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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...