This Fed Chief Brought to You by Enron

/in /by

EnronJust wanted to throw two tidbits into the debate on Ben Bernanke’s reconfirmation. First, this quote, which needs no explanation.

In the event that Bernanke isn’t confirmed, several sources say, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn likely would be elevated to acting chair of the U.S. central bank. Bernanke would be entitled to stay on the board until his term as a Fed governor expires in 2020, but the sources said Bernanke could instead return to a professorship at Princeton University.

Possible successors to Bernanke include three people currently advising Obama on the economy, former Fed chief Paul Volcker, Larry Summers and Christina Romer.

Kohn was traveling in Europe at the end of the week on Fed business, but strategy on the Bernanke confirmation was being led by former Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson, who is viewed as an effective advocate for the banking chief on Capitol Hill. [my emphasis]

And then there’s this:

The effort to secure Mr. Bernanke’s confirmation, which had intensified after two Democratic senators announced their opposition on Friday, continued through Saturday and included calls to senators by both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke. By late afternoon, senators began issuing statements of support

White House and Congressional Democratic leaders say they now believe that they have the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster of Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment. They expect some Democrats will oppose him on the confirmation vote, but that requires only 50 votes.

This implies that Harry Reid is demanding party discipline on the procedural cloture vote on Bernanke, but allowing Senators to vote no on the confirmation itself. That’s the way it often works on such issues, of course. Unless it’s health care.

Nice to see that when the party wants to protect the guy who refuses to work for full employment, they can enforce party discipline, but not when the party could offer better health care options to voters.

Share this entry

Supreme Court Unleashes Corporate Campaign Cash In Citizen's United Decision

/in , , , , , , , /by

images5thumbnail1.thumbnail11The stunning and decisive loss by Martha Coakley to Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election has already caused a tsunami of fear among Democrats, and corresponding joy among Republicans, heading toward next fall’s midterm elections. If you think this is cause for concern for Democrats looking forward to the 2010 midterm elections, picture the scene if the Republican party were also able to benefit from removal of restrictions on corporate and financial industry cash infused into their electoral coffers heading into the midterms and 2012 Presidential election.

As I wrote back last August, the Supreme Court took very unusual steps in a case by the name of Citizens United v. FEC to craft a case – originally argued on separate grounds – into a vehicle to make a Supreme Court declaration on the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions and regulations. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times put it:

If the ban is struck down, corporations may soon be writing large checks to the same elected officials whom they are asking to give them bailouts or to remove health-and-safety regulations from their factories or to insert customized loopholes into the tax code.

Citizens United v. FEC was originally argued on March 24, 2009; but subsequently noticed for re-argument on the new grounds involving the opening of corporate campaign contributions on September 9, 2009. The general consensus among the cognoscenti is that the Justices were leaning heavily toward blowing up the regulations and restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. For a complete blow by blow procedural and substantive history leading up to the decision, see Lyle Denniston’s SCOTUSWiki on this case.

Well, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission is in and attached hereto. As you can see, it is a 5-4 split decision with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion. The decision below is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the seminal case of Austin v, Michigan is hereby overruled as is that part of McConnell v. FEC which upheld the resitrictions on independent corporate expenditures. In dissent, and/or partial dissent is Justice Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer. Justice Thomas also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Today’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC abolishes the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections and would appear to apply to state and local elections as well as Federal ones given that the Court recognizes such a First Amendment right. This is literally an earth shattering change in the lay of the land in campaign finance, and it will have ramifications in every way imaginable for the foreseeable future.

Quoting a very interested observer, Senator Russ Feingold, he of McCain-Feingold fame, John Nichols had this to say in The Nation:

But U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been in the forefront of campaign-finance reform efforts for the better part of two decades, is worried.

“This would be in my view, a lawless decision from the Supreme Court,” says the senator who gave his name to the McCain-Feingold law. “Part of me says I can’t believe they’ll do it, but there’s some indication they might, and that means the whole idea of respecting the previous decisions of the Supreme Court won’t mean anything anymore.”

A lawyer who chairs the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feingold notes with regard to controls on corporate campaigning: “These things were argued in 1907, when they passed the ban on corporate treasuries. It was argued in 1947, Taft-Hartley did this. The Supreme Court has affirmed over and over again that it’s not part of free speech that corporations and unions can use their treasuries (to buy elections).”

If the court does overturn both law and precedent to advance a corporate Read more →

Share this entry

On Gruber: I Don't Want Apologies. I Want Independent Analysis.

/in , /by

Between the auto show and the Prop 8 trial and associated travel, last week was tremendously exhausting for me and it will take me several days to actually report on those two events. But it seems one thing hasn’t moved on very much since last Sunday–the reporting surrounding Jonathan Gruber’s role in pitching the Administration’s health care. Gruber’s defenders are still falsely claiming I accused Gruber of tainting his analysis for pay (I said, “I don’t doubt he believes all this stuff”) and suggesting that I’m ignoring Gruber’s qualification for the HHS contract (I wrote an entire post affirming that the sole source on it made sense). Now, the debate has ratcheted up as some very able commentators call for apologies.

Unfortunately, that debate–like Gruber’s failure to reveal his conflicts in the first place–has supplanted what is really long overdue in this policy debate: real analysis of the assumptions behind the $850 billion plan about to be enacted by Congress, the assumptions that Gruber had a key role in formulating.

Gruber’s public claims delayed real analysis of the claim that the excise tax would raise workers’ wages

To explain why this is important let me make a suggestion that I can’t prove, but which is the reason I started looking at this in the first place: because someone as credible as Gruber made certain claims about the excise tax, others in his field did not examine his claims in timely fashion.

Gruber, in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Taxation, has long been claiming that the excise tax would raise workers’ wages. I first started challenging that claim in October, in response to an Ezra Klein post that relied on Gruber’s faith-based claim that the excise tax would lead to higher wages. On November 5, Gruber quantified the benefit as $74 billion in 2019. And by December, I was in full panic mode, given that no economist could point me to a study proving the point, even in the face of benefit consultants’ surveys refuting it. Economists kept pointing me to Gruber’s papers and telling me not to worry my sweet little non-economist head about such matters.

Perhaps because of the work of the Economic Policy Institute, people finally started looking at this key claim in the last two weeks. No lesser economist than Gruber’s chief defender, Paul Krugman, judged that those making the claim (Krugman implied, but did not say explicitly, that this criticism was directed at Gruber) were exaggerating. And Gruber, who backed off the claim slightly after having had his conflicts exposed, has since admitted privately that he “over-reached” in his earlier statements.

So to review what happened: for a number of months, unions and benefits professionals and dirty fucking hippies like me challenged this assumption, but no one in Gruber’s field appears to have done any independent analysis of his claims. As a result, the excise tax was passed by the Senate based on at least one erroneous assumption. But now, either because economists have weighed in or because Gruber’s conflicts have been exposed, a key part of those assumptions has been challenged (and, in a perhaps not unrelated development, unions have been able to negotiate a palatable deal on this issue).

This kind of analysis should have happened last fall, but it did not, at least partly (I would argue) because someone of Gruber’s prominence had strongly made the claim. His colleagues didn’t do what scholars normally do, regardless how prominent the scholar, which is to check his work. And again, none of this is meant to say Gruber “over-reached” with this claim intentionally. Rather, because the normal peer review of Gruber’s claims didn’t happen, he (and with him, the Administration and the Senate) made a mistake, one that has already had real policy implications.

The entire basis for the excise tax remains unexamined

Now, this matters to me not because a bunch of prominent people are accusing me of being a scandal-monger, but because I believe some more key assumptions about the health care reform have not been adequately examined. In fact, there are two key claims about the excise tax that have, at the least, gotten far too little scrutiny.

Start with the revenue model. Read more →

Share this entry

Krugman on the Cadillac-as-Chevy

/in , /by

A number of people have pointed to this Krugman post, in which he seemingly agrees with the excise tax apologists.

I think that states his position too strongly. What Krugman does is argue is that it makes sense to limit the tax exclusion for benefits. At the same time, he admits there are problems with imposing the excise tax as a flat dollar amount, not least because it’ll end up targeting older workers and those with chronic medical issues. In that stance, Krugman endorses a key point raised by excise tax critics–that it is taxing people who need the insurance, rather than just the affluent.

Here’s how Krugman weighs in on the Excise Tax Raise claim.

Second, there’s the argument that any reductions in premiums won’t be passed through into wages. I just don’t buy that. It’s true that the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people. But I’m enough of a card-carrying economist to believe that there’s a real tradeoff between benefits and wages.

Maybe it will help the plausibility of this case to notice that we’re not actually asking whether a fall in premiums would be passed on to workers. Even with the excise tax, premiums are likely to rise over time — just more slowly than they would have otherwise. So what we’re really asking is whether slowing the growth of premiums would reduce the squeeze rising health costs would otherwise have placed on wages. Surely the answer is yes.

I’ll come back to that, but first I want to treat his rebuttal of the third complaint about the excise tax–that it targets unions that have exchanged salary increases in the past for benefits–because I think it is illustrative to the question of the Excise Tax Raise.

The last argument is that this hurts unions which have traded off lower wages for better benefits. This would be a bigger issue than I think it is if the excise tax were going to kick in instantly. But it won’t, giving time to renegotiate those bargains. And bear in mind that this kind of renegotiation is exactly what the tax is supposed to accomplish.

Krugman suggests, I think, that the unions that will be disproportionately affected by this tax will have three years to negotiate new contracts that (presumably) take more compensation in wages and less in health care.

Nationally, one of the unions that will be most affected by this is AFSCME–national, state, and local government workers. The teachers unions are also likely to be affected.

So what do you think the chances are, in an economic environment in which many states are struggling to close budget deficits, in which states are cutting basic services and educational resources dramatically, that any contract renegotiation in the foreseeable future would involve a one-to-one swap of wages for health care costs or even any raise at all? What are the chances that elected government officials would give public employees salary increases when all their constituents were struggling, rather than putting that money back into the services that constituents need?

Not. Gonna. Happen.

In another economic environment, unions might be in a position to negotiate for raises to offset hits to their benefits package. But not in this economic climate, not these unions.

Which brings me back to Krugman’s take on the Excise Tax Raise.

Krugman starts by ceding that “the importance of changing premiums in past wage changes has been exaggerated by many people.” “The Shrill One” is being polite here in not naming names. But the report he links–the EPI report I’ve cited–introduces the claim this way:

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at M.I.T., argued in an op-ed in the Washington Post on December 28, 2009:

And when firms reduce their insurance generosity, they make it up in higher pay for their workers. We saw this in the late 1990s, when the rise of managed care temporarily lowered insurance costs, and wages rose in real terms for the first time in many years. But as soon as managed care was weakened and health costs rose again, we once again saw flat or declining real wages in the United States. (Gruber 2009)

The paper then goes on to name Ezra Klein and NYT’s David Leonhardt as the others making this claim.

In other words, Krugman starts by saying that Gruber and others are exaggerating the degree to which wage increases in the late 1990s were caused by a slowing rise in health care premiums. So Krugman’s rebuttal is, in part, a Nobel Prize winner affirming that the excise tax’s biggest boosters are overselling their case.

Read more →

Share this entry

It All Depends on Your Definition of Failure

/in , /by

Politico is now aiding the fear-mongerers in declaring the Obama’s Administration’s response to a failed terrorist attack a failure (one, two, three, four, balanced by this).

And yet, little mention of the successes the Obama Administration has had: preventing Najibullah Zazi’s alleged attack attempt, rooting out efforts to recruit Somali youth from Minnesota, catching several self-radicalizing Americans. Indeed, the frenzy surrounding the Obama Administration’s failure to prevent a failed attack seems to exceed that surrounding questions about the handling of Nidal Hasan.

Meanwhile, there’s also little mention of the recent reports showing how badly the Bush Administration screwed up the Afghan war–a massive strategic failure that has allowed al Qaeda to sustain its threat. And real hypocrisy about the Bush Administration response to equivalent events, like the Shoe Bomber.

Right Wing Breaking News!! Failure failure failure (if you don’t look closely at all)!!!

But note the silence, thus far, about a real Obama Administration failure. (h/t Calculated Risk)

The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.

Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.

As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.

The Obama Administration’s unwillingness to force the banks sucking at the federal teat to take a haircut on mortgages whose value had been blown out of proportion by a captive mortgage industry is a damning failure, one that may lead us into a double dip recession, one which forces more and more families into dire circumstances. Even if you only care about national security, narrowly defined (as Republicans and Lieberman appear to), if the failure to solve the foreclosure crisis extends the recession, it’ll make it a lot harder to pay for all the cool war toys that seem to give fear-mongers big woodies.

Read more →

Share this entry

The New Robber Barons

/161 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by

image002Previously, Marcy Wheeler noted the unsavory blending of the private interests of health insurance companies with the power and hand of the US government:

It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes–to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.

It’s the same kind of deal peasants made under feudalism: some proportion of their labor in exchange for protection (in this case, from bankruptcy from health problems, though the bill doesn’t actually require the private corporations to deliver that much protection).In this case, the federal government becomes an appendage to do collections for the corporations.
…
The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

Marcy termed this being “On The Road To Neo-feudalism” and then followed up with a subsequent post noting how much the concept was applicable to so much of the American life and economy, especially through the security/military/industial complex so intertwined with the US government.

Marcy Wheeler is not the only one recently noting the striking rise in power of corporate interests via the forceful hand of US governmental decree (usually at the direct behest of the corporate interests). Glenn Greenwald, expanding on previous work by Ed Kilgore, penned a dynamic description of the dirty little secret (only it is not little by any means) afoot in modern American socio-political existence:

But the most significant underlying division identified by Kilgore is the divergent views over the rapidly growing corporatism that defines our political system.

Kilgore doesn’t call it “corporatism” — the virtually complete dominance of government by large corporations, even a merger between the two — but that’s what he’s talking about. He puts it in slightly more palatable terms:

To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, “New Democrat” movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as “the Third Way,” which often defended the use of private means for public ends.

As I’ve written for quite some time, I’ve honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of “new” political approach or governing method when, as Kilgore notes, what he practices — politically and substantively — is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more Read more →

Share this entry

Grading the Economy

/56 Comments/in /by

Nate Silver says we–liberals–are not celebrating the Administration’s economic successes enough.

And yet, the [financial reform] bill has received scant praise, and indeed very little attention, in liberal circles. Some of this is based on legitimate concerns that the bill did not go far enough — although it does do quite a lot. Some of it is based on a not-unreasonable assumption that although the House bill is fairly adequate, it is likely to be significantly watered-down by the Senate.

Even so, there seems to be extreme reluctance among the left, and particularly the online left, to praise any economic successes achieved by the Congressional Democrats and the White House.

Now, here’s how Nate himself judges the Administration’s accomplishments.

Putting out the fire. On the first imperative — that of averting a meltdown — I would give the Democrats high marks. Not only did we avoid Armageddon, but we did so with relatively little contribution — “only” about $42 billion — from future taxpayers. At the time these interventions were undertaken, this would have been regarded as an exceptionally good outcome. And with the advantage of hindsight, objective evaluations of TARP tend to be similarly rosy, including that from the very liberal (and smart) economist Elizabeth Warren, who chaired a Senate panel on the subject.

The recovery. As to the second objective, we have a split between the performance of the labor market, and that of other economic indicators. Back in February, when the stimulus was passed, the Wall Street Journal forecasting panel projected 3Q GDP growth of 0.7 percent; the actual figure, after revision, was 2.9 percent. They predicted 1.9 percent growth in the 4Q; the actual figure is likely to be closer to 4.0. On the other hand, they projected December unemployment to be 8.8 percent; November’s figure was 10.0 and December’s is likely to come in somewhere close to that.

Certainly, I think that the stimulus package ought to have been both larger and more focused on infrastructure-type programs that would have led to more direct creation of jobs. The stimulus, however, passed the Senate with just one extra vote (the tally was 61-37), suggesting that there may have been very little additional wiggle room. I think that is actually somewhat too narrow a reading of the political conditions in place at the time; more persuasion on the part of the White House (which was very popular then) might have moved the needle some, as might have the tactical gambit of throwing out a higher number rather than counting on the Congress to do the heavy lifting. Nevertheless, there probably wasn’t much room for improvement; an extra $100 or $150 billion, perhaps, which if directed toward infrastructure might have led to an unemployment rate that was 0.3 to 0.4 points lower than it is now. Moreover, some of the shortfall has been made up for with post-facto mini-stimuli like cash-for-clunkers and the unemployment benefits extension, and the forthcoming jobs bill.

In any event, such as it was, you have a stimulus that has tended to exceed expectations in terms of GDP growth. It would appear, on the other hand, to have fallen short in terms of jobs growth. But that conclusion is debatable. If the CBO’s estimates are to be believed — that the stimulus has reduced the unemployment rate by 0.4 to 1.1 percent — that would be in line with both the White House’s estimates (which had forecast an 0.7 percent improvement in unemployment through the 3Q as a result of the stimulus) and the CBO’s expectations in March.

Yes, the systemic conditions in the job market have been somewhat worse than most (though not all) private forecasters anticipated, and much worse than the White House seemed to anticipate. Certainly you can fault them for failing to frame the public’s expectations adequately, and also for aiming for too small a stimulus — although, again, it’s not clear that aiming higher would have substantially improved what actually came out of the Congress. But subject to those admonitions, the White House’s efforts at facilitating a recovery would seem to deserve a grade of somewhere between adequate and good, on the basis of the objective evidence.

Financial sector reform. Here, there is no grade that can be given other than incomplete — the Congress has yet to pass any substantial regulatory reform effort, and the systemic risk in the financial sector very much remains and could cascade at any time. Nevertheless, the bill that the House just passed has been a reasonably good start. The White House and the Senate will lay their cards on the table sometime early next year. Perhaps the most robust criticism of the White House is that it should have tackled regulatory reform before health care — a course of action that most liberals would have been very upset about.

Now, unlike me, Nate has a degree in economics, so maybe I’ll be busted for making the following observation, but it seems to me Nate is measuring the Administration’s economic success by measuring a collection of symptoms: Meltdown, B+; GDP, A-; Jobs, D; Financial sector reform, INC.

My thinking on the issue is somewhat different. Our finance system melted down about 15 months ago, bringing down the rest of the economy, and how have we responded to it? As I understand it, we have simply addressed symptoms, while showing a fundamental unwillingness to address the larger imbalance in our economy. Read more →

Share this entry

Why We Can’t Fix Wall Street

/32 Comments/in /by

There are two articles out that provide the beginning of an explanation of why even good progressives like Dick Durbin and Barney Frank can’t fix our finance system.

Trade Organizations as a Wing of the Republican Party

First, there’s the smoking gun proof that–at a moment when big banks were preparing to negotiate with Dick Durbin on cramdown legislation–banking’s trade organization was attacking that cooperation in conjunction with Republicans. HuffPo’s Sam Stein has posted the email from Tanya Wheeless, president & CEO of Arizona Bankers Association.

Subject: Cramdown Update

Hi All–

Just a quick update in case you were not aware. I’m sorry to say that Chase, Wells, and B of A have been working with Durbin on a cramdown compromise since last week. So far, none of the national trades are at the table. I’ve been told that ICBA is working on a press release to admonish them for trying to cut a deal. The good news is, they aren’t there yet. Apparently, they gave Durbin a wish list awhile back and in his desperation to get something, he’s given on most everything. Reid told Durbin he had until the end of recess to get something done, but it looks like Reid may be willing to wait a little longer if they’re at the table.

I have contacted the market presidents for each of the three banks and explained that in my humble opinion it’s a big mistake to cut a deal with Durbin and alienate our (in Arizona) Senator. I also told them that I thought this would drive a wedge in our industry. Kyl has pointedly told them not to make a deal with Durbin and then come looking to Republicans when they need help on something like regulatory restructuring or systemic risk regulation.I know the [sic] every state association will have to do what’s best for its members, but I have told my largest three members that if they cut this deal, AzBA will fight them on it. They may be willing to alienate Republican leadership, but I’m not quite there yet.

This is the President of a trade association, bullying her largest members, to serve the command of John Kyl. (Arizona, of course, is one of the leading states for foreclosure rates, so Kyl is basically working directly against the interest of his constituents.) And, voila, we still don’t have cramdown. Or, for that matter, regulatory reform (yet).

Hiding the Banks behind the Airplanes

Meanwhile, this Michael Hirsh article explaining how Barney Frank failed to close some loopholes in derivatives legislation describes Main Street companies fronting the lobbyist efforts of the banks–so basically Main Street appears to be fighting to keep the customized derivatives that their bankers charge them extra for.

According to insiders and industry e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK, the banks have sought to stay in the background and put their corporate customers—a who’s who of American business, including Apple, Whirlpool, and John Deere—out in front of the campaign. Read more →

Share this entry

“Made in China, Where Contents and Labor Practices Don’t Matter”

/41 Comments/in /by

Howie Klein linked to this ad trying to pitch products made in China as being “Made in the World.” (Apparently, it has yet to supplant all the frigging diamond ads during football, so I haven’t seen it.)

Made in China with American sports technology

Made in China with European styling

Made in China with software from Silicon Valley

Made in China with French designers

Made in China with engineers from all over the world

When it says “Made in China, it really means, Made in China, made with the world”

Just in time for the Holiday shopping season, this ad comes out to convince you that it doesn’t matter if iPods and Boeing jets and Target pitchers are made in China, because they’re made in cooperation with creative and knowledge workers [though the ad doesn’t use the term] from all over the world.

It’s a lovely bit of obscurantism that speaks loudest for what it leaves out: the potentially dangerous contents, inconsistent quality control, and labor practices that go into a product.

Most interesting is what else is left unsaid: presumably if China Inc is paying for these ads, it perceives a backlash that must be countered. Sounds like the perfect opportunity to highlight the safety and moral issues with buying from China.

Share this entry

Media Giants for Health Care

/16 Comments/in , /by

I said on Twitter yesterday that Comcast was endorsing health care reform as a sop designed to butter up Obama’s regulators who must approve the Comcast-NBC deal. But that becomes even more clear when you look at the letter Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts wrote.

Roberts starts with an utterly shameless suck up. Congratulations, Mr. President, you rock! But as part of that suck up, Roberts appeals to the themes–job creation, investment, and innovation–taht Comcast will mobilize to justify its acquisition of NBC. (He does not, for some reason, mention the real reason behind the deal: profits.)

Congratulations on today’s Summit on Jobs and Economic Growth. I believe that hosting a thoughtful and vibrant discussion with the Vice President, members of your Cabinet, business leaders, scholars, and other public officials about the persistent economic challenges confronting America and the path we must forge to foster job creation, investment, and innovation is a really important initiative.

Then, Roberts uses his non-attendance at the summit as his excuse for making his transparent bid to suck up to Obama.

Because of our announcement today that we have formed a joint venture with General Electric consisting of NBCU’s businesses and Comcast’s cable networks, I am unable to attend the Summit. I very much appreciate the outreach to the business community, and want to express one of the thoughts I intended to make at the Summit –that enactment of comprehensive health care reform legislation is, in my judgment, critical to putting this country on a path of sustained growth and prosperity.

“I can’t attend because I’m busy becoming an even bigger media behemoth and oh by the way I’m sorry I haven’t mentioned yet that I support your signature policy issue but I do.”

From there, Roberts goes on to prove that he has been paying attention to Obama’s talking points, citing the cost and the amount by which it reduces deficits–which Roberts labels “a strong dose of fiscal responsibility.”

Then Roberts’ letter gets really interesting. He makes a sustained pitch for the digital technology aspects of reform.

I also strongly support the development of standards and protocols to promote the digitization of health records and documents, electronic data matching, and the interoperability of systems for enrollment in health services programs. Such steps could revolutionize how health centers and hospitals operate and enrich how health providers and patients communicate. Telemedicine and  distant health services will literally transform the delivery and monitoring of health care services and the training of health care professionals. As a leading information and communications technology company, Comcast understands the generative power of broadband technology and its potential to improve the overall quality of health care, while stimulating job creation and restoring our economy.

Notice that Roberts assumes this will all be done via broadband and not–say–satellite.

Read more →

Share this entry