You’ve probably heard about George Soros’ remarks at a meeting for big bucks progressive donors on Tuesday. Sam Stein at Huffpo:
The Hungarian-American financier was speaking to a small side gathering of donors who had convened in Washington D.C. for the annual gathering of the Democracy Alliance — a formal community of well-funded, progressive-minded individuals and activists.
According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is “used to fighting losing battles but doesn’t like to lose without fighting.”
“We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”
Michael Vachon, an adviser to Soros, did not dispute the comment, though he stressed that there was no transcript of a private gathering to check. Vachon also clarified that the longtime progressive giver was not referring to a primary challenge to the president.
Really? Hmmmm…. So um, who leaked the news from the secret meeting?
And there’s more:
Dissatisfaction with the Obama administration was not limited to Soros’s private gathering with donors. On Wednesday morning, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina received several tough questions during his address to the Democracy Alliance. According to a source in the room, he was pressed multiple times as to why the administration has declined to be more combative with Republicans, both in communication and legislative strategy.
So Soros and pals are all hunky-dory with Obama? I’m not sure I buy that. Anyway this is being spun as simply a discussion about giving money to outside groups instead of directly to Obama–a change from 2008 when Obama directed his donors to funnel all money through his campaign instead of giving to groups like Move on.org.
Let’s look at some of the reactions to this political bombshell.
Soros isn’t actually a liberal Democrat — he has a diverse collection of interests, some of which (drug legalization) don’t move at all when Democrats win. There may be some millionaires who want to beat Obama in a primary, but there are more who want to activate the third party pro-Democrat groups that Obama wanted to evaporate in 2008-2010.
Soros, a billionaire who has been among the most generous donors to liberal causes over the years, has recently indicated he no longer intends to fund the kind of independent political advertising campaigns he backed in 2004 and that Republican allies used to bombard Democrats in the midterm elections.
During a private session Wednesday on the sidelines of a conference of major Democratic donors organized by the Democracy Alliance, Soros reiterated the position that wealthy liberals should focus their giving on groups that will push President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on liberal legislative initiatives, rather than groups supporting individual candidates, according to a source in the meeting.
“George was talking about how, in the context of the election, progressives are disappointed, and that they should keep (the administration) focused on certain issues that we should be promoting,” said the source, who did not want to be identified because Democracy Alliance bars attendees from discussing its conferences.
According to some loose-lipped folks that attended a private event for the Democracy Alliance in Washington today, the hedge-fund billionaire and longtime Democratic donor George Soros is very upset about the last election, not least because his plans to grow a crop of Maui Wowie in his front yard were stymied, and he hinted darkly that the president may not have his support for much longer.
I have to say I agree with Soros on the legalization issue.
In other news, unemployment benefits will soon expire for two million Americans, and since Congress won’t be in session next week (they get whole weeks off for holidays), they will have to do something soon or face the wrath of voters when they go home for Thanksgiving.
Currently five million people are receiving aid under two federally-funded programs for the long-term unemployed.
Yet no clear path forward has emerged in Congress for reauthorizing those programs. Aides have floated the idea of coupling the benefits with a reauthorization of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for the top two percent of earners.
But it won’t happen if Ben “Scrooge” Nelson gets his way.
Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who sided with Republicans when they blocked the previous reauthorization for nearly two months this summer, said he doesn’t love the tax cut deal.
“That’s a mistake,” said Nelson, who has joined the GOP in opposing the extended benefits unless their deficit impact is offset with spending cuts. “Unless unemployment is paid for, I can’t support it.”
Why don’t you just switch parties, Ben, and take President teleprompter Jesus with you.
It was a classic skirmish of the 1960s culture war, pitting a nonconformist rock star and his bohemian fans against clean-cut defenders of acceptable behavior, the counterculture against the mainstream, and Jim Morrison against Anita Bryant.
Now the governor of Florida says he will seek to put an end to it by pursuing a posthumous pardon for two criminal convictions that Morrison, the frontman for the Doors, received after some very bad behavior at a 1969 concert in Miami.
I can get behind that. Why not give Morrison a posthumous Medal of Freedom too? And lets submit his name for the Nobel Peace Prize. Morrison gave me a lot more joy than I ever got from the latest Medal of Freedom winner or the Nobel Peace Prize winning War President.
“The more that I’ve read about the case and the more I get briefed on it,” Mr. Crist said in an interview on Tuesday, “the more convinced I am that maybe an injustice has been done here.”
For those on the other side, the passion has dimmed, but a sour taste lingers. The anger that once brought them to the barricades has dulled to an impatient pique at the notion that the fate of a dead rock star still commands attention 40 years later.
The fight began on March 1, 1969, when the Doors played a raucous concert at Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami. An intoxicated Morrison stumbled through songs like “Light My Fire” and “Break On Through (To the Other Side),” taunted the crowd and threatened to expose himself before fans mobbed the stage. A newspaper review said the singer appeared to simulate masturbation during his performance, and the concert was investigated by a Miami crime commission as six arrest warrants were issued for Morrison, including one for a felony charge of lewd and lascivious behavior.
I’ll end with a great Morrison song with some stirring lyrics that are very relevant today.
Five to one, baby
One in five
No one here gets out alive, now
You get yours, baby
I’ll get mine
Gonna make it, baby
If we try
The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the guns
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We’re takin’ over
Come on!
Except maybe we should change that to
“the rich get richer/ and the poor get angrier.”
So what’s on your reading list today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
We’re seeing what happens. People voted for “the audacity of hope” and “change we can believe in” — empty slogans with no real meaning. Now our country is in desperate straits, and the man who was elected to lead us has no idea what to do. He can’t even work himself up to make an inspiring speech to encourage us to have a little hope for the future.
The aftermath of the GOP’s midterm triumph perfectly illustrates this problem: Obama is falling over himself seeking compromise with Republicans, ceding to their frames, while Republican leaders say they will stick to their principles and try to destroy his presidency and legacy. Here’s how I put it a couple of days ago: If one side offers “compromise” and the other claims to stand firmly on principle, which one appears more principled to voters?
Astonishingly, in a 60 Minutes piece that just aired, Obama goes one step further. During the course of the entire interview he only once mentions having the courage of one’s convictions. And he attributes it not to himself or Democrats, but to Tom Coburn, a staunch conservative!
“There are some sincere Republicans in the Senate like Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, who is about as conservative as they come, but a real friend of mine and somebody who has always had the courage of his convictions and not, you know, bringing pork projects back to Oklahoma. And it may be that that’s an example of where, on a bipartisan basis, we can work together to change practices in Washington that generate a lot of the distrust of government.”
How can anyone claim that Obama is a Democrat? At the Atlantic, Derek Thompson asks “Why Did Obama Do the 60 Mintues Interview? Good question! He sure didn’t do it to advance the goals of the party he pretends to belong to and, yes, lead. Thompson:
Five days after a demoralizing midterm election, President Obama appeared on 60 Minutes to make the case that … wait, why did the president appear on 60 Minutes, exactly?
He told Americans that the economy might never fully recover. He said the White House is discouraged about the election and the economy. He admitted that he made mistakes, knowingly committed an unforced political error in health care reform, and got too heated with his rhetoric during the midterm campaign. He prepared Americans for the “hard, long slog” ahead. That the president is his own harshest critic is admirable, but CBS interviews aren’t required at the halfway point like a midterm exam. The president sat down in that chair to make a point. So what was the point?
Beats the hell out me.
Back in 1979, President Jimmy Carter gave a famous speech that is often referred to as “the malaise speech,” even though it didn’t contain the word “malaise.” That speech is often seen as Carter’s Waterloo. And yet Carter’s speech was inspiring and upbeat in comparison to the Obama’s whiny, sad sack performance on 60 Minutes.
This man sold himself as a transformational leader–an agent of change who would inspire all of us to be all we can be and to work together to accomplish great things. But what has he done since January 2009 to transform government or inspire Americans to reach for greatness? Zippo, as far as I can see.
“What is a danger is that we stay stuck in a new normal where unemployment rates stay high,” he said in an interview aired Sunday night on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “People who have jobs see their incomes go up. Businesses make big profits. But they’ve learned to do more with less. And so they don’t hire. And as a consequence, we keep on seeing growth that is just too slow to bring back the 8 million jobs that were lost.”
[….]
He lamented his inability to make more headway in creating jobs, conceding that “I do get discouraged.”
“I thought the economy would have gotten better by now,” he said. “One of the things I think you understand as president is you’re held responsible for everything. But you don’t always have control of everything.”
[….]
“Some of this is going to be just a matter of the economy healing,” he said. “Especially an economy this big, there are limited tools to encourage the kind of job growth that we need.
Will someone please get Obama to sit down and watch a PBS special on FDR’s responses to the Great Depression? He sounds too down in the dumps to read a book. Has this man never heard of the WPA or the CCC?
Roosevelt created the CCC with an executive order. He didn’t wait around for Congress to do something about unemployment–he went way out on a limb and did it himself. And it worked. Obama won’t do anything but wait around for Congress to act so he doesn’t have to take any responsibility.
Some of us expected this based on his history of “voting present.” But a hell of a lot of people fell for his con game, and now we’re stuck with him for at least two more years. Somehow we have to light a fire under this guy, but how?
At Huffpo, Katherine Reardon compares our predicament to “Waiting for Godot.”
Perhaps we are like Samuel Beckett’s characters Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting For Godot. These men wait for a man they admit to hardly knowing but nonetheless someone they expect to change their lives. They anticipate he will sort out their problems. Yet as they wait and wait, they decide that when he arrives he will do “nothing very definite.” Still, they wait.
I waited last night for the confident Democratic President of the United States to appear on 60 Minutes but he never quite arrived. In fact, the president who did arrive said when asked by Steve Croft about his promise to change Washington:
“That’s one of the dangers of assuming power. And you know, when you’re campaigning, you, I think you’re liberated to say things without thinking about, ‘Okay, how am I gonna actually practically implement this.'”
What? Nah! He didn’t say that, did he?
Yes, Katherine, he did. This is the “lightworker” that all the “progressives” foisted on us. More from Reardon’s piece:
Croft later asked about Social Security and Medicare — “things that the American people really think are important.” In his response, the president actually referred to “entitlements,” which the Republicans — who love that word by the way — are going to have to “confront in a serious way.” Excuse me?
Why not say:
Republicans like to talk about earning what you get. That’s exactly what people do every every pay period when they contribute to Social Security. That’s their money. They earned it. That’s their nest egg and while I’m president nobody is going to steal it from them.
Or,
Let’s be very clear. Diminishing social security in any way is income redistribution. Yes, that’s what I said — exactly what the Republicans say they hate. It’s distributing hard-working Americans’ income to the rich by way of tax cuts for the wealthy.
And of course you know what our great leader had to say about tax cuts for the wealthy: he’s open to compromising with the Republicans on that. Yes, once again, our President has capitulated before the bargaining even begins.
We’ve got to get through two more years with this guy in charge. Does anyone have any ideas about how we can either get him to act like an old-style FDR Democrat or else put someone in charge who can?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
“The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any,” the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV’s program a Simple Question.
“We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any.” [….]
“The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany.”
Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, “a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban… That was later turned into the official justification for the war.”
“All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal,” Chomsky said.
But in the post-9/11 world, we no longer need evidence, do we? Nowadays our President can order the assassination of American citizens secretly, with no probable cause and no legal recourse.
Regarding Osama bin Laden’s supposed responsibility for 9/11, George Washington also points to this 2001 story in Wired.
President Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.
Think again.
Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept. 11.
The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.
“There’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged,” said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI’s chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.”
Nearly nine years later, bin Laden still has not been charged in the 9/11 attacks. This is the world that George W. Bush brought us and Barack Obama seems very comfortable in. As the Zero Hedge post points out, Obama is still using the al Quaeda excuse for continuing his bloody war in Afghanistan.
Speaking of terrorist attacks, can someone please lock Mark Penn up in a padded room somewhere and throw away the key? Penn has once again opened his big fat mouth and said something completely unacceptable.
Appearing on television recently, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current public relations executive Mark Penn suggested that President Obama needs a moment “similar” to the tragic terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, in order to “reconnect” with voters.
He didn’t even seem to flinch in making the comment. [….]
“Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?” Penn said, appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball on Thursday. “And the president right now seems removed. It wasn’t until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar — a similar kind of … Yeah.
Isn’t that nice? And we’ll probably be treated to lots of CDS as a result of Penn’s idiotic statements too. Anyway, Obama already had the underwear bomber, and that didn’t seem to do anything for his approval ratings. And then there’s this guy:
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Saturday that the case of a young Chinese man who boarded a flight to Canada elaborately disguised as an elderly white male raises concerns about a security breach that terrorists might exploit.
Authorities have not suggested any terrorist link to the case of the man who boarded the Air Canada flight in Hong Kong on Oct. 29 wearing a remarkably detailed silicone mask to make him look like an elderly man. An internal intelligence alert from the Canadian Border Services Agency shows before-and-after photos, and says the man removed the mask in a washroom mid-flight.
Air Canada confirmed a passenger on board flight AC018 had altered his appearance and had been met by border services officials in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Chinese man is seeking refugee status in Canada in what border officials are calling an “unbelievable case of concealment.” Canadian authorities did not release any information about the passenger’s identity.
I know it seems like more of a noble sacrifice to cut spending on things people less fortunate than ourselves need, but can somebody explain to me why it wouldn’t be at least that noble to eliminate the budget of the CIA, which serves no one?
The Washington Post and the Obama administration have been busy telling us that it’s legal to kidnap people and send them to countries that torture. They may call it “renditioning” to nations that use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but a new book details what this means in English.
A man was walking near his home in Milano, Italy, and was stopped and questioned by a policeman. When they had been engaged in conversation for some minutes, the side door of a van parked behind the man crashed open with a thunderous sound, two extremely large and strong men grabbed the civilian and hauled him inside, and the door slammed shut three seconds after it had opened, as the van accelerated and the two men hit and kicked their victim repeatedly in the dark of the van’s interior, pounding his head, chest, stomach, and legs. They stopped. They stuffed a gag in his mouth and put a hood over his head, as they cinched cords tight around his wrists and ankles. Hours later they threw him into another vehicle. An hour later they took him out, stood him up, cut his clothes off, shoved something hard up his anus, stuck a diaper and pajamas on him, wrapped his head almost entirely with duct tape, and tossed him in an airplane.
The torture he received when he got where he was going left him nearly dead, prematurely aged, and barely able to walk. It was US-sponsored and Egyptian administered. And it is described in all of its almost unbearable detail in Steve Hendricks’ “A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trial.”
That sounds like a book that should be on President Obama’s reading list. On the other hand, maybe someone should buy it for Michelle. Maybe she might see the light and talk some sense into her husband.
The most widely accepted narrative to emerge from the 2010 midterm elections, in which Democrats took a “shellacking” [There’s that buzzword again!] and lost the most congressional seats since World War II, was this: Sick of liberal overreach, voters—especially independents—shifted their favor to the right, choosing Republican candidates in huge numbers.
Not so, according to a new exit poll by the firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. The firm’s findings, released Friday, show that voters weren’t necessarily allying themselves with the GOP, but rather were voicing their disapproval with Washington as a whole, and especially with the federal government’s inability to restart America’s economic engine. To wit, voters polled gave equally poor favorability ratings to both parties as well as the tea party, the poll found. Twenty-six percent of voters said their vote was a message to “both parties,” while 20 percent said it was a rebuke of Obama and 15 percent said it was a rebuke of congressional Democrats. Voters’ chief complaint was “too much bickering in Washington”—a charge directed at both parties.
What matters most to voters isn’t political nit-picking or Washington drama but the economy, plain and simple.
IOW, jobs, jobs, jobs!! I’m not holding my breath waiting for the corporate media and the political elites to get it, though.
According to parliament sources, a technical team from the US has helped the Lok Sabha secretariat install textbook-sized panes of glass around the podium that will give cues to Obama on his prepared remarks to 780 Indian MPs on the evening of Nov 8….
Obama will make history for more than one reason during the Nov 6-9 visit. This will be the first time a teleprompter will be used in the nearly 100-feet high dome-shaped hall that has portraits of eminent national leaders adorning its walls.
Indian politicians are known for making impromptu long speeches and perhaps that is why some parliament officials, who did not wish to be named, sounded rather surprised with the idea of a teleprompter for Obama.
“We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,” an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.
Obama is known to captivate audiences with his one-liners that sound like extempore and his deep gaze. But few in India know that the US president always carries the teleprompter with him wherever he speaks.
How sad it is to see yet another country disillusioned by the man of “hope ‘n’ change.”
[MABlue here] Frank Rich has a pretty good column today. He has a decent list of the faux pas of the Obama administration so far. Barack Obama, Phone Home
AFTER his “shellacking,” President Obama had to do something. But who had the bright idea of scheduling his visit to India for right after this election? The Democrats’ failure to create jobs was at the heart of the shellacking. Nothing says “outsourcing” to the American public more succinctly than India. But the White House didn’t figure this out until the eve of Obama’s Friday departure, when it hastily rebranded his trip as a jobs mission. Perhaps the president should visit one of the Indian call centers policing Americans’ credit-card debts to feel our pain.
Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.
I thought we were looking for ways to save. You’ve all heard about these horrible deficits and how we have to “cut spending” ad nauseum. But look here, we keep finding new ways to throw boatloads away:
A 48-year-old man parked his car in the front row facing the courthouse midday Thursday, pulled down his shorts in front of a Pasco County Sheriff’s Office detective and began masturbating
Talk about “having balls”.
That’s about it for me. What’s on your reading list this morning?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Mr. Obama’s 19-hour whirlwind Bay Area fundraising trip filled Sen. Barbara Boxer‘s wallet with $1.75 million and he used a $17,600 a person dinner at the Getty Mansion in San Francisco to bring in the big bucks.
The president’s 80 dinner guests were treated to an elaborate meal prepared by chef Jennifer Johnson, according to SF Gate, who got the scoop on the menu.
Diners were treated to quail egg with caviar and salmon ceviche with jicama and avocado on a tortilla chip
as their starting hors d’oeuvres. Next they were served a spring onion-asparagus tartlet with Meyer lemon vinaigrette-dressed frisee salad.
No Mr. President. Losing communities, ecosystems, tax bases, jobs, entire generations of animals, and coastal marshes and fearing for the air you breathe and the water your drink is scary. Being unemployed for years and facing an endlessly high unemployment rate is scary. Being told you have to buy overpriced health insurance that you can’t afford or pay more taxes is scary. Being told some one you love is going to do one more rotation in Afghanistan is scary. All of that is scary. What you represent is NOT CHANGE. It’s pathetic sameness.
These problems that we confronted didn’t come out of nowhere. They didn’t just happen. There was a consequence of policies that had been in place for years, that Barbara’s opponents, that the other party have promoted. And so we had to move fast, and that’s what we did.
On day one, we took the reins and we said are going to make sure that we don’t slip into a Great Depression. And we are —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Move faster on “don’t ask, don’t tell”!
AUDIENCE: Boo!
THE PRESIDENT: It’s good to see you again.
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: I have to say — you know, I saw this guy down in L.A. — (laughter) — at a Barbara Boxer event about a month and a half ago, and I would — two points I want to make. Number one, he should — I hate to say this, but he really should, like, buy a ticket to — if he wants to demonstrate, buy a ticket to a guy who doesn’t support his point of view. (Laughter.) And then you can yell as much as you want there. (Applause.)
Hello, California! Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. You doing a little dance? Thank you. Thank you, everybody, thank you. Oh, thank you. Now, it is good to be back. But I resent I didn’t get a chance hear the choir sing. (Laughter.) I was up somewhere. They were working me hard. And I could have used a little lift of the spirit there. (Laughter.)
Do you remember that tape staffers had to make for Dubya in order to get his attention down here for Hurricane Katrina? I think it’s about time President Obama starts seeing some videos of the folks losing every thing they’ve got as well as all the dead plants and animals killed by the toxins as well his inability to get off the lecture circuit and show some leadership. He may not be a geological engineer but he’s the President and he can marshal resources and responses like no other. Once, we got to the moon on the dream of a president who was not an astrophysicist. Twice, we won world wars with presidents that were anything but career soldiers. Leading a country means commandeering whatever resources it takes to get the job done and telling the people who look up to you that you’re in charge.
How about the President come down here and eat dinner with some of the just plain folk in these newscasts?
Here’s a little of what I get to see and hear day-in and day-out. It’s unbearable some days. I could add a lot more but I doubt it would do any good, any way. He’s on vacation in Chicago next. Who does that remind you of?
Pathetic sameness.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I cringe every time I hear the Right Wing Media machine continue to label Obama a socialist, a liberal, or even progressive. He’s undoubtedly maintained more status quo from the previous administration than not. There have been a few marginal changes in laws impacting GLBT civil rights, women’s reproductive health, and a return to civil rights in general, but creeping back towards the middle after a big lurch right does not earn him an leftish label in my book.
I’ve used the phrase crony capitalism before to describe Obama’s approach to the economy and the power structure within the beltway. Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst for The Washington Examiner goes into the numbers vs. the rhetoric on lobbyists and lobbying in the New World Order of Obamanomics. The bottom line is that Obama likes his friends rich and works to ensure they get richer. That is not capitalism. That is not socialism. That is actively creating the formation of monopolies and writing laws to protect monopoly interests. This is the antithesis to both capitalism and socialism
Fast-forward to the present day. Lobbyists, reports the Center for Responsive Politics, had a record 2009 in Barack Obama’s Washington. Despite candidate Obama’s promises to shun them, they raked in $3,470,000,000. Somewhere up there, Tommy Corcoran is chuckling.
Last week, amid Washington’s blizzards, Obama was asked about the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million bonus for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
“I know both these guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” he said. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth.” So much for campaign-trail denunciations of “fat cat” bankers and bloated bonuses.
It does not take any savvy to take advantage of government bailouts, near zero loans of capital from the FED, and announcements by the FED of planned buying of you and your buddies toxic assets. It also does not take savvy to be on Timothy Geithner’s best buddy list when things are coming apart at the seams when he can move the market in your direction. Consider this from Baseline Scenario today.
We now learn – from Der Spiegel last week and today’s NYT – that Goldman Sachs has not only helped or encouraged some European governments to hide a large part of their debts, but it also endeavored to do so for Greece as recently as last November. These actions are fundamentally destabilizing to the global financial system, as they undermine: the eurozone area; all attempts to bring greater transparency to government accounting; and the most basic principles that underlie well-functioning markets. When the data are all lies, the outcomes are all bad – see the subprime mortgage crisis for further detail.
A single rogue trader can bring down a bank – remember the case of Barings. But a single rogue bank can bring down the world’s financial system.
Goldman will dismiss this as “business as usual” and, to be sure, a few phone calls around Washington will help ensure that Goldman’s primary supervisor – now the Fed – looks the other way.
This is not socialism. This is not the way either perfectly competitive markets nor centrally planned economies work. In both situations, the result should be widespread distribution of goods, services and income. This is simply re-writing the rules of the game to benefit the already rich and powerful. Even rightwing blogs get the picture, but many right wingers find the wrong bottom line. Here’s an example from SayAnythingBlog.com. This part is the correct part. The conclusion is a bit of the mark. Some of the commenters are way off the mark. Screaming Marxism with no real knowledge of what it is does not help a conversation, yet alone lead to a solution of the basic problem.
This is what happens when the government has too much power. Rather than the economy being about who can offer the best goods and services at the most reasonable prices, who can outperform everyone else to provide citizens with what they want at prices they can afford, the economy becomes about who can lobby, bribe and coerce the best deal out of the government.
Grease the right palm and you get government contracts, bailouts and favorable taxation and regulation. Grease the wrong palm and you get demonized by grandstanding politicians and summoned to explain yourself in front of Congress.
Businesses under the vision of a perfectly competitive market–essentially the Invisible Hand concept set up by Adam Smith–are not supposed to be BIG. In the 18th century world of little trade guilds, thousands of small farmers and merchants, and a few monopolies (like the India Tea Company), the original concept of the market did not include megacorporations, huge trade unions, and a democratically elected government that does anything to enable its benefactors. The crony capitalism we see now had its roots in the Civil War, and as Barone points out, most recently the World War 2 period. Remember, Dwight David Eisenhower was the president who termed military industrial complex. A lot of the first lobbyists came from the War Lobby. Lincoln saw the dangers of huge businesses, making money off wars, lobbying congress for the creation of further laws in 1863. Again, all of our monopoly laws are rooted in the Sherman Antitrust Law of 1890. Lenin’s big academic analysis was about J.P. Morgan, interlocking directorates, and huge corporations. The father of modern day socialism/Marxism would have been just updating his old arguments which are pretty much the same thing you see quoted above from the right wing blog. Barone argues that FDR used cronies to win a war, but that Obama is using it for something completely different.
Crony capitalism is now the order of the day in the United States. The government and the United Auto Workers own General Motors and Chrysler, which aren’t likely to pay back their billions in TARP money any time soon, if ever. Meanwhile the government tells Americans to stop driving Toyotas.
The government was going to remake the health care sector, and so Billy Tauzin and other health care industry lobbyists were busy in the White House cutting deals to keep their clients above water. The government was going to remake the energy sector, and utility CEOs and lobbyists have been busy flaunting their green credentials.
As my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy Carney has been documenting, Big Business has been busy lobbying Big Government for “reforms” that serve big companies’ interests. Wal-Mart backs a health care mandate, Philip Morris shapes tobacco regulation, General Electric is setting up a joint venture to trade carbon offsets (wasn’t that Enron’s line of work back in the day?).
The picture is not pretty. Government’s pets or, in the president’s words, “savvy businessmen,” use government to get policies that will give them competitive advantages and stifle smaller competitors. Pleasing their masters in government is now absorbing the psychic energy of CEOs who used to concentrate on meeting consumers’ needs in order to make profits.
This is not capitalism. This is not socialism. This is not Marxism. This is not progressive politics. This is not the policy of some one who is too liberal. This is the policy of a beltway that seeks to stay in power and privilege by enacting laws that provide unfair advantage to their cronies. This is not what many democrats or republicans of past would have found tenable. It’s an unholy alliance between huge business interests and the government of the ‘people’. It can be measured in terms of lobbying dollars and the numbers of Tom Daschles and Billy Tauzins; former elected officials who have joined the ranks of lobbyists.
The lobbying frenzy peaked in the fourth quarter of 2009, which hit a record of $955m spent, just as negotiations over the now stalled healthcare reform supported by the Obama administration were ramped up on Capitol Hill.
“Lobbying appears recession-proof,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center. “Even when companies are scaling back other operations, many view lobbying as a critical tool in protecting their future interests.”
The pharmaceutical and health products industry broke all records by spending $267m last year, in what the Center’s analysts said was the “greatest amount ever spent on lobbying efforts by a single industry for one year”.
Not all of those funds were spent rallying against healthcare, however. The pharmaceutical industry’s main lobby group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent $26m lobbying in favour of healthcare reform after it negotiated an $80bn deal with the Senate and White House last summer that critics said was a gift to the industry.
The chief negotiator of that deal, former congressman Billy Tauzin, yesterday announced his resignation as president of the trade group. Mr Tauzin, who has run the association since 2005, said he would formally step down in June.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It doesn’t help to correct the problem by mislabeling it. The right and the left both see problems with this. The name calling has to stop in order for us all to work for the better interests of our country.
-noun
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently … arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
b. A commodity or service so controlled.
4. a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
b. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The Sky Dancing banner headline uses a snippet from a work by artist Tashi Mannox called 'Rainbow Study'. The work is described as a" study of typical Tibetan rainbow clouds, that feature in Thanka painting, temple decoration and silk brocades". dakinikat was immediately drawn to the image when trying to find stylized Tibetan Clouds to represent Sky Dancing. It is probably because Tashi's practice is similar to her own. His updated take on the clouds that fill the collection of traditional thankas is quite special.
You can find his work at his website by clicking on his logo below. He is also a calligraphy artist that uses important vajrayana syllables. We encourage you to visit his on line studio.
Recent Comments