2. Prevent any bank from becoming too big to fail. Separate commercial from investment banking, as they were before the late 1990s. Commercial banks should return to their basic function of linking savers with borrowers. Investment bankers should return to their casino function of placing bets in the stock market and advising you and others about where to place your own bets. Combining the basic utility with the casino only made bankers far richer and subjected you and me to risks we didn’t bargain for. If separating commercial from investment banking isn’t enough to bring all banks down to reasonable size, use antitrust laws to break them up.

3. Root out three major conflicts of interest. 1) Credit-rating agencies should no longer be paid by the companies whose issues are being rated; they should be paid by those who use their ratings. 2) Institutional investors like pension funds and mutual funds should not be getting investment advice from the same banks that profit off their investments; the advice should come from sources without a financial stake; 3) the regional Feds that are responsible for much bank oversight should no longer be headed by presidents appointed by the region’s bankers; non-bankers should have the major say, and the regional presidents should have to be confirmed by the Senate.

These three reforms will reduce the possibility that you and I and other taxpayers will ever again have to spend billions bailing out bankers who robbed us blind while amassing fortunes. But because that would make it next to impossible to make such fortunes in the future, the big bankers will fight every one of these with all guns blazing, and their lobbyists in full force. They’ll try to inundate you in a blizzard of buzzwords. They want your eyes to glaze over, but don’t let them. Keep focused on these three issues. Congress, for its part, may not be much help. It’s awash in money from Wall Street. Big Finance is second only to the health-industrial complex in owning a large portion of the Hill. Barney Frank at House Banking can be relied on to try his best but others in the House and Senate may well roll over. The president wants to do the right thing but he’s spread thin and spending political capital on healthcare. Tim Geithner doesn’t have the stomach to take on the Street; the plan he announced a few days ago to regulate pay is a bad joke. Expect lots of blather about rearranging boxes on the regulatory organization chart.

Bottom line: Genuine financial reform will be almost as difficult to achieve as real universal healthcare. Immense private interests are amassed against the public interest in both cases because staggering amounts of money are at stake. But they are the two most important domestic issues right now. Keep careful watch, and weigh in.

The last president to successfully take on the giant healthcare lobbies was LBJ. He got Medicare and Medicaid enacted because he weighed into the details, twisted congressional arms, threatened and cajoled, drew lines in the sand, and went to war against the AMA and the other giant lobbyists standing in the way. The question now is how much LBJ is in Barack Obama.

The big guns are out and they’re firing. All major lobbying firms in Washington — many of them brimming with ex-members of Congress — are now crawling all over the Hill. Lots of money is on the table. AMA’s political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates since 2000, and its lobbying arm is one of the most formidable on the Hill. Meanwhile, Big Insurance and Big Pharma are increasing their firepower. The five largest private insurers and their trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans spent a total of $6.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up more than $1 million from the first quarter last year, and are spending even more now. United Health Group spent $1.5 million in the first quarter, up 34 percent from the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter last year. Aetna spent $809,793 between January and the end of March, up 41 percent from last year. Pfizer, the world’s biggest drugmaker, spent more than $6.1 million on lobbying between January and March, more than double what it spent last year. It also spent nearly $3.3 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008. Every one of them is upping their spending.

Some congressional Democrats are willing and able to stand up to this barrage. Many are not. They need cover from the White House.

The President can’t do this alone. You must weigh in and get everyone you know to weigh in, too. Bombard your senators and representatives. Organize and mobilize others. And let the White House know how strongly you feel. This is one of those battles that define a presidency. But more importantly, it’s one of those battles that define the state of American democracy.

The truth is that there’s only one “public option” that will truly bring down costs and premiums — one that’s national in scale and combines its bargaining power with Medicare, and that’s allowed to negotiate lower drug prices and lower doctor and hospital fees. And that’s precisely what Pharma and Insurance detest, for exactly the same reason.

Whatever it’s called — public option or chopped liver — it has to be able to squeeze Pharma, Insurance, and the rest of the medical-industrial complex. And the more likely it is to squeeze them, the more they’ll fight it. And the greater the opposition from Republicans and from Dems who either believe any bill has to have some Republican support or who have sold themselves out to the medical biggies.

As long as single payer is off the table, then we need a real public option. Don’t be fooled by labels. Demand the real thing.

The Great Debt Scare is back.

Odd that it would return right now, when the economy is still mired in the worst depression since the Great one. After all, consumers are still deep in debt and incapable of buying. Unemployment continues to soar. Businesses still are not purchasing or investing, for lack of customers. Exports are still dead, because much of the global economy continues to shrink. So the purchaser of last resort — the government — has to create larger deficits if the economy is to get anywhere near full capacity, and start to grow again.

Odder still that the Debt Scare returns at the precise moment that bills are emerging from Congress on universal health care, which, by almost everyone’s reckoning, will not increase the long-term debt one bit because universal health care has to be paid for in the budget. In fact, universal health care will reduce the deficit and cumulative debt — especially if it includes a public option capable of negotiating lower costs from drug makers, doctors, and insurers, and thereby reducing the future costs of Medicare and Medicaid.

Even odder that the Debt Scare rears its frightening head just as the President’s stimulus is moving into high gear with more spending on infrastructure. Every expert who has looked closely at the nation’s crumbling infrastructure knows how badly it suffers from decades of deferred maintenance — bridges collapsing, water pipes bursting, sewers backed up, highways impassable, public transit in disrepair. The stimulus, along with the President’s long-term budget, also focus on the nation’s schools, as well as America’s capacity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These public investments are as important to the nation’s future as are private investments.

First, some background: Deficit and debt numbers mean nothing in and of themselves. They take on meaning only in relation to something else. And the most important something else, in terms of deciding whether the nation can afford such deficits or debts, is the size of the national economy.

Pay close attention, in particular, to the debt/GDP ratio. True, that ratio is heading in the wrong direction right now. It may reach 70 percent by the end of 2010. That’s high, but it’s not high compared to the 120 percent it was in 1946, after the ravages of Depression and war.

Over time, the basic way America has reduced the debt/GDP ratio is by growing the U.S. economy. GDP growth makes even large debts manageable. When the economy is cooking, more people have jobs and better wages. So they pay more taxes. And they require less unemployment assistance and other social insurance. That’s why it’s so important now, in the depths of depression, that government, as purchaser of last resort, steps in and runs large deficits. Without large deficits this year and next, and perhaps the year after, the economy doesn’t have a prayer of getting back on a growth path, and the debt/GDP ratio could really get ugly.

That growth path, by the way, will be faster and stronger if the nation invests in our infrastructure, our schools, and our environment — which is exactly what Obama aims to do. In this respect, national budgets are like family budgets. It’s dumb for an indebted family to borrow more money to take a world cruise. But it’s smart even for an indebted family to borrow money to send their kids to college. So too with the Obama budget. Public investments, just like family investments, build future wealth. They allow faster growth. They make the debt/GDP ratio even lower and more manageable over time.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to long-term deficit and debt projections. I’m just saying now’s not the time to worry, and we ought to temper our worries by understanding the larger context.

Not every expert agrees that a deficit-driven stimulus is the best and fastest way to get the economy back on a growth track, or that public investments can speed growth. Conservative economists, Republicans, and many Wall Streeters are skeptical because they don’t think government can do anything well. But look at the record of the last seventy-five years — look at how the nation got out of the Great Depression, and consider the critical role public investments have played since then in speeding the nation’s growth, investments such as the interstate highway system — and you have ample evidence that the deficit hawks are wrong. They were wrong when they convinced Bill Clinton to chuck a large part of his investment agenda (the nation is now paying the price) and they’re wrong now.

So, back to the mystery. Why are the ostensibly liberal Center for American Progress and New York Times participating in the Debt Scare right now? Is it possible that among the President’s top economic advisors and top ranking members the Fed are people who agree more with conservative Republicans and Wall Streeters on this issue than with the President? Is it conceivable that they are quietly encouraging the Debt Scare even in traditionally liberal precincts, in order to reduce support in the Democratic base for what Obama wants to accomplish? Hmmm.

Fortunately, the White House now intends to get more involved in the emerging healthcare bill. Following are the three biggest issues where powerful lobbies on the other side are working the details to their advantage. The question is how hard the Obama White House will push back.

1. A real public option or a public option in name only? Big Pharma and Big Insurance are dead against, and are pressuring lawmakers. Republicans are also opposed. The president said he wants a public option. But the real question is whether he’ll be willing to allow the public option to be watered down into essentially nothing (broken up into regional or state-run plans, or required to charge the same as private insurance, or triggered only if private insurers and Pharma fail to bring down costs and extend coverage). If the president wants Republicans on board even though he doesn’t need them (the bill requires only 51 Senate votes), he will have to buy a watered-down version.

2. A requirement that all businesses “pay or play,” or a broad exemption for smaller businesses? Most emerging versions of the bill require employers to supply health insurance for workers or contribute to the cost of a plan but exempt small employers. The issue to watch is how “small employers” are defined — and how many, as a result, won’t have to either pay or play. Small business lobbies are all over the Hill arguing for a broad exemption. Republicans agree. The White House will have to push back very hard to include enough businesses to make “pay or play” work.

3. Additional tax revenues from taxing employer-provided benefits on higher incomes or from limiting deductions on higher incomes? Congressional Dems originally nixed the second and haven’t supported the first. Organized labor is dead-set against taxing any employer-provided health benefits because it doesn’t want to set a precedent that might someday erode all such benefits. Accordingly, the White House is signaling it won’t take this route. Yet there’s powerful resistance on limiting deductions for higher incomes, from many of the beneficiaries of these deductions (such as big charities and state and local governments). Unless the White House demands that those deductions be limited for all taxpayers earning over $250,000 a year, adjusted for inflation in future years, it won’t have enough revenue to support the overall bill.

So the question right now is how hard the president will push to get a real public option, a broad mandate and enough revenues to support universal healthcare. The Republicans are showing remarkable unity, as they did on the stimulus package and the budget. Yet the president seems intent on a bipartisan bill. Meanwhile, Pharma, insurance, charities, state and local governments and labor are all putting maximum pressure on individual Democrats. Yet the president seems wary of twisting arms. What’s the result? Keep your eyes on the details.