Alan Grayson Explains The Unspeakable Corruption Of The Bush Regime's Hank Paulson

"Hank Paulson never should have had that job in the first place. He had a $700 million conflict of interest, and everything that he did while he was Treasury secretary, every single thing that he did, has one explanation: What's good for Hank Paulson?"

-- Florida Rep. Alan Grayson on MSNBC

When Blue America endorsed anti-war profits crusader Alan Grayson last year we did it primarily because we knew he would hold the bad guys' feet to the fire. And he has-- far more than almost any other members of Congress. This discussion with former CNBC reporter Dylan Ratigan is the kind of sunshine Americans need to be able to understand the enormous rip off that characterized the relationship between the government and the banksters. It isn't a coincidence that Paulson's former company, Goldman Sachs, is swimming in profits and about to start handing out the mega-bonuses again. Watch Grayson and feel a sense of satisfaction that if not for our contributions early on in his campaign, we would probably still find worthless slug and corporate shill Ric Keller representing Orlando. (It isn't for no reason that Alan is the Republican Party's #1 target for 2010, the Democratic incumbent they hate most, fear most and most want to defeat. Don't let them)



Like I said, there aren't many in government like Alan Grayson. But if I had to come up with a few names of people with the guts and the brains and the passion to figure stuff out and do something about it, one name on the list would surely be ex-Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. I want to recommend a Salon post he wrote yesterday, Tax The Wealthy To Keep Everyone Healthy. A fan of Robin Hood economics, his proposals are enough to make GOP heads explode all over Capitol Hill.

I don't recall the last time Congress came up with such a direct redistribution. Occasionally Congress closes a few tax loopholes at the top and offers a refundable tax credit to workers at the bottom, or it creates a poor people's program like Medicaid, paid for out of general revenues from a progressive income tax. But to say out loud, as the House has just done, that those in our society who can most readily afford it should pay for the health insurance of those who cannot is, well, audacious.


There's another word for it: fair. According to the most recent data (for 2007), the best-off 1 percent of American households take home about 20 percent of total income-- the highest percentage since 1928. Yes, I know: Critics will charge that these are the very people who invest, innovate and hire, and thereby keep the economy going. So raising their taxes will burden the economy and thereby hurt everyone, including those who are supposed to be helped... [T]here's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable healthcare for a far larger number of Americans, who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater.

These Geithners and Emanuels and Summers... feh. Obama could have done so much better. Or maybe he needs crooks to fight crooks. Let's see how far we get with the two big battles over health care reform and financial reform.