a misguided view, as you say, is the challenge to credibility. Educating is part of the process when advocating for policy and so we must explain how government spending works when advocating for certain causes which will inevitably require government spending.
Steve, this is an oversimplification, but I think this will show the point I’m wishing to make in response to your point about economic language. In retrospect, I see two very large figures in American society during the 1960s and 1970s who were working towards opposing goals: Ralph Nader fighting to limit corporate power and Milton Friedman fighting to expand corporate power. Friedman was, of course, an academic economist. Friedman was full of balderdash and he clearly had the support of corporate causes. We know this, but at the same time, the American public really wanted to believe that he had a solution to the problems of the time.
This is not to denigrate Mr. Nader’s efforts, past or present, in any form as who knows where we’d be without his tireless productive work. That said, I think it is fair to say that government moved more towards Friedman’s position than Nader’s. Friedman, and other like-minded economists such as Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, and Lawrence Summers, weren’t shadowy figures, they were the faces of the movement. You don’t even want to know how many views Friedman’s videos have on YouTube. The number will surely make you ill.
Long story short, I really don’t understand the progressive aversion towards integrating some empirical economic theory into the policy-making process. Perhaps this might not be obvious in the popular media, but economics does not mean ‘love of free markets’. The public wants to hear about economic theory which will improve conditions for labor, improve the environment, improve healthcare, achieve peace, and so forth. Sound economic theory is on the progressive side. It is up to us to take advantage of that. After all, isn’t it correct that recent RNRH episodes with economists as guests have been popular episodes?
As far as Klassik and MMT goes, the end goals I wish to see in the US are to achieve world-class single-payer healthcare, see a foreign policy shift towards diplomacy and cooperation, improve the environmental condition, and everything else that defines Nader’s Raiders. I also wish to see more power in the hands of the people. The narrower policy goal I wish to see which will lead to these broader end goals is a policy of full employment.
50 years ago, when Mr. Nader’s advocacy had immense public support, labor was only just starting to see the US policy shift from full employment goals towards Friedman’s inane ‘natural rate’ of unemployment that suppressed labor. This is on top of deregulation, globalization, and anti-union sentiments which all weakened labor. This means that labor is clinging even harder to whatever decent paying jobs there are and a pretty decent chunk of these are in militarization and other environmentally-destructive fields. Many of the decent jobs are in the healthcare industry. Those who are clinging to careers are less likely to vote for reform that might further reduce labor unless there is a clear plan to expand opportunities for labor along with the reforms. I’m sure this decay in labor has hampered Mr. Nader’s ability to advocate for decorportization.
You and David are the comedy insiders here, but I believe it was George Carlin who had a popular bit saying that people would endure any number of militarization/environmental hazards if it meant more jobs in their communities. For people desperate for career opportunities, this is a harsh truth, isn’t it?
As much as we talk about the corruptible power of corporate donations in politics, the reality is that all military contractors and Pentagon officials have to tell members of Congress is that they will not win re-election if their actions lead to job losses in their districts. Of course, the military contractors will spend money to propagate this point in a way that corporate interests don’t when deregulation leads to job losses, but there is truth to that job loss problem just as there is truth to Carlin’s point.
Mr. Nader might be familiar with this, but back in the 1960s when government commissions produced some good work, the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress presented a report to President Johnson and Congress titled ‘Technology and the American Economy’. Link: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023803.pdf
Page 9 of the report (page 21 in the PDF) made the following point related to technology and labor: “The basic fact is that technology eliminates jobs, not work. It is the continuous obligation of economic policy to match increases in productive potential with increases in purchasing power and demand. Otherwise the potential created by technical progress runs to waste in idle capacity, unemployment, and deprivation.”
The context of the report is technology, but this is applicable to progressive reforms of healthcare, the military, energy, and so forth. It is up to the government to purchase idle/underemployed labor for the sake of work that still needs to be done given the new paradigm as job loss does not mean work loss. An austerity mentality will make this difficult, but an economically informed mentality shows how the national government with their sovereign currency can make this a possibility.
In short, this is not an exercise in theoretical economics. The public wants full employment probably above all else. Of course, full employment does not mean underemployment. They also want to see healthcare and environmental reform. It is the ability to achieve full employment which enables the public to support the policy changes we wish to see. With full employment, we might be able to see privatized military industrial jobs, and the subsequent privatized bloat, replaced by, say, public institutions which develop military, medical, or green energy technology depending on national and international need. The green and medical technology can be transferred and co-developed with the developing world in order to improve their economy and general conditions. This is opposed to the current model of crippling the developing world with foreign debt.
In the 1970s, the American public hoped that Milton Friedman had the answer to solve the economic woes facing citizens. Perhaps it is time progressives presented a more viable labor-focused economic plan...one that empirically criticizes the many flaws and inaccuracies in Friedman’s corporatist/neoliberal ideas given that we, unfortunately, have 40+ years of it to judge. I think the public will be more open to this than what is assumed by many progressives.
I recommend you read the paper "Back to Work" by Philip Harvey, published in 2011 by Demos. PDF Page 5 and 13 answer what are the advantages of direct job creation, and what types of work would be delivered. Also Robert Pollin has created papers dealing with unemployment in the coal industry. I'd guess the National Jobs for All Network has other studies relevant to public employment. Marshall Auerbach published an article "The Real Lesson of the Great Depression -- Fiscal Policy Works", and sites a study showing that unemployment rate dropped from 25% to 9.6% between 1933 and 1937. The NJFAN also published the book "When Government Helped". There's a lot of forgotten history. I'm about to post another comment here at RNRH, this one about the Ukraine war issue.
"I recommend you read the paper "Back to Work" by Philip Harvey, published in 2011 by Demos."
If I remember correctly, Harvey is a proponent of what is often called in current economic literature as a 'job guarantee'. The job guarantee is an excellent policy proposal once government realizes their ability to spend. I do believe that a job guarantee, combined with other labor reforms to ensure full employment, is a great way to to achieve progressive goals of demilitarization, healthcare reform, and reduced dependence of fossil fuels.
I hear what you are saying klassik, BUT. You don't demonstrate you understand how much money is being siphoned off via corporate wealth-hoarding, which I urge you to study (quarterly profits reports and shareholder pay-outs) acroass big pharma, corporate medicine, and insurance industry.
Once clarified that this MASSIVE amount of money doesn't mysteriously 'disappear,' then it is more easily understood that raising taxes is NOT a necessary component in any way. That is to say, if the medical model is nationalized - as 70-80% of the general welfare expresses they want - that same amount of money currently going into profiteers' off-shore accounts [REMOVED FROM OUR ECONOMY], is channeled DIRECTLY BACK into patient care. Once more, if an uncorrupted government takes over healthcare, nobody loses their job (if CEOs agree to transform job title to government employee and work for standard salaries, instead of $30,000/hr); citizens needn't pay more taxes, because there are no more billionaires or shareholders with their payroll slashing schemes to maximize profits. We would, in fact, merely be returning healthcare (with an emphasis on book-keeping) back into a NON-profit model - and do away with privatized and commodified healthcare. As Mr. Nader and his cohorts suggest, a noncorrupted government would make healthcare a HUMAN RIGHT.
Susan, I am fully aware of the inefficiency of the current privatized US healthcare system and I assure you that I wish to see it completely reformed. The issue is how to achieve that policy goal.
If healthcare workers, and workers indirectly associated with healthcare, believe that their jobs are at risk, they are not as likely to vote for and promote healthcare reform. Yes, insurance and privatized hospital executives might see reform as a risk, but so might regular wage workers at these companies. On top of that, there are people employed by clinics as insurance coding experts and people working in HR departments as benefits counselors who very well might see reform as something which might cost them their jobs. Those are just to name two examples.
The good news is that there are things the national government can do to ensure that workers retain their jobs and salaries while transitioning to new jobs. For some, the transition will be a very easy one. For others, such as for insurance coding experts, they may have to find new careers. Government can help by providing education/training while guaranteeing a job.
Politically, this is all necessary to gain the voting support of people in the healthcare field. Thus, policy must clearly address the employment needs of healthcare and related workers. Those of us advocating for healthcare reform must make it abundantly clear how reform accounts for the needs of labor. Labor must be made a central part of any healthcare reform and the same is true for environmental reform and military industrial reform as I mentioned earlier.
There are many labor reforms which are needed in the US even aside from ones mentioned above. The current neoliberal labor agenda used by corporate politicians emphasizes reducing the power of labor in order to reduce wages. Full employment is not a goal as structural unemployment reduces wages. This is not a good thing and we must demand better.
Here again, this might require government spending to resolve some of these issues, but the public should not be allergic to this. Since national government spending does not come from tax revenue, no matter what monetarists might say to the contrary, this spending will not lead to tax increases on the majority of the population. It will not lead to inflation, bankruptcy of the nation, or other nonsense which is claimed by corporate interests in order to expand privatization of government and social spending austerity. Increased government spending on social services, if it is not privatized at least, should be a celebrated thing and not something which is feared. Unfortunately, this can only be celebrated once people break free from the monetarist myths which prevail even in progressive circles.
Thanks for replying. I maintain, mis-directs need to be reframed accurately. So that, responding to 'debate' based on an erroneous premise has the feel of a fool's errand. Guess for now, we'll agree to disagree. I value the work you fellows do.
I almost started "with all due respect," but had a change of heart, because it appears your position is to uphold the false impression that a handful of coding agents are calling the shots to block a nationalized healthcare system. While I am under the impression, based on factual evidence, that a handful of pharma/insurance/corporate med LOBBYISTS are PAYING to block it and exert COMPLETE control over every decision coming out of Washington DC - against the will of the people, where reportedly up to 80% of tax-paying citizens favor a nationalized system....That the fundamental problem in achieving it is a corrupt government with their hands down corporate pants, paid-off government officials paid to favor profits over people, ever increasing taxation without representation (because those same lobbyists also write the legislation that barely tax morbidly rich, OVER-represented corporate-persons), gerrymandered districts ("necessary" BECAUSE it's the ONLY means to thwart the will of the true majority), and masters of mis-direction who steadfastly, ever so subtly or blatantly purchasing control over media, to convince themselves that it must be because enough people didn't show up to vote *against corporate control.*
And Pharma and its lackeys have been pushing hard to maximize their profits in every way conceivable, they say it is their fiduciary duty! Blackrock and the other hedge funds are 100% in on the frauds and perpetating the sick care system. Sadly I have seen many nursing homes go up, 5 floors, huge facilities, sick care is devastating people's lives.
Yes, there will be insurance industry propaganda if healthcare reform is ever seriously on the agenda again. That said, individuals will not want to lose their jobs or feel any sense of job insecurity. The insurance industry propaganda will play to that, but it is an issue even without propaganda. How many people do you know who would gladly accept job loss? How many people do you know who would gladly vote for the cessation of a field that they went to community college for just to enter that field?
The number of employees affected by healthcare reform is more than just a few. For one, there are all the employees employed by the insurance industry. Insurance industry employees may not receive much sympathy, but these people are mostly regular wage earners and are just looking for stable employment. It is hard to fault our neighbors for such employment. Beyond that, it is our problem as a society if these neighbors become unemployed without any governmental plan or process to guarantee employment.
In addition to those working in the insurance industry and those working for doctors/clinics as coding experts, there are those working in all kinds of organizations as HR staff dealing with insurance matters. Presumably, healthcare professionals such as nurses and doctors will not be as affected, but doctors will be concerned about their compensation if private insurance does not exist. One of the inefficiencies of private insurance is that it does allow for excessive billing by clinics. For this reason, I believe the American Medical Association, the professional group representing physicians, has strongly lobbied against single-payer healthcare.
The AMA’s lobbying in favor of inflated prices for healthcare is, of course, terrible. There’s much that can and should be said about that. Perhaps a future guest on the RNRH can address the issue of the AMA lobbying against healthcare reform.
Back to the topic of ordinary wage earners. These citizens need not feel threatened by healthcare reform. There are many things the government can do to ensure their employment and wages while there is a transition. It will require government, and the electorate, to move past an austerity mindset in terms of government spending on social matters. Will that assuage everyone when they vote? Probably not, but it’ll give at least some people more confidence that single-payer will not harm employment. That might be the difference between progressive candidates, real progressives who push for healthcare reform, winning and losing.
With regard to the conflict in Ukraine and the bloated military budget, the Biden administration and Congress are out of touch with ordinary Americans. Some members of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus stuck their toes in the water, and quickly pulled back. Outside of the government, there are anti-war voices (Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern, Marcy Winograd, Laurence Wilkerson, etc.). Is there one member of Congress with moral courage willing to stand up and say we need to change course--instead of sending more weapons, we need negotiations and diplomacy to bring an end to this conflict?
"Is there one member of Congress with moral courage willing to stand up and say we need to change course--instead of sending more weapons, we need negotiations and diplomacy to bring an end to this conflict?"
Elizabeth, to answer the above question, I’m afraid the answer is probably not. I’m not sure if you saw this back around August 2022 or so, but did you see the reaction in the UK when Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, made comments essentially saying that what was needed in Ukraine was more diplomacy and less arms or else Ukraine will become infested with war for years to come?
Corbyn was strongly condemned by the now-dominant corporate Blairite wing of the Labour Party. This is, of course, the same ‘New Labour’ faction led by Tony Blair that strongly supported and aided George W. Bush’s Iraq War. Moreover, Corbyn was lambasted by the British corporate media. Corbyn still has his supporters in the British public, but he is now on the political fringe merely for standing up for peace and diplomacy. Granted, the denunciation of Corbyn by corporate ‘centrists’ had already started long before Ukraine because Corbyn questioned British support of Israeli war hawks.
Now, it should be stated that the sensitivity to Ukraine is higher in the UK/Europe than it is here in the US at the current time. Day-to-day life for American citizens is not materially harmed by the situation in Ukraine. Yes, there was the spike in energy costs last year, but things are returning to ‘normal’ now. This is not quite the case in Europe. The response by pro-US European governments is to strengthen their propaganda campaign regarding Ukraine. Ukraine continues to top newspapers and news websites there. Here, Ukraine has become more of a secondary story...if that even. For better or for worse, the weakened propaganda for the war here, at least relative to Europe, is probably a sign that the Ukraine situation has a similar status here as many of the other ‘forever wars’ the US is engaged in in the Middle East and so forth.
With that, a US politician with a good sense of what’s happening is probably in a better position to make a statement about the war than someone in Europe , but anyone doing so here will certainly be vilified by corporate Democrats even if the level of vilification might be a bit less than what Corbyn faced. With the media acting as State Department puppets, support for the war, like all wars, is popular until there is that tangible material harm mentioned earlier. Body bags containing US soldiers coming from Vietnam and Iraq, for example, did a lot to change the tenor of those wars. That won’t happen with Ukraine since the US is using Ukrainians as their soldiers and most Americans, or Europeans for that matter, just don’t care about Ukrainians no matter how much they may waive flags or whatever.
Republicans who are against just about anything President Biden does may start questioning the war more loudly as we get closer to the 2024 elections. That might be something to keep an eye on. I would be wary of any Republican politician who seemingly takes an anti-war stance as they are probably hawks, as Col. Wilkerson alluded to, but it might be worth engaging Republican-leaning voters who oppose the war. I’ve already met some. Many of these Republican-leaning voters view the war as a matter of corruption and are suspicious of Biden’s past business ties to Ukraine. My experience here in Houston is that a progressive willing to discuss corruption may get an opportunity to do so with a Republican-leaning voter if they willing to discuss corruption, or at least the chance of corruption, committed by corporate Democrats. If nothing else, this type of citizen diplomacy does open doors at least a little bit.
Medea, Ralph, Wilkerson.... They are carrying water for putin bthe Fascist thug. They repeat the same fascist propaganda about Nato, Nazis, etc. The Eastern block nations joined Nato because their colonial history proves they can't trust russia. Ukraine is fighting for its existence and deserve all the material support we can give them. Nader shoulde stick to discussing insurance rates and such. In international affairs, he is way out if his field. Long live a free Ukraine,Tibet,, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
"Waging peace" suggests William James. Could you find a James scholar to develop the idea?
I have waited months to hear Wilkerson's analysis. Thank you. Negotiation is needed, not more belligerence. I watch the YouTube presentations by a retired military person, Douglas MacGregor, who maintains that Russia will win, the question is how many will have to die. He was a commander of a tank brigade in the 2003 Iraq war. Very quickly Wilkerson mentioned that total annual spending for the military was either $1.6 trillion or $2 trillion, not $0.858 trillion. The $1.6 trillion figure I first read in an article by James Cypher at the Monthly Review (he has another article at Union for Radical Political Economists). And The Nation magazine publishes a $1.25 trillion figure in articles by Smithberger and Hartung, neatly laid out item by item. The military budget, officially at $0.858 trillion or 15% of federal spending, is more accurately either 22% of federal spending (with military spending at 1.25 trillion), or 28%, or 34% -- not 15% (which is $858 billion divided by $4.792 trillion for 2023). Roughly speaking it's around 25% of all federal spending. It's a lot, and too much. The national income, taken from the Joint Committee on Taxation, was $18.7 trillion in 2022 (Overview, page 36), therefore we spend 7% to 10% of all income on the military. We could spend about $0.3 to $0.4 trillion an do just fine -- we could reduce military spending by 2/3rds to 3/4ths. It is a weird insanity. Wilkerson failed to mention as fear-inducing instigators of the Ukraine war the U.S. missiles placed in Poland and Rumania, possibly other nations, that are pointed at Moscow. Where is the peace movement? The military veterans need more support, need to be replaced by vocal widespread protest.
Thank you so much for this wonderful interview. Please do consider inviting environmental lawyer and former water regulator in NJ Michael Diamond to add to the discussion. His latest article proposes that there be civil action against the executive and congressional branches of government for breaching their constitutional duty to protect the American people, and that there is legal precedent for such an action in Marbury v Madison (1803). https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/12/23/the-mandate-to-end-war-in-ukraine/ He also has fascinating ideas about how to combat large scale environmental crimes through the use of the domestic violence clause, and the use of district attorneys or county prosecutors and grand juries. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/02/18/ending-corporate-tyranny-solutions-to-the-plague-that-afflicts-us-all/ I think a discussion between the two public advocates would be fascinating and enlightening.
Politics on this topic and attacks on DeSantis? Why not be more inclusive and not attack US Senators, Representatives and Governors on the supposition that the Dems are somehow better than the GOP.
At least if Trump were still President there would have been no Ukraine war and diplomatic solutions would have been more likely. At least Maga was about focusing on US issues as hypocritical as it was.
And you are apparently out to lunch on how damaging and unhealthy the "vaccines" are which are still under the corrupt "emergency" where people cannot sue for the injuries and deaths. Please do proper research; it is crystal clear that the last few years have been a corporatist and kleptocrat's dream scenario with hideous censorship and power grabs. And that all started with Trump and Alex Azar and his other power players.
what is the evidence for the 10,000 deaths a day--is a nuclear option part of the calculation?
As a member of Veterans for Peace, I want to suggest to everyone, like me, you don't have to be a Veteran to join this terrific organization. For Colonel Wilkerson and everyone my question is do you agree or disagree that Tulsi Gabbard (who quit the Democratic Party) would be a great Peace Candidate for President in 2024? #Tulsi2024
Tulsi is a Russian asset and religious nut
Col. Wilkerson makes many sage points in this episode of the RNRH, but I want to highlight one point he made towards the end of the radio part of the program. Wilkerson is exactly right when he says that the Republicans advocating for reductions to the military budget are the Republicans who at least want to project themselves as being small government, tax-averse politicians. At the same time, these politicians are often foreign policy hawks. Confront one of these politicians about US support for Israel, to name one thing, and their small government, monetarist convictions will fall apart very quickly.
From a policy perspective, what we see from the majority of our national Republican and Democratic Party politicians is the marriage of neoconservative and neoliberal political thought. When it comes to empire building and an expansion of opportunity for commercial interests, the monetarist economic beliefs of the neoliberals are ignored in favor of neoconservative goals. This is to say that there is little concern for spending limits in expanding militarization. While this goes against the austerity beliefs of the neoliberals, just about everything else is aligned with neoliberalism including the privatization of government (use of government contractors, etc.). Both parties are generally very happy with this marriage. Neoconservatives see fruitful gains in their empire building and neoliberals see an expansion of privatized business opportunities.
I’m thinking there will be some conflict within this marriage when it comes to China. On the one hand, while China’s economy is largely liberalized, the Chinese state funding and protectionism which remains rankles western neoliberals. Some probably want to see regime change in order to expand economic liberalism in China, which excites the hawks, but others (rightfully) see this as an impossible goal. Even if it is viewed as possible, military action against China will likely shatter globalism, at least for a number of years, and certain neoliberals do not want to see that. Neoconservatives might see China’s growing influence in forming relationships with developing nations and this might weaken organizations which ensure the US’s dominance such as the IMF. It may also make resource extraction difficult for the US/west which will give Chinese industry a distinct advantage. It would be interesting to get Col. Wilkerson’s thoughts on this potential source of ‘marital difficulties’.
Wilkerson is correct in saying that France and Germany are not excited about the increased militarization against China. These countries wish to expand business ties with China to fuel their export economies, but these countries are in a subservient position with the US and they will ultimately support US policy no matter how destructive it might be to them. Beyond that, both countries are rather hypocritical if they speak against militarization since both, especially France, have no problem with militarization when they are able to sell weapons, subs, military aircraft, and so forth. US arms deals, such as the AUKUS deal for subs with Australia, may have infuriated France, but it was only because France thought they were going to sell subs to Australia when the US and UK stepped in and snatched that business deal away from them.
Anyway, while the Republicans and Democrats have no trouble spending for empire building and for the benefit of private business interests, social spending continues to be mostly verboten. Austerity principles of neoliberalism only seem to apply to spending which benefits the citizens, not spending which benefits corporate interests. While progressives might be vaguely familiar with this contradiction, they seem to struggle to understand that the same economic principles which makes current military spending possible also make social spending possible. Single-payer healthcare? Nationalizing and reducing the fossil fuel and military industries? It is all possible if the public ignores the false monetarist claims of the neoliberals that the federal government has a very constrained ability to spend without causing hyperinflation, ‘bankruptcy’ of the country, and other implausible nonsense that obviously has not occurred from the abundance of military spending and corporate welfare.
Has anyone questioned these economic contradictions when Republicans and Democrats support seemingly unlimited funding for militarization and such when they are so unwilling to spend for the benefit of society because of claims of ‘financial responsibility’?
Why is the mp3 dl not working? I get the error "No video with supported format and mime type found." I've never had that problem before.
I just tried dl'ing a previous episode (which I'd already heard) and it worked as usual.
Please Folks
This is just a Technical Help note-- all past RNR Hour i can easily download as MP3 to my desktop &
listen without (sometimes) internet interrupts/bad connections on my end. However, with newest episode "Inst Insanity" I cannot complete the MP3 process -- is this perhaps Substack not allowing?
I can direct listen on my computer here BUT i want to create the MP3 as well.
I'm ole analogue type and so appreciates your patience with my issue. \Listen On---- Download either Substack or MP3 choice BUT if I choose MP3 directs me to a unsavable Substack type connection
looks like this:
https://api.substack.com/api/v1/audio/upload/2b2ad9b3-2791-45c0-b05f-97ceb7996bef/src?token=09ce4fb1-b940-483a-8588-4a2b299c0910&download=true
Tim
Re: Healthcare "employment cuts" garbage......when the privatized, for-profiteers insurance/corporate medical industries ARE STOPPED from siphoning trillions into their own pockets, there will be MORE cash available than EVER before pouring back into abundantly STAFFING healthcare. That guy's comment should never have been aired or addressed. Has NOTHING to do with redistribution of workers, and EVERYTHING to do with redistribution of monies to the where it belongs. Shame on steve, dave, ralph for falling asleep at the wheel on that one. Further, why not round up some statistics on how CORPORATE medicine model arrives at their payroll "efficiencies" (of commodifying our health) - - i.e. what percentage of their slashed workforce LOST THEIR JOBS at the onslaught, to squeeze every drop of profit into shareholder portfolios - - and drive over-worked remaining staff to exhaustion & on the brink of strikes (that biden will resolve by favoring corporations as he did in the rail industry recently).
We answered that question with eyes wide open, because that's what a lot of people think and it is certainly what the health insurance companies put out there when they are threatened. We felt it needed to be addressed and addressed forcefully, put to bed once and for all. In fact, I would recommend you refer people - who are not as enlightened as you are - to Ralph's answer. The transcript will post in the next few days. Thanks for listening and commenting! Steve
Susan and Steve, I’m glad that Andrew’s question was aired. I don’t agree with Andrew’s assertion. I believe Mr. Nader had an appropriate response to Andrew’s comment. That said, as I’ve mentioned in the comments here at the RNRH website before in previous episodes, there are many people who work in, or have family who works in, the fossil fuel and military-industrial industries who are sympathetic towards environmental and peace causes. Living in Houston, I see it myself with petrochemical refinery employees. Many of these people are blue-collar workers, racial/ethnic minorities, and are most harmed by the pollution and industrial accidents from the chemical plants here. They may hate many things about the Republican and Democratic Parties, but even with this, they will not vote against the oil industry because they don’t see any alternative for well-paying, stable employment especially given modern globalist economic policies. Here in Texas, especially this part of Texas, these workers are enough to swing elections.
Of course, the same is true with healthcare industry workers. A nurse or insurance coding specialist who went back to school in their 30s while raising a family, just to name one common circumstance, is going to be sensitive to the potential for losing their job, having to relocate, having to go back to school while raising a family, and so forth. I’m sure many healthcare workers see the need for healthcare reform. They have a front row seat to the problems of American healthcare, but like many American workers, they don’t have the resources to deal with a disruption in employment.
Progressives have often made the labor side of energy, military, and healthcare reform a secondary issue. Well, that is if progressives have even addressed it at all. In fact, I sense a rather large gulf between progressives and modern labor. This is a big, big problem, but it really doesn’t have to be a problem if we understand economics and have some compassion for labor. In addition to compassion, progressives, and I consider myself a progressive, must understand that labor from these industries represent a significant group of voters. When we talk to the public, we must present an informed policy plan which accounts for what happens to people working in these industries. Just saying that workers will be accounted for without presenting an informed and tangible plan will not be taken seriously by the public.
To Susan’s point about redistribution, there is no need for redistribution of anything to fund very comprehensive public healthcare. The US national government can fund world-leading single-payer, or even single-provider, healthcare for all Americans, rural or urban, without cutting funding from anything else. Along those same lines, the US government can fund a transition for healthcare workers such that there is as little disruption as possible for them. How to best achieve this will require some discussion, but is anyone even having these discussions?
I think there are some policy goals which should have broad support. Those needing to go back to school to learn new skills should be able to do so while receiving child care. Employers, and it may have to be the government as the employer to some degree, will need to provide training to employees and not just count on people leaving the workforce for a year or two while going back to school. Employment for essential healthcare workers, and other laborers, should be guaranteed at salaries at least as high as what they are making now. Of course, this would be easier to do with a single-provider healthcare system.
If Susan, or anyone else, is not sure how this is economically feasible, I can provide many resources which discuss these matters further. Just to summarize, we must all formulate and present policy which accounts for the needs of labor when we advocate for reform. Without labor’s vote, we’re never going to see much reform. Of course, the policies we present must be informed by proper economic theory, but this theory exists so this need not be a hindrance.
As I heard Mr. Nader, he did mention briefly that more money would be available for staffing healthcare since more people would have healthcare under a Medicare for All plan. The demand would go up, hence the need for more staff.
Paul, there will be more need for medical professionals if healthcare is expanded as it should. While this may allay the fears of some healthcare professionals, it won’t do much to allay the fears held by those working for insurance companies and other insurance-related fields such as insurance coding experts.
Even when looking at the medical professionals, many doctors and nurses already feel overworked as it is. While many would probably love to see healthcare expanded, they may also fear their overburdened schedules will become even more overburdened. It is a legitimate issue and that is why any sort of healthcare reform must also contain additional funding for more healthcare staff hiring, if possible, and the development of new healthcare workers without poaching the developing world of their healthcare workers just to fill our needs. Money needs to go to schools to improve STEM education and money also needs to go to community colleges and universities to help them develop more nurses and doctors. Money must also go towards new public health facilities especially in undeserved cities and rural areas.
Policy must account for this and this policy must be communicated to the public. It can’t just be something briefly and vaguely mentioned or else people won’t take it seriously. There will be those who wrongly say that such funding won’t be possible or won’t be possible without raising taxes. We need to be educated to counter those claims because it really is balderdash.
It is my contention that a big reason why we (progressives) cannot achieve the policy we want is because we don’t even know how to discuss this policy. We have a lot of work to do in this regard.
My take on this is that there is already PLENTY of money in the system. It’s simply being put in the wrong bucket. Move that money out of the hands of the greedy bosses and shareholders and into the hands of the folks who provide direct care. With the money you save by elimination of the fraud, waste and abuse now in the system, I imagine we could accomplish much. No additional funding needed.
Paul, I agree with the concept that the privatized healthcare system, whether funded by Medicare or via private insurance, is terribly inefficient financially. In many cases, the debt burden is shifted to the individual rather than the national government who does not really have a debt burden the way an individual or business would. There is a lot of truth to that and that must be stated when pushing for reform.
That said, in order to achieve high-quality healthcare for all US citizens, there will need to be public organization of clinics and possibly of healthcare professionals. We can choose the privatized approach, which has already been dismissed above, or we can choose a public approach. The public approach, if funded by the US national government, is the best approach economically.
This may or may not require more funding than what is already put into healthcare with the current inefficient privatized system. Regardless, the same monetarists who (wrongly) argue that privatized healthcare is more efficient than public healthcare are the same monetarists who (wrongly) say that any public spending will lead to inflation, bankruptcy of the nation, and other economic maladies. This is not true and policy must state that or else the public, who believe monetarist myths since that is what is promoted in schools and the media, will be wary of reform.
We must remember that the goal of healthcare reform is not just to expand healthcare, but also to improve public health. If people in small towns and cities cannot get good healthcare in their areas, having health insurance won't be of much use. Policy must account for the needs of all Americans. Expanding access to doctors will not be of much use if patients cannot get access to medications. There are numerous policies which can be implemented to reduce the cost of medication, but for some, any cost is a high cost and so there needs to be comprehensive drug coverage as well. Funding needs to be made available to make health/science education better and more accessible so we have more medical professionals and better trained medical professionals.
This may require more funding. Regardless, if progressives understand economic theory, they can use economic theory, which absolutely can be on the side of progressives, to promote policy rather than progressives having to defend against the myths of monetarism. The reality is, as things are, many progressives aren't even in a position in terms of economic knowledge to even be on the defensive against the faulty arguments for privatization and austerity. We must do better or nothing will be achieved. We already see where healthcare reform efforts have broken down.
Good point.
What recently happened in the House with the selection of speaker being derailed by a small handful of extreme MAGA Republicans is quite interesting. A small group of elected officials pried numerous, onerous concessions from the majority. What if an equally small group of progressives followed their example and pried concessions from the corporate democratic leadership? Ralph keeps saying, "it's easier than you think." So, come on progressives. Stick it to those corporate dems.
Excellent summary Mr. Wilson.
Yes, agreed. It's your word "briefly" that bothers me the most. Peace and love in the troubling times ahead.
The Australian economist and progressive Bill Mitchell wrote a timely blog post today about what the US would need to do economically to achieve demilitarization without harming employment. Mitchell's commentary, while a bit long, is simple reading even for those without an economic background. I'll copy and paste the relevant summary of Mitchell's commentary that Mitchell wrote in his blog post.
For reference, 'JKG' in the text refers to John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist Mr. Nader who has been spoken about glowingly in the past (for reference, refer to Mr. Nader's commentary 'Galbraith – A Public-Spirited Economist'). Galbraith was a proponent, as am I, of nationalizing the US military industry. 'MIC' is the military-industrial complex.
Bill Mitchell: "As JKG noted above, progressives are somewhat stuck when they criticise the MIC and the amount of funding it receives from national governments.
Progressives like to think that the MIC expenditure can be simply replaced by spending on hospitals, schools, public transport and the like.
However, as JKG noted, if you reduce the MIC outlays down significantly, there is a huge spending hole that would be hard to fill without expanding the size of the public sector considerably.
I would support that sort of shift.
But, all of that sort of ‘progressive’ expenditure is the type that leads to manic criticism from those with political power, unlike the military outlays which are ‘exempt’ from such criticism.
So the question that progressives have to answer is how can they create the political conditions whereby the public sector expands significantly in its as corporate profits shrink.
And as Biden said in his speech at Lockheed last May, the MIC creates jobs, often in poorer states."
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=51170
From this, it should be obvious why progressives need to move from an austerity mentality and understand why it is vitally important to understand how government spending can be used to achieve full employment in order to craft solid demilitarization policy.
Steve, given current and recurrent circumstances, is Public Citizen advocating for the elimination of the debt ceiling?
The current debt ceiling legislation are relics of the early 20th century. In the post-Nixon Shock of 1971/Bretton Woods environment, there is no need for a debt ceiling. While some Democrats recognize this, neoliberals/corporatists such as Biden do not and certainly the Republicans are using this as a political tool. Both the Republicans and some Democrats may also use this to push for social spending austerity and privatization. The Gephardt Rule of 1979 somewhat ameliorated the issue, but that rule was repealed in 1995.
I realize pushing for the elimination of the debt ceiling might seem contradictory given the topic of this episode is about a bloated military budget. While I completely agree that the military budget is bloated, the problem with this bloat is not that it risks economic harm to the nation or that it is taking away from social spending. The problem with the military budget is that it enables militarization that is mostly oriented towards benefiting private industry rather than benefiting national and international security and diplomacy. Congress should be pushed to end excessive militarization on those grounds, not on the grounds that the current military budget is taking away from social spending.
As far as I know Public Citizen has no official program or campaign that takes on the issue of the debt ceiling at this time. It is a function of a larger dysfunction with Congress. But here is a link to a letter written by president Rob Weissman from 2011 when the first debacle occurred. https://www.citizen.org/news/by-popular-demand-robert-weissman-debt-ceiling-irrationality/
Steve, points 1-3 made by Weissman in that 2011 letter are very accurate. They apply just as much today, if not more so, than they did in 2011. I really like Weissman's point about the federal government giving states grants for school and library funding.
Point no. 4 is where things are a bit confused. I'm certainly in favor of demilitarization, healthcare reform, and fighting tax avoidance, but the reasons for those positions are not that these reforms would free up funding for social programs. There are very good reasons for taxation, but taxation does not fund federal government spending.
That said, there's been considerable growth in the economic literature since 2011. With that, I'm not going to judge something from 2011 too harshly, but hopefully Public Citizen will use economic knowledge to more aggressively advocate for more social spending. Elimination of the debt ceiling is certainly going to have to be a part of that. I agree that the use of the debt ceiling by Congressional Republicans and Democrats claiming to be 'fiscally responsible' is just theatrics which leads the public to adopt an unnecessary and destructive austerity mindset.
Klassik, I understand that you're coming from a Modern Monetary Theory point of view, but that is not yet the language people speak when they discuss these issues. It's more confusing to try to explain the wonkier, academic idea that taxation does not fund spending than it is to talk about spending priorities no matter where you think the money is coming from. How a society budgets its resources is the leading indicator of what that society thinks is important. That's the issue. And you need to speak the language people understand as primitive as you think that may be.
It doesn't really matter what 'language' people might be familiar with. If it maintains what is a completely factually false idea it is worthless. It is in fact merely prolonging neoliberal framing of the entire discussion. What is the point of that? Taxation not funding spending is not a 'wonky' idea, it is widely understood even in mainstream economics. That it isn't properly addressed in mainstream public policy discussions is the entire problem! It is the duty of every person aiming to inform the public that false information employed to make the public believe certain things - that government could 'overspend and go bankrupt' or that it relies on the private sector for funding and therefore the concept of national debt - is indeed false and not in their interests.
Defaulting to a false narrative in order to make the audience feel 'at home' within a narrative with which it is familiar is surely a mistake. Do we default to religious explanations of the origin of life to placate the misguided notions of religious voters? I would hope not.
"Defaulting to a false narrative in order to make the audience feel 'at home' within a narrative with which it is familiar is surely a mistake."
Ferdy, I agree with this. I think that some people are afraid of correcting themselves if they erroneously said in the past that the national government is funded by taxpayer money. I don't think offering a corrected view of things takes away from credibility. If anything, continuing to offer a misguided view, as you say, is the challenge to credibility. Educating is part of the process when advocating for policy and so we must explain how government spending works when advocating for certain causes which will inevitably require government spending.
Steve, this is an oversimplification, but I think this will show the point I’m wishing to make in response to your point about economic language. In retrospect, I see two very large figures in American society during the 1960s and 1970s who were working towards opposing goals: Ralph Nader fighting to limit corporate power and Milton Friedman fighting to expand corporate power. Friedman was, of course, an academic economist. Friedman was full of balderdash and he clearly had the support of corporate causes. We know this, but at the same time, the American public really wanted to believe that he had a solution to the problems of the time.
This is not to denigrate Mr. Nader’s efforts, past or present, in any form as who knows where we’d be without his tireless productive work. That said, I think it is fair to say that government moved more towards Friedman’s position than Nader’s. Friedman, and other like-minded economists such as Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, and Lawrence Summers, weren’t shadowy figures, they were the faces of the movement. You don’t even want to know how many views Friedman’s videos have on YouTube. The number will surely make you ill.
Long story short, I really don’t understand the progressive aversion towards integrating some empirical economic theory into the policy-making process. Perhaps this might not be obvious in the popular media, but economics does not mean ‘love of free markets’. The public wants to hear about economic theory which will improve conditions for labor, improve the environment, improve healthcare, achieve peace, and so forth. Sound economic theory is on the progressive side. It is up to us to take advantage of that. After all, isn’t it correct that recent RNRH episodes with economists as guests have been popular episodes?
As far as Klassik and MMT goes, the end goals I wish to see in the US are to achieve world-class single-payer healthcare, see a foreign policy shift towards diplomacy and cooperation, improve the environmental condition, and everything else that defines Nader’s Raiders. I also wish to see more power in the hands of the people. The narrower policy goal I wish to see which will lead to these broader end goals is a policy of full employment.
50 years ago, when Mr. Nader’s advocacy had immense public support, labor was only just starting to see the US policy shift from full employment goals towards Friedman’s inane ‘natural rate’ of unemployment that suppressed labor. This is on top of deregulation, globalization, and anti-union sentiments which all weakened labor. This means that labor is clinging even harder to whatever decent paying jobs there are and a pretty decent chunk of these are in militarization and other environmentally-destructive fields. Many of the decent jobs are in the healthcare industry. Those who are clinging to careers are less likely to vote for reform that might further reduce labor unless there is a clear plan to expand opportunities for labor along with the reforms. I’m sure this decay in labor has hampered Mr. Nader’s ability to advocate for decorportization.
You and David are the comedy insiders here, but I believe it was George Carlin who had a popular bit saying that people would endure any number of militarization/environmental hazards if it meant more jobs in their communities. For people desperate for career opportunities, this is a harsh truth, isn’t it?
As much as we talk about the corruptible power of corporate donations in politics, the reality is that all military contractors and Pentagon officials have to tell members of Congress is that they will not win re-election if their actions lead to job losses in their districts. Of course, the military contractors will spend money to propagate this point in a way that corporate interests don’t when deregulation leads to job losses, but there is truth to that job loss problem just as there is truth to Carlin’s point.
Mr. Nader might be familiar with this, but back in the 1960s when government commissions produced some good work, the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress presented a report to President Johnson and Congress titled ‘Technology and the American Economy’. Link: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023803.pdf
Page 9 of the report (page 21 in the PDF) made the following point related to technology and labor: “The basic fact is that technology eliminates jobs, not work. It is the continuous obligation of economic policy to match increases in productive potential with increases in purchasing power and demand. Otherwise the potential created by technical progress runs to waste in idle capacity, unemployment, and deprivation.”
The context of the report is technology, but this is applicable to progressive reforms of healthcare, the military, energy, and so forth. It is up to the government to purchase idle/underemployed labor for the sake of work that still needs to be done given the new paradigm as job loss does not mean work loss. An austerity mentality will make this difficult, but an economically informed mentality shows how the national government with their sovereign currency can make this a possibility.
In short, this is not an exercise in theoretical economics. The public wants full employment probably above all else. Of course, full employment does not mean underemployment. They also want to see healthcare and environmental reform. It is the ability to achieve full employment which enables the public to support the policy changes we wish to see. With full employment, we might be able to see privatized military industrial jobs, and the subsequent privatized bloat, replaced by, say, public institutions which develop military, medical, or green energy technology depending on national and international need. The green and medical technology can be transferred and co-developed with the developing world in order to improve their economy and general conditions. This is opposed to the current model of crippling the developing world with foreign debt.
In the 1970s, the American public hoped that Milton Friedman had the answer to solve the economic woes facing citizens. Perhaps it is time progressives presented a more viable labor-focused economic plan...one that empirically criticizes the many flaws and inaccuracies in Friedman’s corporatist/neoliberal ideas given that we, unfortunately, have 40+ years of it to judge. I think the public will be more open to this than what is assumed by many progressives.
I recommend you read the paper "Back to Work" by Philip Harvey, published in 2011 by Demos. PDF Page 5 and 13 answer what are the advantages of direct job creation, and what types of work would be delivered. Also Robert Pollin has created papers dealing with unemployment in the coal industry. I'd guess the National Jobs for All Network has other studies relevant to public employment. Marshall Auerbach published an article "The Real Lesson of the Great Depression -- Fiscal Policy Works", and sites a study showing that unemployment rate dropped from 25% to 9.6% between 1933 and 1937. The NJFAN also published the book "When Government Helped". There's a lot of forgotten history. I'm about to post another comment here at RNRH, this one about the Ukraine war issue.
"I recommend you read the paper "Back to Work" by Philip Harvey, published in 2011 by Demos."
If I remember correctly, Harvey is a proponent of what is often called in current economic literature as a 'job guarantee'. The job guarantee is an excellent policy proposal once government realizes their ability to spend. I do believe that a job guarantee, combined with other labor reforms to ensure full employment, is a great way to to achieve progressive goals of demilitarization, healthcare reform, and reduced dependence of fossil fuels.
I hear what you are saying klassik, BUT. You don't demonstrate you understand how much money is being siphoned off via corporate wealth-hoarding, which I urge you to study (quarterly profits reports and shareholder pay-outs) acroass big pharma, corporate medicine, and insurance industry.
Once clarified that this MASSIVE amount of money doesn't mysteriously 'disappear,' then it is more easily understood that raising taxes is NOT a necessary component in any way. That is to say, if the medical model is nationalized - as 70-80% of the general welfare expresses they want - that same amount of money currently going into profiteers' off-shore accounts [REMOVED FROM OUR ECONOMY], is channeled DIRECTLY BACK into patient care. Once more, if an uncorrupted government takes over healthcare, nobody loses their job (if CEOs agree to transform job title to government employee and work for standard salaries, instead of $30,000/hr); citizens needn't pay more taxes, because there are no more billionaires or shareholders with their payroll slashing schemes to maximize profits. We would, in fact, merely be returning healthcare (with an emphasis on book-keeping) back into a NON-profit model - and do away with privatized and commodified healthcare. As Mr. Nader and his cohorts suggest, a noncorrupted government would make healthcare a HUMAN RIGHT.
Susan, I am fully aware of the inefficiency of the current privatized US healthcare system and I assure you that I wish to see it completely reformed. The issue is how to achieve that policy goal.
If healthcare workers, and workers indirectly associated with healthcare, believe that their jobs are at risk, they are not as likely to vote for and promote healthcare reform. Yes, insurance and privatized hospital executives might see reform as a risk, but so might regular wage workers at these companies. On top of that, there are people employed by clinics as insurance coding experts and people working in HR departments as benefits counselors who very well might see reform as something which might cost them their jobs. Those are just to name two examples.
The good news is that there are things the national government can do to ensure that workers retain their jobs and salaries while transitioning to new jobs. For some, the transition will be a very easy one. For others, such as for insurance coding experts, they may have to find new careers. Government can help by providing education/training while guaranteeing a job.
Politically, this is all necessary to gain the voting support of people in the healthcare field. Thus, policy must clearly address the employment needs of healthcare and related workers. Those of us advocating for healthcare reform must make it abundantly clear how reform accounts for the needs of labor. Labor must be made a central part of any healthcare reform and the same is true for environmental reform and military industrial reform as I mentioned earlier.
There are many labor reforms which are needed in the US even aside from ones mentioned above. The current neoliberal labor agenda used by corporate politicians emphasizes reducing the power of labor in order to reduce wages. Full employment is not a goal as structural unemployment reduces wages. This is not a good thing and we must demand better.
Here again, this might require government spending to resolve some of these issues, but the public should not be allergic to this. Since national government spending does not come from tax revenue, no matter what monetarists might say to the contrary, this spending will not lead to tax increases on the majority of the population. It will not lead to inflation, bankruptcy of the nation, or other nonsense which is claimed by corporate interests in order to expand privatization of government and social spending austerity. Increased government spending on social services, if it is not privatized at least, should be a celebrated thing and not something which is feared. Unfortunately, this can only be celebrated once people break free from the monetarist myths which prevail even in progressive circles.
Thanks for replying. I maintain, mis-directs need to be reframed accurately. So that, responding to 'debate' based on an erroneous premise has the feel of a fool's errand. Guess for now, we'll agree to disagree. I value the work you fellows do.