Skip to main content

Once more into the breach with (faux) selective outrage...

Some of our friends have discovered (ah! the horrors!) that many key Senators and Congresscritters have been the recipients of large campaign donations by the health insurance industry:

But as you listen to the back and forth of the health care discussion, be familiar with the Bought Off and treat their commentary accordingly.


OK, fair enough.

Just be sure you take a look at the health insurance/HMO contributions during the Presidential Election, as reported by Open Secrets, and include President Barack Obama among your list of the "Bought Off":

Health Services/HMOs
Barack Obama (D) $1,262,224
Hillary Clinton (D) $535,849
John McCain (R) $412,918


Here's the contribution totals for Health Professionals

Health Professionals
Barack Obama (D) $11,532,962
John McCain (R) $5,251,019
Hillary Clinton (D) $3,973,797


[And totally for kicks and grins, here are the figures for Commercial Banks]:

Commercial Banks
Barack Obama (D) $3,167,003
John McCain (R) $2,260,697
Hillary Clinton (D) $1,458,941


[Not to mention, Lawyers and lobbyists}:

Lawyers & Lobbyists
Obama, Barack $43,440,058
Clinton, Hillary $16,941,277
McCain, John $11,290,948


Don't think it matters? All throughout the campaign, to the deafness of our liberal friends, I kept pointing out that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were the three largest recipients of defense industry contributions, and that Obama had surrounded himself with defense industry lobbyists.

What happened?

Despite all promises to the contrary the number two spot at the Pentagon (directly in charge of weapons procurement) was handed over to Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn.

Despite all promises to bring defense spending into line, President Obama submitted a defense budget larger than the previous Bush administration defense budget, but claimed to be cutting major weapons pork ... only to turn a blind eye and sign off on Congress re-instituting most of that same pork in supplemental authorizations, stimulus spending, or as amendments to other bills.

So I am all for the category of The Bought Off as long as you have the intestinal fortitude to admit the category includes The Bought Off Occupant of the White House.

Holding breath waiting. Turning blue.

Comments

Miko said…
This is also why I'm skeptical of strategies for bringing about libertarianism that depend primarily on electing libertarians: the LP will never give us a president until they're racking up similar levels of insider cash, by which time their candidates won't be worth electing (if they even are now).

It's worth noting that the paragon of democracy--ancient Athens--didn't have elections, but rather selected leaders by lot and did so quite frequently at that. Our system of picking between two Bought-Offs is a mild oligarchy at best.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...