. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Given the recent exceptional popularity of "Living Outside the Box; From Thoreau to Ferentz," August 9, 2010, if that's the blog entry you're looking for you can find it here.
Entertainment, Social Commentary and Public Policy (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Harry Shearer is one of those guys in Hollywood who has excelled at virtually every form of creative endeavor -- with the possible exception of re-painting the Sistine Chapel.
The fulsome coverage of his career in Wikipedia describes him as "an American actor, comedian, writer, voice artist, musician, author and radio host." That scarcely does his creative and prolific career justice, but it does give you a simplistic sense of its variety and reach. "Harry Shearer," wikipedia.org. And see his Web site.
Among other things, he is a sensitive observer, and critic, of the American scene. As such, he is a contributor to the hundreds of years of involvement of entertainment in general, and music in particular, in the cause of social commentary and "activism" -- which is just another word for "democracy." The Sixties -- both the 1860s and the 1960s have been such times, with the hidden messages in Spirituals, and less well-disguised approach of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" in the 1960s, John Stewart's "Daily Show" today, and Pete Seeger seemingly having been singing forever.
Another example, provided by Harry Shearer, and all too effectively hidden within his creative outpouring in my view, is a little song he wrote, recorded and released October 6, 2009, about the financial collapse in general and Goldman Sachs in particular. In it, he succeeds in explaining both what was going on, and the attitudes of those engaged in it -- which seem to me to bear at least some similarity to those exhibited in the ten year old movie "Boiler Room" (2000) and 1987 film "Wall Street" (from which the video clip, above, of the Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) "greed is good" speech is taken).
The song is not exactly today's news, "more's the pity," and that's a part of my concern. Goldman Sachs' role in the global financial collapse from which we have yet to emerge -- like the BP's pollution of the Gulf of Mexico -- are seen by the corporations involved, as well as the media, as a "public relations" challenge. The solution? (1) Produce and televise some slick commercials proclaiming your sincerity and sorrow, and perhaps pay to underwrite some CPB programming. (I once proposed the best way to fund public broadcasting would be for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division to file more law suits, because every time it filed one the corporate defendant inevitably got its face out there as a "good guy" by funding a PBS or NPR program.)
(2) Just wait it out; ultimately the public (and their representatives) will forget about it, having shifted their focus to a more current crisis.
Music, humor, films, and other forms of entertainment can stand and fight that tendency. (I recently watched a "Boiler Room" DVD again.) And Harry Shearer's "Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs" lively tune and lyrics keep running through my mind long after I've forgotten exactly what it was the New York Times' stories and editorials detailed about the firm's abuses.
The song is available from YouTube.com, iTunes and Amazon for 99 cents, and I recommend you give it a listen.
Its energized beat and bouncy and irreverent delivery can't be communicated by the lyrics alone. But here they are anyway, to give you a sense of the message. [If Harry Shearer wants me to remove them from this blog entry I will, of course, do so. But with no advertising on my blog, I have nothing to gain by making them available, and anyone who was a potential purchaser of the song before should be more, rather than less, likely to be so now. And if you find, and can correct, any errors in my transcription please put them in a comment on this blog entry.]
So here it is, . . .
"Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs" Harry Shearer
When Mr. Goldman met Mr. Sachs Business ran on railroad tracks The world was simpler, you can't forget When Mr. Sachs and Goldman met
Said Mr. Goldman, "For years and years, Our guys have got the most between the ears" Said Mr. Sachs, "Let's unhook some reigns, And find new ways to profit off our traders' brains"
Spinning gold out of flax, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
"Up to the Clintons," says Sachs with glee, "Our former chief now runs the Treasury" Slapped Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs, "Everything's OK, we can relax"
"We're blowing bubbles," Mr. Goldman crowed, "We making money out of money owed" "On Wall Street our names should be up on plaques," Bubbled Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs
Balls so big they stretched the slacks Of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Balls so big they stretched the slacks Of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
"The century's turning," Mr. Sachs opined, "Our new kind of trains boggle the mind" Bragged Mr. Goldman with a toss of his head, "One of our guys runs the New York Fed"
Noted Mr. Sachs as the market soared, "We're totally wired in each department and board" "We regulate ourselves, the wind's at our backs," Said the jolly Mr. Goldman to a blithe Mr. Sachs
Their regulators are really claques, For Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Their regulators are really claques, For Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Said Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs, "This sly little system is showing some cracks" Mr. Sachs to Mr. Goldman said, "We got it covered, go back to bed"
The hustle’s urbane Mr. Sachs recalled, "We may get a haircut, but we won't go bald" "Any bailout move will be comfy and lax," Mr. Goldman was reassured by Mr. Sachs
"Bear Stearns went down," Mr. Sachs told his friend, "And Lehman Brothers met a harsher end" "Merrill Lynch was sold off by a fax," A dour Mr. Goldman told Mr. Sachs
"It's time," Mr. Goldman said, "to pull some rank" So presto, said Mr. Sachs, "We'll become a bank" "We'll be covered by the payers of tax," Exhaulted Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs
Mr. Sachs explained, "We're insured by AIG" Mr. Goldman responded, "That's fine with me" "Our risky bets will be paid off in full," Said Mr. Goldman, more than ever a raging bull
"Unemployment is rising," Mr. Goldman observes But their partnership is still riding on nerves "Profits in the billions, ignore the attacks," Says a flush Mr. Goldman to a flush Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
Spinning gold out of flax Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
And now to return to what some will consider the more mundane approach to economics policy, consider these excerpts -- and the column in its entirety: Froma Harrop, "Regulation Made Canada Fat and Happy," creators.com, August 12, 2010 (copyright by the Providence Journal and reprinted in numerous newspapers around the country):
Suppose the U.S. government had posted a budget surplus in 12 of the past 13 years. Suppose not a single major American financial institution had failed or needed a government bailout. Suppose the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent in the first quarter of this year, rather than at 2.7 percent.
Wouldn't that make you happy?
These cheering economic indicators happen to be reality in Canada. They did not come about because Canadians are more virtuous or they don't have subprime mortgages (they do) or they didn't keep interest rates very low (their rates were much like ours). What Canada had was a civic culture that wanted government to regulate financial activity.
What we have is an elite willing to risk everyone else's economic security to enable a few hotshots to win big at the casino of recklessness and fraud — while maintaining a variety of taxpayer backstops to reduce their risks. The joint never gets closed, also thanks to the large numbers of ordinary citizens trained to holler "socialism" every time the government tries to set a ground rule. A satanic belief in the rightness of free markets to punish the unsophisticated almost halted the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. . . .
So how are Canadian businesses doing these days relative to ours? It's true that the Standard & Poor's index of 500 large U.S. companies has done pretty well this year. But the Toronto exchange's index of large-cap Canadian stocks did 27 percent better.
Periodic booms and busts don't have to be Americans' fate. Some people get very rich off them. But for ordinary folk, slow and steady wins the race. Support for letting government install some speed bumps to enhance their financial stability has left Canadians fat and happy. We could live the same way.
As we reflect upon Wall Street's role in our global economic collapse we have options: we can sing about it, laugh about it, cry about it, or read and write public policy analyses and essays. Unfortunately (to return to singing about it), as in "you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game," Simon and Garfunkel clarified our situation in "Mrs. Robinson,"
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Going to the candidates debate Laugh about it, shout about it When you've got to choose Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose
"And that's," as Walter Cronkite used to say, "the way it is, Saturday morning, August 14, 2010" (unless, as Ms. Harrop informs us, you move to Canada). ["Walter Cronkite," wikipedia.org ("Cronkite is well known for his departing catchphrase 'And that's the way it is,' followed by the date on which the appearance is aired.")] _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Tawdry Impact of Campaign Contributions on Iowa's Nursing Home Public Policy
We're all familiar with the role of big money in Washington. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000,"Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2 (documenting the details of how major campaign contributors get benefits from the federal government roughly 1000 to 2000 times the value of what they contribute).
We like to believe that the elected officials representing the honorable folks living here in bucolic Iowa are a cut above all that.
Well, sadly, they're not.
But making the case isn't easy. Last April I wrote, "Unfortunately, . . . investigative reporting of money in Iowa politics and governing is all too rare. Occasionally there will be stories regarding which legislators have raised how much money. There may even be a reference to where some of that money came from. Very rarely is there an effort to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between the sources of campaign funds and the votes of the recipients -- let alone a routine reporting of these relationships for every single member of the Iowa legislature." Nicholas Johnson, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series, Part VIII: Money and Lobbyists in Iowa: Smoke and Mirrors," April 19, 2008.
Here, then, are excerpts from Kauffman's November 16 stories, followed by additional excerpts from my earlier April 19, 2008, blog entry.
At 4 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon last year, a group of Iowa nursing home officials gathered at the South Dakota home of Tim Boyle, the owner of Grinnell's Friendship Manor and several other Iowa care facilities.
It was one of 12 legislative fundraisers . . .
The 12th, at Boyle's residence, was for Rep. Christopher Rants, then the minority leader of the Iowa House [who] collected 15 checks totaling $3,090.
The contributors included Boyle; two of his relatives; the political action committee of the Iowa Healthcare Association; Steve Ackerson, the association's executive director; and Richard Allbee, the chief executive officer of a company that operates four dozen care facilities in Iowa.
Boyle is now the president of the board of the Iowa Healthcare Association, which is telling lawmakers that the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals is overly aggressive in policing the state's nursing home industry. His Friendship Manor is facing a $112,650 federal fine for alleged neglect that resulted in 89-year-old Ruth Louden losing part of one leg. . . .
Here's a look at some of the biggest recipients of money from the Iowa Health Care Association Political Action Committee during 2008:
Iowa Democratic Party: $12,500
Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs: $12,500
Gov. Chet Culver: $10,000
Republican Party of Iowa: $7,500
Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City: $5,000
House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque: $4,500
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines: $2,500
Former House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City: $2,000
Rep. Jo Oldson, D-Des Moines: $2,000
Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg: $2,000
State Rep. Dave Heaton thinks Iowa's nursing home industry is getting a raw deal from the Department of Inspections and Appeals. . . .
[T]he Mount Pleasant Republican has suggested moving the regulation of Iowa's nursing homes from the state inspections department to the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs. . . .
Elder Affairs . . . did oversee assisted-living centers until 2002 when it was reported that the agency had never issued any penalties against any Iowa care facilities and was keeping two sets of inspection reports - a confidential set that detailed problems within the facilities, and a public version that omitted any mention of those issues. . . .
Senate President John "Jack" Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, says he'd like to see the inspections department take what he calls a "softer approach" to regulating nursing homes. . . .
In 2007, Kibbie and Heaton each traveled separately to Washington, D.C., with their travel expenses paid for by the Iowa Healthcare Association, the organization that lobbies state legislators on behalf of Iowa's nursing homes.
Heaton said he sees nothing wrong with private industry paying for such trips. . . .
Steve Ackerson, executive director of the Iowa association, said the . . . association paid for the lawmakers' airfare and lodging expenses . . ..
Heaton said he doesn't recall spending the night or attending the convention.
Association records indicate Kibbie traveled to Washington with Ackerson two months later. In a newsletter sent to Iowa nursing home officials after that trip, Ackerson said . . . Kibbie "really went to bat" for the industry.
Kibbie said he and his wife went back to Washington this year at the association's expense. While there, he was given an award from the American Healthcare Association.
"They just offered to take us out there and bring us back," Kibbie said. . . .
So a big "Hats Off" to the Register and Clark Kauffman for performing this central obligation of the mass media, and central purpose of the First Amendment: a "checking value" on all major institutions in general, and on the role of money in politics in particular. Those "Washington politicians" are not the only ones Iowans need to keep an eye on -- a task made possible only with this kind of assist from the media.
See also, Jay Christensen-Szalanski, "Following the Campaign Money,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 16, 2008 ("For years, non-partisan groups like the League of Women Voters have documented the corrupting effect of lobbyist money and out-of-state campaign contributions like those cited above. When our legislators respond with the standard, 'These gifts don't affect my voting,' ask yourself why smart lobbyists still give them money and then think back to the common-sense examples at the beginning of this article." Some of the cited examples for Iowa City's legislative representatives included "lobbyists for hospitals, nursing homes, drug companies, insurance companies and health provider interest groups" giving to two legislators who publicly "advocate affordable health care." Riverside Casino and a payday loan company contributed to another. A New York investment firm CEO gave $10,000, plus $3000, plus $3000 to two others.)
_______________
From the April 19, 2008, blog entry:
Former Governor Tom Vilsack took "campaign contributions" from the nursing home industry. Iowa's present Governor, Chet Culver, received $15,500 from the nursing home industry during the last two years -- at a time when lax state inspections of nursing homes have been criticized. I don't mean to suggest a connection, and neither did the Des Moines Register story, but the governors' responses to these observations remind me of the Queen's line from William Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
A former Iowa legislator, Democrat John Tapscott, a critic of the industry, asked both Culver and his predecessor, Tom Vilsack (both Democrats) to return the payments.
Vilsack wrote to Tapscott and said: "[I]f you believe that the taking of this contribution in some way affects my ability to do that job, I can assure you it does not." . . .
Culver spokesman Brad Anderson said, . . . "The idea that contributions have affected in any way the regulation of the nursing home industry by the Department of Inspections and Appeals under this administration is patently false . . .."
Unfortunately, this kind of investigative reporting of money in Iowa politics and governing is all too rare. Occasionally there will be stories regarding which legislators have raised how much money. There may even be a reference to where some of that money came from. Very rarely is there an effort to investigate the extent to which there is a relationship between the sources of campaign funds and the votes of the recipients -- let alone a routine reporting of these relationships for every single member of the Iowa legislature.
Nor has there been much reporting about the use of money as legislative power inside the legislature. To what extent is "leadership" purchased? What of those legislators who raise "campaign funds" far in excess of reasonable need in order to pass them along to the leadership, their relevant state parties -- or to their less prosperous colleagues. Is there any correlation between their "generosity" and the fact they end up chairing committees?
Understand, I'm only raising questions, not providing answers. Indeed, my point, my complaint, is that we don't have the answers, answers I think are necessary in a democracy, answers we can rightfully expect the media to provide for us. Iowa's springtime legislators may well be as pure as Iowa's wintertime snow. But it is possible -- just barely possible -- that they may share some of the practices that have been a part of American politics during the past century in the other 49 states and Washington.
For example, where are the current news stories tying campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to the otherwise rather bizarre votes of Iowa legislators banning smoking throughout the entire state of Iowa -- except for gambling casinos?
As Rekha Basu reports, "The result came out of political deal making, not logic. The exemption was put in after hard lobbying by the casino industry." Rekha Basu, "Logic takes detour with smoking-ban exemptions,"Des Moines Register, April 11, 2008.
When I say "where are the stories" I don't mean to suggest there are no such stories -- with the details of dates (over time as well as last 12 months), amounts ("in-kind," trips and entertainment as well as cash), names of donors (gambling and tobacco industry individuals as well as PACs) and recipients (political parties as well as legislators and their leadership), Nevada and other out of state money, and so forth. I just mean the question literally: if you've seen them please put a comment on this blog entry as to where they are so I can make reference to them.
Can those legislators who insisted on the casino exemption give us equal, governor-quality assertive assurances that their votes were not in any way influenced by campaign contributions, lobbyist pressure and favors, or other benefits?
