We’re deep into the primary season, so politicians who have primaries are getting a lot of free press and television exposure.  Meanwhile those politicians who don’t have primary fights get little or no exposure.

That’s fundamentally unfair, of course.  Journalists should be asking all candidates, whether they have primaries or not, the same questions.  Just asking one side of the ballot for months before a primary, dramatically tilts the discussion in favor of the winner of a primary battle.

That said, here’s some questions I think should be asked of all candidates right now, before the primary battles are over.

“What’s going on with growing income disparity?  Since 1980 the median income has barely grown for most Americans, adjusted for inflation.  Between 2001 and 2007 it actually dropped.  Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of the population saw their share of total income go from 9 percent to 23.5 percent.  Is this a good thing?  And if not, what is wrong and what can we do about it?” 

“American manufacturing has shrunk over the past 30 years.  During that same period of time, America’s trade deficit has grown dramatically.  Meanwhile, state sponsored corporations in China, India, Russia and elsewhere have grown in size and revenue.  Three of the world’s four largest banks are Chinese.  The largest free market oil company, ExxonMobil, ranks only 15th in the world in terms of reserves and revenue.  All the free market oil companies together produce just 10 percent of the world’s production.  Is this trend a good thing? If not, what should we do about it?” 

“We’re in a severe recession right now.  Unemployment is too high and stubbornly isn’t showing any signs of going down soon.  We need jobs.  American civil engineer associations estimate that America needs to spend $2.2 trillion on infrastructure upgrades and maintenance over the next three years just to keep our major infrastructures working.  Would it help if we directed more taxpayer funds to these already identified projects, and thus create private jobs?”  

“It appears that we’ve suffered a series of regulatory disasters the past few years.  Regulators allowed banks and investment funds of all kinds to over-leverage their assets, in many cases more than 30 to 1, turning an American housing bubble that burst into a worldwide near financial collapse with millions of people thrown out of work.  The British Petroleum accident in the Gulf of Mexico unmasked poor regulatory oversight of offshore drilling.  The West Virginia mining disaster appears to show the same problem in mining.  And the recent recall of almost a million eggs due to salmonella contamination and poisoning has revealed poor regulatory oversight in the food industry.  What’s happening here?  Should we be spending more money on regulatory oversight, not less?” 

“During a recession governments run deficits because their revenues decline while their spending increases due to a rise in unemployment claims and stimulus spending.  When the economy recovers both trends reverse with revenue increasing once again while unemployment and stimulus spending decline.  But long term deficits appear to be a problem, particularly in the health care area as baby boomers retire.  How do we reduce the rate of health care cost increases, particularly at a time when more and more Americans will need health care?  In order to pay the bills, should we return to the tax rates which produced a budget surplus under President Clinton?” 

“Politicians at all levels are receiving more and more campaign contributions as campaign costs have increased dramatically.  In Washington billions of dollars are spent annually by various special interests lobbying Congress and the White House.  Is this a problem for the country?  Does all this money influence inhibit good governance?  If it does, is there anything we can do to counter this trend?” 

There are many more questions that need to be asked, of course.  And even the answers to the above will generate more specific questions that need asking as well.  But it would be nice if we brought the questions up a notch, and challenged all the talking points being faithfully recorded by journalists who don’t ask challenging questions.

Pediatrician Margaret Flowers of Maryland is dedicated to the idea that America can afford having a universal, single payer health care system.  Basically, she believes the existing Medicare system for the elderly should be extended to all citizens.

She’s not alone when it comes to physicians, 17,000 of whom have joined with her as Physicians For A National Health Program.

Dr. Flowers found out firsthand about how “broken” our political system has become.  Despite consistent positive public support for single payer, universal health coverage, Dr. Flowers found that  Congress and the Administration are controlled by special corporate interests and decided to exclude any honest debate about a single payer system.   The Administration, said Flowers, decided that single payer simply could not get through Congress and therefore must be shunted aside.

What was left, she maintains, was legislation that was “designed to fail.”  If it had passed as written, she says, it would take five or six years before the public would realize that it was a failure, and the incredible pain and suffering our current system exacts on millions of citizens would continue unabated.

Also interesting in the interview was Dr. Flowers recounting how large insurance bureaucrats warp medical care delivery.  Dr. Flowers was advised by one insurance company to limit herself to one wellness visit per day.  And for any additional problems she found with her patients that were not the reason for their visit, she was advised to schedule another appointment (and thus another fee).

In other words a “churn and burn” medical philosophy where the insurance company was most definitely not interested in saving any money–otherwise they would advise NOT to make a second appointment, which would drive medical bills up.  This is not the advice of someone working in a competitive environment.

If you have any interest in this subject, you can watch Dr. Flowers in an interview with Bill Moyers here.

Apparently Mother Jones has another political blockbuster edition in the works.  This one deals primarily with the issue of money influence in Congress.

Considered an alternative publication, Mother Jones has been printing the toughest, most straightforward journalism recently regarding Wall Street and Washington DC.  Another alternative magazine, Rolling Stone, published Matt Taibi’s scathing article on Goldman Sachs which created shock waves on Wall Street and DC, as just one example.

The mass media hasn’t been doing this kind of honest reporting, so it’s good that Mother Jones is.  Maybe this edition will shame the major media into action.  But I wouldn’t count on it.

The fact is Congress is bought and paid for.  What you and I want is almost irrelevent against this flood of special interest money.  In industry after industry this lobbying and campaign funding has reduced or almost completely eliminated competition by writing legislation in favor of the existing, dominant corporations.  From Wall Street, to our health care providers, to the food industry, the transportation industry and the energy industry, what’s good for the nation as a whole has been tossed out the window in favor of regulations and laws passed to enrich the few.

Our tax system favors the wealthiest among us.  Our trade policies are written to favor large, multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas.  For the first time in memory, we’ve just gone through a decade where no new jobs, net, were created.

Efforts by the Obama administration for health care reform have been watered down to the point where the legislation is almost unrecognizable compared to what was originally proposed.   Just a year ago taxpayers saved Wall Street with huge bailouts but nothing’s changed, and like health care, reform efforts are being watered down to the point of being toothless.  Meanwhile, Wall Street is handing out an estimated $200 billion in bonuses this year, now that it’s survived because of taxpayer funding.

Read Mother Jones.  It may be your only opportunity to be informed about what’s really going on in America.

Wall Street star, Goldman Sachs, has announced a terrific second quarter with $3.44 billion in profits.  It also announced that it’s setting aside $6.6 billion in expenses for salaries and bonuses, indicating that it intends to spend as much as necessary to retain and hire the best talent on the street.  Are the golden days of Wall Street back?

Former Secretary of Labor for President Clinton, economics Prof. Robert Reich, has some pointed concerns.

“Should we breath a sigh of relief that Goldman Sachs has posted record earnings as revenue from trading and stock underwriting reached all-time highs (second quarter net income was $3.44 billion) — less than a year after the firm took $10 billion directly from taxpayers and $13 billion indirectly through AIG? In some ways, yes. That Goldman is back signals that the worst of Wall Street’s recent meltdown is over.

In some ways, yes. That Goldman is back signals that the worst of Wall Street’s recent meltdown is over. And at least New York City’s economy will again benefit from the trickle-down effects of the multi-million dollar bonuses of Goldman’s executives and traders.  But in another respect, Goldman’s resurgence should send shivers down the backs of every hardworking American who has lost a large chunk of retirement savings in this economic debacle, as well as the millions who have lost their jobs. Why? Because Goldman’s high-risk business model hasn’t changed one bit from what it was before the implosion of Wall Street. Goldman is still wagering its capital and fueling giant bets with lots of borrowed money. While its rivals have pared back risks, Goldman has increased them. And its renewed success at this old game will only encourage other big banks to go back into it.”

Goldman has survived any way it can during the past year. It wasn’t that many months ago that Goldman was insolvent, along with almost all of the TBTF banks. The taxpayer saved their skins. But that story is over. What remains are the hangover(s) aka bills.

Our foundational problem is that we’ve forgotten that government, particularly in times of stress, can lead the way out. For the past 30 years we’ve bought into the idea that private corporations acting in the market will take care of all our problems. What nonsense.

Anyone who still believes that is either being paid to do so, or is in psychopathic denial. Even Greenspan doesn’t believe it anymore.

We have so many jobs to do it’s mind boggling.  We need more direct action by government, not that which is indirect such as financial subsidies.  We’ve laid off more than 100,000 skilled autoworkers.  We need the government to issue RFPs to build base electric generating windmills which will put factory workers to work.

Housing contractors are on their backs. Where are the RFPs for solar installations, geothermal installations, weatherization installations?

Our train system is the worst of any industrialized country in the world. Where’s the RFPs for upgrading and expanding train tracks? Where are the RFPs for eliminating the day long bottleneck in train transport through Chicago, as just one example?

President Obama is trying to re-orient the nation back to some semblance of self-reliance, some sense of national, and community, goals. But he must overcome 30 years of institutionalized selfishness and self dealing.

People like Robert Reich understand that problem fully. And he will continue to, as he should given his position and background, remind the Obama administration of mis-steps while also urging the administration to pursue its best instincts. Of which there are, thankfully, many.

In truth the administration is attacking our problems on many fronts already.  President Obama has earmarked billions each to Education ($12 billion just announced for Community Colleges), Alternative Energy, Transportation, Infrastructure, Main Street (business credit lines via the Small Business Administration), Research and Development and Universal Health Care.  And that’s in addition to the $784 billion being spent through the recovery act to keep the nation from falling into Depression.

In unprecedented coordination with Treasury, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has backstopped not only Wall Street directly (a sore point with the public) but also many parts of the economy, such as the commercial paper markets for business and industry.  The total commitments have been more than $2 trillion. 

All these efforts combined have resulted in an estimated $1.8 trillion deficit for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.  This deficit size is a concern to everyone.   Republicans have used it as a cudgel against Obama’s efforts in total, claiming it will create inflationary problems in the future that will cause as much or more economic distress than that already experienced.

But $2 trillion in commitments isn’t the same thing as a loss of $2 trillion.  These are real assets on the Fed balance sheet.  As the economy does recover, they will be sold into the market.  Just as with the Wall Street subsidies being paid back by some banks like Goldman Sachs (the taxpayer actually made money on these loans), not every dollar spent in this crisis is a lost dollar.

The stimulus money is just beginning to hit Main Street and state governments.  Roads and bridges are being repaved and repaired.  Public education teachers, not all but many, who were “pink slipped” by cash strapped communities are being re-hired.   Many important infrastructure projects that take longer to organize and implement will employ labor and contract with private companies throughout 2010 and even into 2011.

President Obama has warned of the need to control health care costs and asserts that, more than any other single component of government spending, this component will bankrupt the nation the quickest if not dramatically changed.   It’s a problem that ranks in importance right alongside recovery act spending.

Not since Franklin Roosevelt’s first Presidential term began in 1932 has a President faced so many problems at once.   When Roosevelt took office the nation had already plunged into Depression.  Unemployment was on its way to 24% and that average doesn’t do justice to what was happening to labor from New York to California.  The nation’s Midwest “breadbasket” was on its way to becoming a Dust Bowl, compounding problems.

In some ways FDR had an easier job than Obama.  With unemployment soaring to heights that demanded immediate action, FDR went straight into job creation and formed government agencies whose sole purpose was to hire the unemployed and put them to productive work.   The result was an unprecented, and still unmatched, expansion of the nation’s infrastructure.  These programs knocked more than 10% off the unemployment rates by themselves.

But in this global recession unemployment increases have been gradual.  Employment nationally is still just above 90%, although it is much worse than that in some regions.  If unemployment continues what looks to be a long curve upwards, at some point job creation will move up as a priority and, ironically, will free Obama to start turning out those Request for Proposals (RFPs) where direct government intervention will create jobs.    

This is a fragile nation right now, despite Goldman’s banner quarter.  It is likely that in the not too distant future, President Obama will have to take direct government action to hire the unemployed.  Not just hand out unemployment compensation checks, but to create publicly financed and directed jobs.

When that happens, taxpayers are going to have to pay more.  It’s that simple.   FDR inherited a nation in Depression, but not in debt.  He could begin to run deficits as well as hike tax revenue and did not face an entrenched philosophy that government can’t accomplish anything of worth.   Humbled by the Depression and the misery it produced, Congress then did not have the luxury of making backroom deals aimed at subsidizing entrenched special interests.

Obama inherited a $5 trillion debt.  He also inherited a tax system based upon the belief that tax cuts, even if they created deficits, would provide increased revenues and jobs.  A belief that was wrong.  Jobs have not been created.  Revenues did not increase in real terms.  Bills did not get paid as a result.

With all these problems to address and facing an unwieldy government and a Congress hobbled by special interest money and influence, in many ways President Obama’s challenges are more difficult than those Roosevelt faced.

It’s nice that Goldman Sachs is making money right now.  But it’s time the government start investing directly in the nation so someone outside Wall Street makes money.  That will take spending and it will take revenue.  It’s time we got over the concept that we don’t have to pay for this, that somehow private corporations and tax cuts guarantee prosperity.

The Jonathan Swift novel Gulliver’s Travels, a satire on human nature written in 1726, seems appropriate in some ways to describe America’s inability to rationally address some of the most difficult problems in it’s history.

The most memorable illustration in that book shows Gulliver being tied down by hundreds of Lilliputions, a race of tiny people who Gulliver helped defeat their rival Blefuscudians.  At times it seems that mighty America, like Gulliver, is being tied down by many, many special interest Lilliputians.

Not too many people would argue fundamentally against the power of Democracy or of capitalist free markets.  But many do argue that these powerful forces of liberation can and do fail in some very important ways.  They aren’t magical.  Sometimes other approaches to problem solving are better.

It’s not hard to identify those areas.  Consider health care, for example.  Our current system, haphazard and jury-rigged, is expensive and inefficient by almost every metric professionals use to compare heath care delivery.

We have a steady run rate of about 50 million Americans who survive without affordable or even available health care.  More than 80 million Americans go without health care services annually.  When comparing our health care system to those in other countries, we don’t even rank compared to those systems provided by other developed countries.  We’re 37th in the world, somewhere on par with your average South American country.

Compare our system to that enjoyed by the French.  Like many European countries, France’s private health care system collapsed under the wreckage of WWII.  Because of that many European countries were forced to provide a different delivery system.

Essentially, France constructed their health system as a utility.   Doctors receive salaries.  Medical school is free.  Administrative duties are performed by regional, non profit, health care service companies.  Professional panels adjuticate malpractice claims, avoiding costly court systems.  And the system collectively bargains on pricing for medical equipment, drugs, etc.

The results?  There are more general practitioners per capita in France than in any other system.  The cost of health care is far less than that in America.  In all metrics comparing health care outcomes, the French system makes America’s look pre-industrial.  A payroll tax pays for this health care system.  The system is, not surprisingly, very popular with the French.

Yet despite this obvious inequality of health care, America has been unable to even broach the subject until recently when it became obvious our expensive system is about to bankrupt the country.  As the large boomer population retires, the demand for adequate healthcare will overwhelm our current dysfunctional system.

Yet even with a President who acknowledges the problem, there is no approach at fundamentally restructuring a failed system along the lines of other developed countries, like France, where obviously superior systems exist and have stood the test of time.  Instead, many special interests have “tied down” America keeping her from fundamentally changing health care into a more efficient, utilitarian model.

Now consider energy.  America’s success the past 160 years came directly from the use of fossil fuels like coal, gas and petroleum.  Free markets use a simple supply demand equation to arrive at price for these fuels. 

But times, as they always do, change.  Experience shows that fossil fuels come with additional costs outside the supply demand equation.  They pollute the very environment we have enjoyed pretty much unchanged the past 11,000 years of human recorded history.  Air and water quality are degraded resulting in many expensive to treat health care problems.  Global warming advocates insist that the carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels is exacerbating what appears to be a fundamental warming of the planet. 

And finally, fossil fuels are finite and we’ve already plucked the low hanging fruit from that energy tree.  This means our price for energy is only going to increase going forward unless some substitutes are created and applied.

Despite all the evidence, America has been slow to react.  Until only recently has there been even an official acknowledgement that we have a problem.  That occured when gasoline hit $4.17 per gallon last summer as the price of a barrel of oil reached $147 and America plunged into a swift and deep recession from which it still hasn’t recovered.   There are contributing problems to our recession, of course, but there’s no disagreement that the sudden rise in our fundamental energy bills helped precipitate our economic plunge.

In contrast, many other developed countries have long recognized the potential for energy shortages.  In Europe countries subsidize alternative, cleaner sources of energy from solar and wind power.  European countries, realizing that the price of fossil energy includes other costs  beyond simple supply/demand pricing, tax fossil fuels in order to fund alternative sources that don’t create these other costs.

As a result, Europe is less dependent on fossil fuels than America.  But why, as with health care, has not America taken a more successful, well traveled and time tested path?  For the same reason America is having so much difficulty solving it’s health care problem.  All those special interests opposed to change have “tied down” the country, just as the Lilliputians did to Gulliver.

Democracy can be vulnerable to capture.  Winners in any particular industry naturally want to solidify their position by obtaining from government special tax treatments or other advantages.  These are America’s Lilliputs.  They tie down the country’s government through Congressional and regulatory capture, primarily obtained by contributing to campaign war chests, and by supplying willing and able “regulators” to government.

And this is the underlying problem of America.  It is a giant tied down by its own brand of Lilliputians.  Industries that have, while America slept, compromised the country’s ability to forcefully address important problems until they become imminent dangers at the doorstep.

It’s time President Barack Obama show Congress, and several industries in particular, that he doesn’t intend to let the country be “tied down” by special interests, but instead he intends to respond to the much larger, general interest that got him elected.