Frontline: Obama's Deal

Despite how much it has been discussed, I'm surprised by how few people actually know what the health care bill passed earlier this year actually contains. Frontline: Obama's Deal (available for streaming on the PBS website) pulls the curtain back on the bill, explaining the long process and series of deals that lead to the final bill.  Frontline, however, is not for a lay audience. If someone unfamiliar with the bill watches this, they will walk away unsure of what passed. Was it the public option? A mandate? A funding bill for Nebraska? There's no way to know based on Frontline alone.

The movie starts with Obama's first mistake, the nomination of Daschle and goes through the long list of slip-ups: the priority placed on a bipartisan outcome, the failure to defend Ted Kennedy's seat, the backroom deals.

Frontline tries to show the two sides of Obama: the inspirational side, and the practical deal maker. In the oversimplified vision portrayed, the deal maker comes off as a failure, and the inspirational side wins the day. Frontline rightfully hammers Obama for working with the lobbyists he attacked in his campaign. Senator Max Baucus comes off looking like a health insurance company lobbyist in training.

Then came the tea party and all of the ugliness and the anger that came to the surface last year. According to Frontline, this killed any prospect of a deal (even though it was clear that bipartisanship was effectively dead before this). And then there was Joe Wilson's "you lie" moment. But Frontline made no mention on what ignited the tea party to begin with. No mention Sarah Palin or why anyone believed that there would be death panels. You really can't tell the story of the debate and leave the fear mongering out. Why were these people so animated? This is a massive omission and makes the story incoherent. Tea partiers upset over bailouts angrily shouted down healthcare reform? Is that really all Frontline is willing to say? This was incredibly disappointing and a whitewash of what actually happened, and that's putting it lightly.

In Debt We Trust

I chose this movie because it was a warning about consumer credit and the national savings rate prior to the current financial crisis. Consumer debt has doubled in the last 10 years. When this movie was made in 2006, consumer debt was at about $2 trillion. When mortgages are included, total consumer debt is about $7 trillion. This money is owed to fewer and fewer companies. 10 banks dominate 92% of the industry. After our recent series of bailouts, the industry today has consolidated even more. The movie points out that the largest contributors to political campaigns in the US are these financial institutions.

The movie spends a lot of time interviewing people who are behind on their bills or shuffle debt around from one credit card to another. Another section is devoted to the marketing of cards. I think this focus on this is misplaced. A major issue mentioned in this movie and should be focused on more is the issue of rising interest rates, late fees, and finance charges. Much of this was addressed in the credit card bill passed last year. The movie also discusses rent-to-own establishments and tax advance offers with very high loans. The filmmaker also gets kudos for outing the subprime mortgage as a predatory lending scam years before it was cool to say so.

Beyond that, the biggest problem we face is that we live in a culture of consumption. Financing and refinancing mortgages, according to the movie, is creating serfdom of the 21st century. According to the people interviewed, most people will not pay off their homes during their lifetime and will spend their whole lives serving those debts. All of this is going on in an atmosphere of stagnant income and rising costs for health, housing, and education.

This movie has an honorable mission but it fails because it talks down to its viewers. The movie generally talks about deregulation and favorable court decisions. There are no specifics. The filmmaker goes to Wilmington,
Delaware to talk about political corruption but says nothing concerete about any particular law or politician. A bankruptcy attorney who was interviewed called credit cards evil. To really hit home, the movie needed to be more specific and concrete and not spend so much time in emotional fluff. Simply saying we need legislation and regulation is not a solution.

The exception to this was coverage of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, which the movie handled very well. Highlighting this give-away to the credit card companies is important. Ted Kennedy's floor speech was especially poignant. The bill limits the ways in which people can file for bankruptcy protection. One notable change is that, thanks to the bill, student loans can no longer be discharged in bankruptcy. This was a basically a give away to the industry. Prior to the bill, student loans were one of the most profitable types of loans. There was no need to 'reform' this type of loan. Also notable, was that the bill, passed a year after Hurricane Katrina, floods were also ruled out as a ground for bankruptcy. The recommends that we watch the K Street Gang, and I think I will. The book focuses on the Republican party, but this is a problem that affects both parties. Joe Biden is from Delaware, and both Obama and Biden voted for the Bankruptcy Bill. You can currently buy it used for $0.01 on Amazon, but, ironically enough, you need a credit card to buy it online!

Quote of the Day

Frank Rich, Freedom's Just Another Word: 

It’s a mystery why a candidate so attuned to the nation’s pulse, most especially on the matter of war, has grown tone deaf in office. On Tuesday, Obama asked the country to turn the page on Iraq as if that were as easy as, say, voting for him in 2008. His brief rhetorical pivot from the war to the economy only raised the question of why the crisis of joblessness has not merited a prime-time Oval Office speech of its own. 

I couldn't have said it any better. Obama's ineffectiveness on the economy is frustrating, and his position on the war is indistinguishable from his predecessor. I recently read a blog post in which the author accidentally wrote Bush instead of Obama. I couldn't help but laugh. I thought it was quite fitting.