James Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

Solyndra, the logical endpoint of Obamanomics

Sep 16, 2011 15:38 UTC

The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.

To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.

Oh, and Wall Street, too. Who was the exclusive financial adviser to Solyndra when it was trying to secure the $535 million loan from Washington? Goldman Sachs. And had the cap-and-trade scheme been enacted, big banks stood ready to reap billions from the trading of carbon emission credits.

No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.

And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, 2009). As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.

Unfortunately for the Obamacrats, the financial meltdown also undercut political support for cap-and-trade on Capitol Hill. Voters worried the scheme would slow growth and cost jobs. But without permanently and continually raising the price of carbon-based fuels, many green businesses can’t make the numbers work.

As Peter Lynch, a New York-based solar energy analyst, told ABC News:

It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.

Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one. Indeed, studies of similar government investment efforts around the world show they’re usually a bad deal for taxpayers. An analysis of Canada’s government-backed venture capital fund, for instance, found the recipient firms “underperform on a variety of criteria, including value-creation, as measured by the likelihood and size of IPOs and M&As, and innovation, as measured by patents.”

Even after getting the loan, Solyndra spent $187,000 on lobbying efforts, according to Bloomberg, including trying to get the White House to push government agencies to install its panels on the rooftops of federal buildings and  extend “buy American” rules that favor U.S. companies. Instead of revenue seeking, Solyndra was “rent seeking,” which means trying to make money by manipulating government .

And when the White House was trying to determine whether to sink another $67 million into Solyndra, its calculus was political not financial (via The Washington Post):

“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”

That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.

COMMENT

The tragedy of the Commons was the control and regulation of what was a prior “free market resource that the townspeople used under free association agreements. Today, the Federal Corporation of the United States of America seeks to dominate all resources, natural and economic, and dictate all commerce with the help of the complicitous, who justify it in the name of saving the earth. A planned economy will not make the best use of limited natural resources, because it wastes them. Tyranny has no justification, especially for something as ill conceived as Chicken Little’s “climate change.” Carbon Dioxide guilt is the hobgoblin of little minds in light of the CO¬2 just belching out from volcanoes across the world. “Green energy” needs funding only by people who believe in it and want to risk their own money. For this lame “investment” excuse, this administration has squandered taxpayers’ funds, especially when it has been proven to be the crony capitalists in the Democratic Party squandering tax money for their personal and their party’s exclusive benefit. Also, conservatives don’t endorse profligacy lest they become known as liberals.

Posted by Greenfire | Report as abusive

One more from the crony capitalism beat

Jan 27, 2011 22:16 UTC

From the great Jerry Bowyer in Forbes:

The fact that Immelt is a Republican is as beside the point as the fact that Daley is a Democrat. Increasingly our nation is divided, not between Rs and Ds, but between TIs and TBs: tribute imposers and tribute bearers. The imposers are gigantic banks, agri-businesses, higher education Colossae, government employees, NGO and QUANGO employees and the myriad others whose living is made chiefly by extracting wealth from other people. The bearers are the rest of us: the people who extract wealth from the earth, not from others.

Does anyone seriously believe that Bill Daley, son of the founder of Chicago’s great political machine, is something other than a crony capitalist? That he became president of a Baby Bell phone company, created by government fiat, protected by state public utility regulators because of his knowledge of telecommunications technology and not because of his association with power? Does anyone believe that when JPMorgan purchased a regional Chicago bank, which required both federal and especially state regulatory approval, that Daley’s political credentials were irrelevant?

The Daleys of the world, the Rubins of the world, the Rahm Emmanuels of the world who rotate out of commerce secretary, treasury secretary, White House chief of staff positions and into positions at the top of investment banks, government-regulated utility monopolies and various GSEs are our nomenklatura. They are the members of our permanent ruling class. They are tribute imposers. The fact that they wrap themselves in the rhetoric of street-level populism just means that they are poseurs in addition to being imposers.

Are the Republicans, like Immelt, just as bad? No, but they are almost just as bad. And almost just as bad is not nearly good enough.

Crony capitalism update

Jan 27, 2011 20:08 UTC

The alliance between Big Money, Big Business and Big Government is something I will be giving a hard look over the coming a year. Two great pieces. First, Tim Carney on Obama and Immelt:

Subsidies are GE’s lifeblood, and Immelt’s own words make that clear. In his op-ed announcing his appointment, Immelt called for a “coordinated commitment among business, labor and government,” and wrote that, “government should incentivize … investment in innovation.” He also advocated “partnership between business and government on education and innovation in areas where America can lead, such as clean energy, are essential to sustainable growth.”

This is Immelt’s style. Days after Obama’s inauguration, the chief executive officer wrote to shareholders of a post-bailout “reset” in the global economy. “In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”

Sure enough, wherever Obama has led, GE has followed. Obama has championed cap and trade in greenhouse gasses, and GE has started a business dedicated to creating and trading greenhouse gas credits. As Obama expanded subsidies on embryonic stem cells, GE opened an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama pushed rail subsidies, and GE hired Linda Daschle — wife of Obama confidant Tom Daschle — as a rail lobbyist. GE, with its windmills, its high-tech batteries, its health care equipment, and its smart meters, was the biggest beneficiary of Obama’s stimulus.

To get these gears in sync isn’t cheap: The company has spent $65.7 million on lobbying during the Obama administration — more than any other company by far. So much for Obama’s war on lobbyists.

For much of the media, the nuances will be lost: You’re either pro-business or anti-business. But the distinction is crucial between making a profit through subsidy, regulation, and bailouts on one hand, and competition and innovation on the other hand. The latter creates wealth. The former consumes it.

And Mickey Kaus:

Shouldn’t Republicans hold hearings on the general threat of Putin-like corporatism—i.e., an insidious alliance between big government and favored corporate and labor interests? a) They could call GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to testify and embarrass him about the myriad ways in which his slightly creepy role as CEO and presidential adviser might allow him to benefit his company and squash competitors; b) They could grill the various regulators who might be tempted to favor the auto manufacturers that the government bailed out (and which, in GM’s case, it still owns about a third of). Maybe some GM competitors would even be brave enough to testify. (Exhibit No. 23: Will GM and Chrysler claim all the remaining billions of “green” retooling loan money from Obama’s Department of Energy? Entrepreneurial startups need not apply?) c) They could question whether these bureaucrats and others are also doing favors for other Obama constituencies, like labor unions, or Google; d) They’d appear transpartisan–this is an issue where left and right populists unite. Do they love corporate-government alliances at Daily Kos? It’s also one of the legitimate worries at the heart of TeaPartyism. e) Hearings might help: There is no obvious answer to some parts of the corporatism dilemma, such as the too-big-to-fail part. If lots of firms are now too big to fail—or else their markets are unstable—and if during a downturn the government winds up investing political and economic capital in specific companies, what are you going to do? Bail the companies out and then let them collapse again?

Explaining Orszag’s maybe move to Wall Street

Dec 2, 2010 19:01 UTC

Former Obama budget chief Peter Orszag to Citi? Maybe. What, you thought the big banks hated Obama’s financial reform?Just listen to KC bank president Tom Hoenig in the NYTimes:

How is it possible that post-crisis legislation leaves large financial institutions still in control of our country’s economic destiny? One answer is that they have even greater political influence than they had before the crisis. During the past decade, the four largest financial firms spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying. A member of Congress from the Midwest reluctantly confirmed for me that any candidate who runs for national office must go to New York City, home of the big banks, to raise money.

What can be done to remedy the situation? After the Great Depression and the passage of Glass-Steagall, the largest banks had to spin off certain risky activities, and this created smaller, safer banks. Taking similar actions today to reduce the scope and size of banks, combined with legislatively mandated debt-to-equity requirements, would restore the integrity of the financial system and enhance equity of access to credit for consumers and businesses. Studies show that most operational efficiencies are captured when financial firms are substantially smaller than the largest ones are today.

These firms reached their present size through the subsidies they received because they were too big to fail. Therefore, diminishing their size and scope, thereby reducing or removing this subsidy and the competitive advantage it provides, would restore competitive balance to our economic system.

To do this will require real political will. Those who control the largest banks will argue that such action would undermine financial firms’ ability to compete globally.

I am not persuaded by this argument. History suggests that financial strength follows economic strength. A competitive, accountable and successful domestic economic system, supported by many innovative financial firms, would restore the United States’ economic strength.

More financial firms — with none too big to fail — would mean less concentrated financial power, less concentrated risk and better access and service for American businesses and the public. Even if they were substantially smaller, the largest firms could continue to meet any global financial demand either directly or through syndication.

COMMENT

Yet more common sense – unexpected, in this instance – from Mr. Hoenig, the guy who always dissents from the otherwise-unanimous FOMC vote and really does talk sense. More please.

Posted by Gotthardbahn | Report as abusive

Obama should be pro-market, not pro-business

Jul 21, 2010 11:00 UTC

Should the Obamacrats be friendlier to Corporate America? Big Business has certainly amped up its kvetching of late. But it’s not Washington’s job to be pro-business and make nice with CEOs. That smells of crony capitalism and often just means rewarding big campaign contributors with government favors. The better measure of any given Washington policy is whether it respects markets.

To hear many U.S. CEOs tell it the nation’s free enterprise system, as they call it, is faltering. General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, a member of President Barack Obama’s economic advisory board, says government and business are “out of sync.” Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon and head of the Business Roundtable, complains that “by reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.”

The cranky guys in the suits make some good points. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pointed out in an open letter to the White House and Congress last week, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the second-highest among advanced economies, Congress has failed to push through key trade agreements and federal spending is on a worrying trajectory. In a nation suffering from a sluggish recovery after a deep recession, every government policy should be optimized for economic growth. Addressing some or all of these problems might nudge American companies to put to work some of the $1.8 trillion in cash they are sitting on, according to the Federal Reserve.

Yet while a pro-business agenda may intersect at points with a pro-market one, they are not the same thing. Pro-market public policies make markets function fairer and more efficiently for everyone. They encourage competition and “creative destruction” and entrepreneurial capitalism. Pro-business policies often shift taxpayer money and other government goodies to favored companies, raise barriers to entry and otherwise defend the status quo.

For instance, the Chamber wants the government to cut spending by reforming the social insurance system. That sounds good — but how about also reducing the $90 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks that the Cato Institute reckons businesses get every year? The oil and gas industries alone benefit to the tune of $4 billion annually. It would be better to eliminate such distorting political blessings and then lower the corporate tax rate for everyone.

It’s clear the 11,000 registered lobbyists working in Washington aren’t all there to foster competition and boost market forces. Their job is to gain an edge for specific corporate paymasters. During the healthcare reform debate, for instance, Wal-Mart actually lobbied for employers to be forced to provide employees with insurance coverage. The company knew it could more easily afford it than many smaller retailers.

Or take financial reform. While big banks may complain about the tidal wave of new regulation, they also know they got off easy in some respects. They weren’t broken up, nor were size limits put in place. In fact, the biggest banks have gotten bigger since the financial crisis and have every incentive to keep doing so since the bigger they are, the more likely Uncle Sam will see them as too big to fail. And what sort of climate change policy has Big Business pushed? Cap-and-trade whose size and complexity make it the perfect target for lobbying and rent seeking.

What’s good for business can also be what’s good for America. Tackling the budget deficit is one example. But whatever companies and their lobbyists would have politicians believe, it’s not always so.

COMMENT

@Lee_A_Arnold The web site is a great idea– one I thought of long before the health bill. The question is, why doesn’t a web site like this already exist? We have ratings and comparison shopping sites for just about everything except for medical care. Why? Likely because government intervention in healthcare and protection of existing health providers and insurance companies has reduced competition and made it impossible and/or unprofitable to create such a web site. I have severe doubts over whether the government will succeed where the market failed.

Posted by Mikeikon | Report as abusive

Obama vs. business

Jul 8, 2010 13:30 UTC

Does this sound to you like the Obama administration takes seriously the concerns of American business that its economic policies are hurting the private sector? Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on CNBC’s Kudlow Report:

I think businesses are doing now what businesses always do, which is they want their taxes lower and they’d like to operate with less regulation, as they always do. Our job, though, is to make sure, again, we’re creating the conditions that make this economy work better for the country as a whole. Now, just remember, when the president stepped into this job, business of America was out of business.

COMMENT

Tim is indicative of a DC based chameleon. It spouts the colors of in the moment politi-think regardless of hysterical perspective or rationality. Oops I’ve landed here so I must say this. It goes to show that just because you live and hobnob in the world of high finance it doesn’t mean you should be taken seriously.

Posted by Scarybarry | Report as abusive

State capitalism, crony capitalism

May 11, 2010 18:42 UTC

When Ian Bremmer offers to tell you “what comes next, it is wise to pay attention:

I believe that things are going to get worse for free markets before they get better. China might be sitting on a bubble, but it’s not the one that James Chanos is pointing toward, one that will pop as soon as China’s real estate boom goes bust. Nor is it the scenario described by Gordon Chang in which the Chinese people rise up to challenge the Chinese government. I could mention the labor bubble (200 million Chinese men with no hope of finding spouses), the environmental bubble (no water, no arable land, no breathable air), or any of the dozens of other bubbles floating ominously across the Chinese landscape. All of them are serious. None are certain to threaten China’s state capitalist system anytime soon. I’d bet confidently on strong state-led Chinese growth over the next decade. Intensified national pride will only strengthen the system in the near term.

Second, the situation will get much worse for free markets because anemic growth and high unemployment in the developed world will feed a backlash against free market sentiment. We’re already seeing more support for protectionism and a tougher stance on immigration in both Europe and the United States. In America, Goldman Sachs is today’s scapegoat, but China is next in line, whether the subject is currency policy, cyber-security, trade imbalances, product safety, or something else.

All of that makes the recommendation that you and I share — strong government support of basic free market principles — one that looks increasingly vulnerable to populist politics within free market democracies. The problem is even larger in Europe and Japan than in America.

COMMENT

Dear editor friend,
Well and wish to hear the same from you.
You have already a email for my new theory on world economics.
About this article, you have given more spaces on world trade and commerce, currency values, European nations different approach to tackle their economic mess and economic uncertainty.
Which economic theory holds good on now a days.
Only Mixed economy,that is, capitalism,capital growth, more wealth generations, a correct corporate taxes on industrialists, business men, and from new enterprises for more capital, more revenue to government treasuries,government governance, national security and more save and investment on permanent returns by mutual funds, government bonds, post office savings-more popular in Asian nations had saved this world economic crisis.
Indians are prospering day by day on account of some free liberal economy, more IT industries, more outsourcing, more labor in selected fields, more rural and urban growth on many sects had made India and state capitalist country China are created a new milestones to entire world.
Whereas, in many western countries, America,England, Germany are mainly depending stock markets, artificial creation for demand in real sectors, no proper auditing mechanism, election gimmicks on social welfare, less productivity in major industries had contributed a strong negative results and they are facing the past mistakes with terrible financial problems, social inequalities,frustrations, tensions and conflicts, a sudden reemergences of single nation identities,some law and order problems, huge cry on migrants, who asked them to allow more migrants for manual labors, ego on super thinking on other nations are to be corrected at the earliest.
Previously Dollar was talk of the town.
Now Euro is talk of the town.
Now, clashes had happened to these super,world currencies.

Posted by mdspatsy | Report as abusive

Obama, the banks and crony capitalism

Dec 28, 2009 15:45 UTC

Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns has a great piece on Obama and crony capitalism:

There is a rather large body of evidence demonstrating that the Bush and Obama Administrations have favored large banks in an unseemly way. The same is true for the Congress and other big business insiders like Big Pharma, the Defense Industry and Health Insurance companies.

Witness these posts from the last month alone:

I could provide you with a far longer list of posts from the January to April period when the Citi and BofA bailouts were conducted and the alphabet soup of liquidity programs began which Bank of America and Citi were prepared to game.

I said in March it’s the writedowns, stupid. When accounting rules were formally changed to reflect the de-facto accounting policies favoring banks, I knew the big banks were on easy street and The Fake Recovery had begun. So, by April, I said Wells profit forecast is a clear bullish sign. Don’t even get me started on the stress tests. They were a sham from the start and were merely a means of recapitalizing the banks via inflated equity valuations. They were neither tests nor stressful, as Bill Black has demonstrated.

More recently, posts by Yves Smith and Bruce Krasting confirmed my long-held suspicions that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be used as a nationalization of America’s mortgage problems via a back door bailout of banks.

The evidence, therefore, tends to demonstrate that we have witnessed an orchestrated campaign by the Bush and Obama Administrations to recapitalize too big to fail institutions by hook or by crook, bypassing Congressional approval if necessary. And when it comes to healthcare, both Congress and the White House have bent over backwards to keep the lobbyists onside. As I see it, our government has favored special interests in the past year of Obama’s tenure to our detriment. … Personally, I don’t buy the line that Obama is a liberal. I consider him more a corporatist (i.e someone who coddles big business).

COMMENT

I meant Will not Greg. The label system is weird here.

Big Government and the Big Split

Dec 28, 2009 14:57 UTC

The WSJ nicely sums up 2008:

To prevent crumbling housing and credit markets from sinking the broad economy, the Bush and Obama administrations and the Federal Reserve spent, lent and invested more than $2 trillion on one initiative after another. If you owned a credit card or a money-market fund, had a savings account, bought a Dodge pickup or even a hunting rifle, or borrowed to buy a home or finance a small business, odds are good that the U.S. stood behind you or the firm that served you.

Washington pumped $245 billion into nearly 700 banks and insurance companies and guaranteed almost $350 billion of bank debt. It made short-term loans of more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies. It propped up life insurers and money-market funds.

It bailed out two of the three U.S. auto makers. It lent billions trying to jump-start commercial-real-estate, small-business and credit-card lending. In two February stimulus bills enacted a year apart, the government committed $955 billion to rouse the economy. Today the U.S. government, directly or indirectly, underwrites nine of every 10 new residential mortgages, nearly twice the percentage before the crisis. Just last week, the Treasury said it would cover an unlimited amount of losses at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through 2012.

But voters don’t seem to be buying the idea that the government saved the economy. This from pollster Rasmussen (note the last sentence):

The number who believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy rose from 28% in September, to 31% in October, and 34% in November before jumping to 38% this month. The week after the president signed the bill, 34% said it would help the economy, while 32% said it would hurt.

The Political Class has a much different view than the rest of the county. Ninety percent (90%) of the Political Class believes the stimulus plan helped the economy and not a single Political Class respondent says it has hurt. (See more on the Political Class). The underlying reason for skepticism about the stimulus plan is that 50% of voters believe increasing government spending is bad for the economy. Just 28% believe that increased government spending helps the economy.

Me: Americans rightly think the economy is in terrible shape. The argument that the economy would be worse if not for government is a hard one to make for Team Obama … especially since government played a critical role in creating the housing and financial crises. Making all this worse is a 2010 economy that may be a muddle at best — so-so growth, unemployment still above 9 percent, rising interest rates and moribund housing.

Paul Ryan and the future of the GOP

Dec 14, 2009 15:19 UTC

This  commentary from  GOP thought leader Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin really sets the intellectual and political framework for where the GOP might be headed.  He goes after Crony Capitalism, the melding of Big Money, Big  Business and Big Goverment. This is what’s next. Here are some important bits:

1)  Since bringing us back from the precipice however, the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] has morphed into crony capitalism at its worst. … No longer concerned with preserving overall financial market stability, Treasury’s walking around money continues to be deployed to reward the market’s Goliaths while letting its Davids suffer.

2) Washington is working hard to nationalize other sectors of our economy too. The House Finance Committee is pushing a massive financial “reform” bill, effectively creating banking utility companies. The Treasury Department has effectively nationalized the housing finance sector, with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac demonstrating how fast big businesses, through a federally blessed and backed oligopoly, can fall. Now, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, health care and energy lobbyists continue to fall over themselves to cut their deals–knowing that if they aren’t at the table, they’ll be on the menu.

3) Big businesses’ frenzied political dealings are not driven by party or ideology, but rather by zero-sum thinking in which their gain must come from a competitor’s loss. Erecting barriers to competition is a key to maintaining advantage and market share. With Washington leading the way, it makes sense for the big boys to redirect their resources to their lobbying shop and government affairs office. They’re far less interested in expanding the economic pie than with making certain that they get their slice.

4) For every encroachment into the market by the federal government–under the guise of “reform”–there exist pro-market alternatives that Republicans must articulate and passionately defend. University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales, who has written extensively on the issue of crony capitalism, reminds policymakers that the path forward requires “adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach.”

COMMENT

If Ryan ever regretted the vote on Medicare Part D, he must have a short memory. The difference between he and the Democrats in root philosophy in health care is zero. That is why they both put forth Health Care bills. Why? They both believe in the unconstitutional interference in health care by the government using taxes, tax credits to one group so that another benefits. Sounds like a statist to me. Does Ryan’s bill have surface differences. Sure it does. But once you allow an unconstitutional interference, it will end up growing ever larger.

To those who think that the GOP must start somewhere. How about with constitutional laws? If both parties, including Ryan, continually ignore the Constitution, in time human nature leads you to the same place. That we “must start somewhere” and “not be too picky about voting records” has been a hallmark call for the GOP for decades. Where did it get the country? What percent of of GOP in Senate and House voted for Medicare Act of 1965? Two shy of 50%. That is dangerously close to a majority. And over 40 years ago. On a bill often decried by GOP apologists as one-sided vote. When again did the GOP lose its small constitutional government compass? A Republican, incidently from Wisconsin, even helped write the Medicare 1965 bill.

from an AMA article on it see below excerpt: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/ mm/369/medicare.pdf

The Byrnes Bill
In contrast to the largely Democrat-backed King-Anderson bill, Republicans in Congress lent their general support to the Byrnes bill. “The bill was submitted by Congressman Thomas W. Byrnes of Wisconsin. Like Eldercare, it called for coverage of hospital and physician services for the aged through the purchase of private insurance. Administration, however, was to be federal. Financing was to come two-thirds from general revenues and one third from deductions on the individual pension checks of those who voluntarily chose to
participate in the program.” (Campion 274)

Posted by Wisconstitutionalist | Report as abusive
  •