6pm PT/9pm ET
This week, commentators Dave Johnson (Campaign for America’s Future) & Cliff Schecter (Libertas LLC) talk about good public policy as popular public policy. and how a government jobs program with a minimum wage increase would be both, e.g. Moral Mondays and Gillibrand’s populist “Opportunity Agenda.”
A ridiculous moment from Culture of Truth…
Then potential progressive options to a Clinton candidacy e.g., Sanders, Schweitzer, O’Malley; and the impact they may have on the Democratic Party as well as Clinton’s positions and campaign.
And yet for all the shortcomings of the government’s strategy, the main reason for America’s persistent poverty is the disappearance of jobs with decent pay that can take workers above the poverty line without the government’s help.
The war on poverty was not just about the poor. President Johnson saw it as a way to “prove the success of our system; to disprove those cynics and critics at home and abroad who question our purpose and our competence.”
Our system provides extraordinary rewards for the successful. But as long as so many are left so far behind, the success of our system remains in doubt.
America has not stopped fighting the war on poverty. President Obama’s health law should, when functioning properly, prevent medical expenses from dragging many families into bankruptcy.
Yet winning this war will require more than expanded government benefits. It will probably require a different sort of labor market that provides a better first line of defense. That is a much tougher war to win.
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names—labeled “fat cats” by President Obama and worse by those on the left—and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.
So Hillary’s the Bad Mommy, the one who will clutch the contrite rascals to her bosom and yell at the nasty populist Dems who are picking on her precious angels? Nah, that’s not gonna work. What planet does she live on? Mike Lux, who used to work with Hillary, points out the problem:
There is a fundamental disagreement over approaches to the Jamie Dimons and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world, and one approach, exemplified by a recent speech by Hillary Clinton’s recent speech to Goldman Sachs’ execs helped inspire (if you can call it that) the opposite approach from an organization I chair, American Family Voices. Partly inspired by one settlement after another where Jamie Dimon has sweet-talked prosecutors into no-criminal-prosecution settlements of things which were clearly criminal (the JPM settlements were by far the biggest in history money wise, which is a good thing, but so inadequate in so many ways they still are disappointing), and partly inspired by Hillary’s warm and friendly speech about Wall Street, we are putting out a parody of Rihanna’s video “Diamonds,” turning it into the story of that jewel of a guy Jamie Dimon- we think it is just the kind of hard-hitting and funny satire he and JP Morgan Chase so desperately deserve.
The thing is, the Democratic Party and American society in general are going to have to make a choice about the kind of economic and political course we are going to follow in the years to come. We’re going to have to choose between sucking up to Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein and the Wall Street masters of the universe with all their immense wealth and power on the one hand, and directly challenging the chokehold they have on our economy and our government through our policy initiatives, our political positioning, and cultural satire like this video on the other. Instead of being sympathized with, the Wall Street masters of the universe should be held accountable politically and legally for the role they played in damaging the economy and then keeping our economy from getting back on the road to recovery- and they should be mocked for their arrogance. American Family Voices doesn’t have the power to break the big banks up, or throw their executives in jail, but we can help on the mocking part and on the organizing part.
This is kind of interesting. It doesn’t sound like there was anything too strange going on, but why is the Post making a point of writing about it?
Federal prosecutors told Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell last week that he and his wife would be charged in connection with a gift scandal, but senior Justice Department officials delayed the decision after the McDonnells’ attorneys made a face-to-face appeal in Washington, according to people familiar with the case.
Dana J. Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told the McDonnells’ legal teams that he planned to ask a grand jury to return an indictment no later than this past Monday, people familiar with the conversations said.
McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, would have been charged with working together to illegally promote a struggling dietary-supplement company in exchange for gifts and loans from its chief executive, the people said.
The plan to seek the felony charges this week changed, however, after attorneys for the state’s first couple met with Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole on Dec. 12.
The attorneys argued that the governor had done nothing improper to assist businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. In particular, they focused on the credibility of a key witness, said a person familiar with the presentation. They also argued that if prosecutors proceeded with charges, they should wait until after McDonnell left office Jan. 11 to allow a smooth transition of power to Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D). Continue reading “Was something funny going on?”→
What really happened here is that our city’s lobbying regulations are too non-specific to apply here. Hardly a vindication:
The city’s Board of Ethics has rejected a claim that William Penn Foundation-funded work that a consulting firm completed for the Philadelphia School District constituted lobbying.
A 2012 complaint alleged that William Penn – which paid the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) more than $1 million to study district operations and recommend cost-cutting measures – essentially hired BCG to lobby the district on a pro-charter school agenda and target dozens of schools for closure.
The complaint was filed by Parents United for Public Education, the Philadelphia Home and School Council, and the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, and suggested that a foundation official overtly tried to influence district officials.
The Ethics Board’s ruling, issued Dec. 6 after a lengthy investigation, found that William Penn’s actions did not strictly constitute lobbying. It did acknowledge that contracts between BCG and William Penn “create the appearance that BCG was working for the foundation and not the School District.”
The board said that while Jeremy Nowak, then president of the foundation, regularly met with district officials, asked questions, and made suggestions about BCG’s work, the lobbying law does not speak to what should happen when a private group makes grants to a public entity.
Witnesses told Ethics Board investigators they believed that “Nowak’s role as a funding source gave him significant influence with and access to School District officials,” according to the ruling. Nowak abruptly left the foundation late last year.
A William Penn spokesman said he was pleased that the matter was closed
I don’t know how I missed it that Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky (aka Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law) is running for PA’s 13th District Congressional seat, but dear God, this writer does such a great job of conveying how she’s stuck in a time warp from the 90s. Why is she running in the now-solidly blue 13th? No one else wanted to run?
With little known about the inner workings of the nine-month-track of direct peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Secretary Kerry’s comments on “state institutions” provides some daylight between speculative and probable outcomes. “It will take time to train, build, equip, and test Palestinian institutions to ensure that they’re capable of protecting Palestinian citizens,” he said, continuing, “Their primary responsibility is that – and also of preventing their territory from being used for attacks on Israel.”
In his harshest description to date of Palestinian ethnicity, Sec. Kerry also said Palestinian citizens of Israel are a “demographic time bomb” that threaten Israel’s “future as a democratic, Jewish state,” adding “that today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s or the future’s.” He went on to support separating the two populations, and demanding the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state a condition that is “the only way” to achieve peace.
“The only way to secure Israel’s long-term future and security will be achieved through direct negotiations that separate Palestinians and Israelis, resolve the refugee situation, end all claims, and establish an independent, viable Palestinian state, and achieve recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people,” said Sec. Kerry.
Prior to Sec. Kerry’s remarks the expectation was that negotiations over core issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and water) would lead to a proposal of a Palestinian state. Whether or not that state would then be viable, is the question of critics to the U.S.-brokered deal. But it doesn’t take an analyst or a psychologist to note statehood seems unlikely. The Israeli team have made their redlines clear: no division of Jerusalem along the ’49 armistice border, and no refugee right of return. Speaking the day before, Lieberman reiterated these positions, adding, “I don’t see any occupation” when a questioner asked him about the Israeli Oscar nominated documentary film The Gatekeepers.
My, Rusty’s got an outsize opinion of himself. While pretending to laugh it off, he utilizes the humblebrag to imply there might be something to listener suggestions that TIME named the pope their “person of the year” to spite old Rush. Because the librul media exists only to taunt His Magnificence, and it couldn’t possibly be that the pope earned the honor for being an inspiring spiritual leader!
RUSH: Do you think Obama’s upset that he didn’t win the Man of the Year award from TIME? I mean, nobody outdoes him in anti-capitalism. And to lose to a guy who’s pro-life? It’s gotta be a huge insult to Obama. In case you haven’t heard, Pope Francis was named the Man of the Year by TIME Magazine. I’m just wondering, folks, if I gave a speech on anti-capitalism, do you think I could be named Person of the Year by TIME Magazine? If I didn’t change my view, if I remained anti-abortion, if I remained anti-gay marriage — well, the pope certainly is. Do you realize what happened here?
This is phenomenal. I can’t tell you the number of people — I don’t, frankly, believe this. I can’t tell you the number of people who have gotten hold of me today who think the pope was named Man of the Year because of me. That the media decided they hated me more than the pope. That TIME Magazine hated me more than the pope, and therefore it was a thumb in my eye.
Now, I’m not a narcissist and I don’t think everything’s about me, but I can’t tell you the number of people who’ve sent me notes: “Do you realize you made this happen? If you had not said a word about this, they would have picked somebody else like Snowden or take your pick.” Who knows, ladies and gentlemen. Continue reading “Rush Limbaugh: I made Pope Frank man of the year”→