Thursday, August 13, 2020

Does a Republican Have To Win Before a Progressive Can Run for the White House?

>

Is the Democratic Party transitioning its base from working people and progressives to #NeverTrump Republicans and whoever this guy represents?

by Thomas Neuburger

In the wake of Kamala Harris's pick as Joe Biden VP, I want to look again at something I covered in June (see "What's the Earliest a Progressive Democrat Can Be Elected President?"). There I made the following assumptions:

Because no progressive Democrat will run in the primary against an incumbent Democratic president, either the Party must be reformed — or a Republican must first take the White House — before a progressive can win the presidency.

Will the Democratic Party self-reform? Can it be reformed by others? Opinions vary on that. Those looking at the election of AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush and the near election of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 would say "Yes, we just need to keep pushing."

On the other hand, those looking at what looks like the start of AOC's "acquiescence" to Party leaders (see Ryan Grim's discussion of that here); the lock-grip that Obama, through Biden and now Harris, seems to have on Party decision-making; and what looks like the deliberate transitioning of the Party from a base that supports the AOCs and Bernie Sanders of the world to a party that welcomes John Kasich to its Convention, George Bush to its circle of love, and Nicolle Wallace, Bush's White House Communications Director, to a choice two-hour slot on its house news network, MSNBC — those people see a different picture, a picture of solidifying, not loosening, neoliberal control.

Those differing opinions vary by demographic. That is, the closer one is to Democratic Party politics, even as a strong progressive, the more likely that person is to see reform in the headlights, just about to happen. The further one is to Democratic Party politics — the more one dwells in the world of the plebs, the civilians, the mass of voters and non-voters — the more the prospect of reform seems left in the dust, a diminishing dot in the Party's rear-view mirror.

Even mainstream writers like Thomas Frank ask (I'm paraphrasing), Which party represents the lower 90%, the workers of the country? Which represents the people? And they answer, Neither.

Is it possible a viable, non-fringe progressive Democrat will challenge an incumbent Democrat for the presidency? I have yet to see it, the Party wouldn't allow it, and the rules of the game, which place a premium on playing within Party leaders' boundaries, don't permit it.

To confirm this idea, note that even the "rebel" AOC failed to endorse Cori Bush, running against incumbent Democrat Lacy Clay, an endorsement that, had the race been close in Lacy Clay's direction, might have mattered. The record of Bernie Sanders' ultimate acquiescence to Barack Obama and surrender to Joe Biden makes the same point.

Which leaves us with this: A progressive will run a viable primary campaign only if no incumbent Democrat is in the race. That means the public might be offered a progressive option:

• In 2024, if Biden loses to Trump.
• In 2028, if Biden wins and Harris loses in 2024.
• In 2032, if Biden wins, Harris wins in 2024, but loses in 2028.
• In 2036 or later in all other cases.

No one wants Trump to win, which means 2028 at the earliest, and that's only if a Republican is elected in 2024. Not a charming prospect.

Inside-the-box thinking says that challenging Party leaders must not overly disrupt the Party itself, a party that neoliberal leaders almost completely control. This is where inside-the-box thinking has gotten us — a Biden-Harris ticket and no one else with any chance of winning to vote for.

Perhaps out-of-the-box thinking is needed next time around, something along "in your face" and "open rebellion" lines. Careful, respectful, quiet and "polite" rebellion may just not be enough to fix what ails us, what's already gone so wrong in the only country we have to live our lives in.
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 29, 2020

The Post-Covid Economy

>

Pre-Covid GDP for the first quarter of 2020. Q2 loss will be five to seven times greater than the Q1 loss.

Post-Covid Fed funds rates. For all practical purposes, Fed interest rates are now zero.

Covid-19 confirmed infection rates per million for selected countries. Y-axis shows the new-case rate. X-axis shows cumulative cases over time. Note that all nations shown have dropped their new-case rate to a tenth or less of their peak — except the United States.

by Thomas Neuburger

"The Fed can print money, but it can’t print jobs. It can buy bonds, but it can’t cure a virus."
—Nomi Prins

"The stock market is a graph of rich people's feelings."
—Source unknown, last quoted here

The current Covid crisis is three crises in one.

First, it's a medical crisis, one in which tens of thousands of Americans are newly infected each day and 125,000 have already died. Both of those numbers continue to rise at a time when most civilized nations have brought infection rates down to a tenth or less of their peak. At some point, the rest of the world will have to quarantine the U.S. — seriously.

Second, it's a financial crisis, one in which unemployment, if measured by Great Depression standards, has reached Great Depression levels, and in which GDP will drop farther and faster than it did at anytime in the 1930s.

Nomi Prins puts the employment picture this way. The current official unemployment rate of 14.8% "excludes workers the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers “marginally attached” to the workforce, meaning those not looking for a job because the prospects are so dim, or those who were only laboring part-time. If you factor them in, the unemployment rate already stands at a Great Depression-level 22.8%. Some industries, of course, felt more pain than others. Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector, for instance, fell in April by 7.7 million, or 47%." [emphasis added]

At its peak, U.S. unemployment during the Great Depression reached just shy of 25%.

GDP fell 4.8% in the first quarter of 2020 (see chart above), almost all of it pre-Covid-19. In late April, Trump economic advisors put second-quarter GDP at an additional –20% to –30%. As of June 26, a consensus of estimates puts Q2 GDP much higher, between –38.1% and –26.7%.

According to Prins, GDP dropped 27.8% between 1930 and 1932. The most optimistic recent Q2 estimate would put the drop for the first half of 2020 well beyond the Great Depression collapse. If reported Q2 GDP is just the average of these estimates, first half GDP for 2020 will be a stunning –40%.

This is going to hurt the real economy, meaning people's lives, in both imaginable and unimaginable ways, regardless of when the virus is brought under control. And if the virus is not brought under control soon, that damage will be even greater. As Prins puts it, "The Fed can electronically print money, but it can’t print jobs. It can buy bonds, but it can’t cure a virus. It can continue to try to stimulate the market, but it can’t banish fear."

Regardless of where the stock market is headed, the real economy is going down. And if indeed the "stock market is a graph of rich people's feelings" as some anonymous wag put it, even today's buoyant market could crash for good if the wealthy finally figure out that their earnings are tied to everyone else's after all.

The economic damage will touch everything. Consider all the vulnerabilities the jobless face: mortgages, rent, student debt, consumer debt, medical debt, medical expenses ... food. Most people are barely managing their debt payments and monthly expenses on a month-to-month basis now. Government unemployment checks will end soon, and if there is a renewal of support, it will be a small one (because, the deficit).

The same with debt deferments. The first rule of modern capitalism is, lenders (our job-creators) must be paid no matter what, and borrowers (potential deadbeats) must always be forced do the honorable thing. It's almost immoral — so we think — to allow them to do otherwise.

We never bailed out the mortgage borrowers in 2008; only the banks. Does anyone think that, ultimately, we'll do the same again. Again, when the real economy goes down, the people will suffer greatly, as will a great many industries. 

Finally, it's a political crisis, perhaps the one we've been expecting since George W. Bush left office, Bush the butcher of Iraq, servant of the nation's rich and powerful. America, sick of rule by its wealthiest elites and their endless, Ratheon-enriching wars, elected in 2008 what it thought was a peace-loving FDR president. It gave him FDR's Congress and an FDR mandate to change the nation, finally, to something most people could live in.

"Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change" was the song of a triumphant Barack Obama in 2008, sung atop the rubble of a crushing financial crisis by a people hoping to rise.

They sang it in vain. "Yes we can" became "No I won't" in the blink of an eye. Promises to enhance Social Security by scrapping the cap on Social Security taxes became endless "grand bargains" to cut benefits designed to appease Republicans (and Obama's Wall Street donors) at the expense of all but the professional and investment classes. Obamacare "healed" the medical care crisis by backstopping medical insurers first, and offered relief to just a fraction, though a large one, of people who desperately needed it. In an unintended irony, Barack Obama presided over the greatest loss of African-American wealth in modern history. His economic policies were a "disaster for middle class wealth," and he made almost all of George Bush's tax cuts permanent.

"At every turn," wrote Matt Bruenig and Ryan Cooper, the Obama administration "was obsessed with protecting the financial system" and left homeowners "to drown."

Many of those who hoped for change in 2008 despaired of it in 2016, and enough Obama voters turned to Trump to give him an Electoral College win over Hillary Clinton, famous for her Wall Street speeches and hatred of progressive policies like single-payer health care.

Will this be the year, if Covid turns the economy to crap, when broken Americans grow angry enough to break things? The nation is angry now, a simmering low boil, and has been since 2016 when it was denied, on the left, a champion of the people, whoever you imagine that champion to have been — and on the right it was offered such a flawed vehicle for "change" that even our grandparents, good Republicans all, may be literally sickened enough to abandon him now.

Someone will win the next presidential election, but frankly, neither candidate deserves to, and neither candidate can give the nation the medicine it actually needs — a world in which the voices "of millions of people calling for change" will actually be heard. Of each of these looming crises — medical, economic, political — the economic could be a world-historical disaster, but the political may be greatest threat of all.
  

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 25, 2020

U.S. Covid-19 Deaths Will Pass 100,000 Before the End of May

>

The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., built to honor the 58,000 Americans killed in that war (Getty Images)

by Thomas Neuburger

It's appropriate to remember, as the end of May approaches, the nation's honored dead. It's also appropriate to remember its forgotten dead, those whose sacrifices are and will be ignored.

The number of Americans killed in-theater in Vietnam was more than 58,000, and we, to honor them, erected the moving memorial shown above in the heart of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The number of Americans killed in World War I passed 116,000. The U.S. has done a just-adequate job of memorializing the dead in that war, but still, memorials exist. In Washington, D.C., there's this modest affair, here being advertised as a place to get married.

A more striking WWI monument is soon to come to Washington, though true to these neoliberal times, it will be built entirely with private money, and the "Founding Sponsor" is a foundation established by the Pritzkers, a troubling Chicago real estate family whose members were major financiers of Barack Obama's political career. (The Chicago Sun Times recently noted that "there would not have been an Obama presidency if not for Penny Pritzker’s fundraising abilities. ... The money she raised for his first quarter report was an impressive enough haul to make Obama a viable [2008] presidential candidate.")

The Pritzkers didn't get naming rights for the memorial, at least not yet, but I'm sure their branding will be easy to spot — a tasteful sign, something like "Brought to you by the Pritzkers, because we're the billionaires who care."

The number of Americans killed by Covid-19 will reach 100,000 by the time the May dead are counted. And at 1,500 deaths per day — our average these days — Covid-19 deaths will surpass WWI deaths by the the end of the following week.

What will the nation's Covid-19 Memorial look like when it finally gets built? Like this perhaps?


How many will have died to make Wall Street great again? As one longtime investment banker put it, "'people with no stake in the economy' are talking about keeping it closed." Shame on them.

So maybe this memorial is appropriate. It's not quite a golden calf, but close enough. Perhaps an inscription, "To the unknown Uber driver" could be etched on its side, a stand-in for the 100,000 (and counting) who gave their lives so the billionaire economy could live.
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Obama Sounded Like He Endorsed Bernie And AOC, Not Status Quo Joe

>





The video above is most of Obama's predictably eloquent endorsement of Status Quo Joe yesterday, starting with the part where he tries to wash the blood off his hands for having coordinated the successful neoliberal effort to derail the #NotMeUs campaign.

And there's some stuff there that anyone can like. "If I were running today," he said in his endorsement of a virtual corpse who talks about nothing but the good old days between 2008 and 20016, "I wouldn't run the same race or have the same platform as I did in 2008. The world is different. There's too much unfinished business for us to just look backwards." That basically, sounds like a critique of the entire Status Quo Joe campaign.

Is he begging Biden to change course and move beyond the Back to Normalcy campaign? "We have to look to the future. Bernie understands that." Did he have any choice here but to insert that absurd assertion that "Joe understands that?" He then claimed that Biden has the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history. Biden isn't the nominee yet but... OK. And, as he said, the world has changed and Biden's foot dragging platform is not all that progressive for 2020-- maybe compared to 1960, but no, not now, not in a significantly changed world, which includes a significantly changed electorate.

He want on to talk about the need for "real structural change" and how we have to confront the "vast inequalities created by the new economy" (which Biden is still utterly clueless about) and economic policies that give young people leaving school "faith in the future-- and relief from crushing student loan debt. so we need to do more than just tinker around the edges"-- which is exactly what Biden's so-called "progressive" overtures of the last week do... tinker around the edges... lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60, which is about 1% of the way to the Medicare for All goal and a disjointed, grudging and very partial debt forgiveness package.

This sounds like the speech Obama would have made if he was endorsing Bernie: "We have to go further, to give everybody a great education, a lasting career and a stable retirement." That's what Bernie's platform is all about, not Status Quo Joe's codified defensive posturing, which no one ever even bothers looking at.

Obama-- far more than Biden-- says we need to go beyond the Affordable Care Act to make healthcare "a reality for everybody." Again, it sounds like he could be endorsing Bernie far more than endorsing Status Quo Joe.

"We have to return the U.S. to the Paris Agreement and lead the world in reducing the pollution that causes climate change. But science tells us we have to go much further. And it's time for us to accelerate progress on bold new green initiatives that make our economy a clean energy innovator, save us money and secure our children's future." OK, not just Bernie here, but AOC and the Green New Deal as well, right?

That's why I want to reiterate something I wrote yesterday, buried in a long post about Andrew Cuomo that many people may have missed:
Maggie Moran, Cuomo's top political operative-- the one not currently serving a prison term-- is surreptitiously fund-raising against AOC and soliciting campaign operatives to work against her reelection.
I haven't heard a peep from the DCCC about this, have you? Doesn't it violate Cheri Bustos' and Nancy Pelosi's rule about Democratic operatives not working against incumbents? Have they banned Moran? Of course not; she's part of their pathetic establishment. Any by the way, I'm sure you noticed that Bernie moved rapidly to endorse Status Quo Joe. Blue Dog loser Dan Lipinski-- and right in Obama's neighborhood-- still hasn't endorsed the progressive who vanquished him, Marie Newman.

Before I turned the video off, Obama was babbling about how the Republicans are not interested progress, just power. And that doesn't also describe the New Dems and Blue Dogs, who make up the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and have absolute veto power over all progressive initiatives-- which they use without hesitation?

Yesterday, in a letter to their members, Roots Action asked why the Chamber of Commerce would go after AOC and they proffered a few ideas in response.
Here's something AOC said in a recent video published by The Hill that no candidate backed by the Chamber of Commerce would ever say:

"We have to start demanding and organizing from the bottom up, from grassroots movements, from nurses to warehouse workers to grocery store employees to the halls of Congress, demanding that we strip profit motive out of our decisions and reprioritize the public good and the health of everyday people."

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is openly criticizing the class bias of the Governor of New York in finally halting mortgage payments but not rent payments during the COVID-19 crisis. (RootsAction had been pressing for both steps.)

AOC is demanding that the U.S. government extend the census-taking period because of the coronavirus pandemic.

She's expressing appropriate but rare outrage at the xenophobic approach that Trump has taken to talking about coronavirus, and explaining the impacts this has on efforts to halt the spread of the virus.

She's denouncing Amazon's attempted smear campaign against a worker who organized a walk-out.

She's pressing for better responses out of Congress to the current crisis, and she's educating the public about Congress's actions.

AOC has become such a major presence in opposition to Trump's outrages that he actually urged Dr. Anthony Fauci to move to New York and run against her. (There's no indication that Fauci is taking Trump's joking remark seriously.)
Goal ThermometerSo... I'll take Obama's endorsement of Status Quo Joe seriously when I see one from him for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her reelection battle to hold onto a seat that the Chamber of Commerce-- basically an arm of the Republican Party and the Steny Hoyer wing of the House Dems-- has spent nearly a million dollars to deny her, in favor of corporate shill Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. There are only 12 members of the House on the Blue America "Worthy Incumbents" list (which you can see by tapping the thermometer on the right). There was no hesitation to put AOC on that list and now we think she may well need the support. Republicans and conservative fake Democrats are pouring massive amounts of money into Caruso-Cabrera's planned smear campaign against AOC-- and in New York City, having the Cuomo machine behind you means a great deal. So, take a moment to think about how much worse an already putrid Congress would be without a compelling young leader like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So far... not a peep out of the DCCC about how Democratic operatives are prohibited from working against Democratic incumbents. Someone should ask Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi about that... instead of this.

And this is Chris Martenson's daily pandemic podcast from yesterday... an episode that may be too wonky for most of us this time.


Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 09, 2020

It's Still Obama's Party. What Happens Next, He Owns It.

>

Photo: Getty Images. From an article titled: "Barack Obama Reportedly Plans To Tell The Nation To Pause If Bernie Sanders Gets Close To Securing The Democratic Nomination — The former president privately told his advisers that he would speak up against Sanders."

by Thomas Neuburger

This is still Barack Obama's Democratic Party:

     • He personally made sure Tom Perez beat Ellison to run the DNC.

     • He organized the Super Tuesday drop outs to maximize the hit on Sanders after South Carolina.

     • He talked "multiple times" with Sanders before Sanders dropped out.

Barack Obama, hero to millions, owns the Biden disaster. He's the invisible hand on the wheel at every significant turn.

About the latter point, Sanders' concession, CNN offers this:
(CNN) Former President Barack Obama played an active, albeit private, role in the Democratic presidential primary that effectively ended on Wednesday when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race.

Obama and Sanders spoke multiple times in the last few weeks as the Vermont senator determined the future of his campaign, a source familiar with the conversation tells CNN. Sanders' decision to get out on Wednesday paves the way for Joe Biden, who served as Obama's vice president for eight years, to become the Democratic nominee.
The article doesn't quite say the words "Obama played an active, albeit private, role" in "Sanders' decision to get out on Wednesday." But it sure lets you think that, given they got their information about these multiple talks from "a source familiar with the conversation" — meaning, familiar with the content of the conversations.

Whatever happens, from now through November and beyond, you can thank Barack Obama. Always the hidden hand, he gets what he wants without having to appear to want it.
 
Thanks, Barack. This one's on you.
  

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Wheels Within Wheels: Did Deval Patrick Enter the NH Primary to Damage Elizabeth Warren?

>


by Thomas Neuburger

Wheels within wheels. One of the more cogent speculations around Deval Patrick's "entry" into the Democratic primary (actually, just the New Hampshire race) involves his close relationship with what Alex Parene calls "Obama World," the circle of people around Barack and Michelle Obama, like Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod and others like them.

Why did Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, re-enter the primary race after having already dropped out? Why did he enter the New Hampshire race but no other? Why did he think he could divest himself of the tar that damaged his late-2018 entry? It is a puzzlement.

Or maybe not. The following explanation, from Alex Parene, depends on two ideas. First, that people in the Clinton circle hate Bernie Sanders with a passion that passes reason (no surprise there), and second, that people in the Obama circle hate Elizabeth Warren with the same intensity (for why, see "'Why Are You Pissing In Our Face?': Inside Warren’s War With the Obama Team").

This puts these two teams in a conundrum when it comes to the 2020 primary, since the one viable candidate each camp relies on to defeat both Warren and Sanders — Joe Biden — looks increasing less viable. Biden could still win (I'll have more on that in a separate piece), but clearly a backup plan is needed by each camp, and each camp needs a different backup plan.

Team Clinton could adopt Elizabeth Warren as their "Stop Sanders" savior, though they haven't yet. But the "Stop Warren" Obama people would never adopt Bernie Sanders. What's left to do? Answer: Force Warren out of the race by (hopefully) fatally damaging her in New Hampshire, an early-primary state in her own back yard.

Alex Parene:
There’s Only One Way the Patrick and Bloomberg Campaigns Make Sense

Democratic Party elders are making plans.

...what should Obama World do if it sees Harris (or Cory Booker, or Julián Castro, both of whom are viewed with favor by this camp) struggling to gain traction? Many of this cohort seem to like Mayor Pete Buttigieg and would find his nomination acceptable. Nevertheless, they surely originally envisioned him as, perhaps, a future Senate candidate, or a running mate at best. It can’t be lost on them that the primary calendar after New Hampshire and Iowa becomes rough sledding for a candidate whose entire base of support is white. Still, they can’t back Warren; Sanders is an unserious option; Biden has perhaps lost it.

So: Enter Deval Patrick. But not to actually win the nomination in the primary process. ...

Patrick cannot possibly expect to enter the race at this late hour and run a normal presidential candidacy designed to accrue a majority of delegates ahead of the convention. (Who is he even hiring to run his campaign? There are a dozen active campaigns already being run by campaign professionals!) He won’t qualify for the debates. He has low national name recognition, hasn’t been fundraising, and his history in the private sector is radioactive. No one in decades has entered the race this late and won any primaries or caucuses. He launched his campaign in time to file for the New Hampshire primary but has already missed filing deadlines in multiple other states.

I am not the first person to suggest this, but Patrick seems to have jumped into the race with a clear purpose in mind: to hurt Warren’s chances in New England. (For those who doubt Obama allies would operate like this, please remember who runs the Democratic National Committee, and why.)
Parene goes on to discuss the possibility that both Patrick and Bloomberg are also entering the primary, if only nominally, for yet another purpose — to put themselves in position to be chosen in a brokered convention. (That's a subject I'll also take up in a separate piece; gaming out the convention is actually not that difficult.)

But let's leave convention considerations for the moment. For now just consider the "tough conversation" that Patrick said he had with Warren prior to his recent announcement.

Why would it have been tough? Perhaps because Warren knew instantly exactly what he was up to — and didn't much like it.
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 19, 2018

The Latest Corporate Obamist to Be Touted for President by Big New York Media — Deval Patrick

>

Bain Capital's corporate logo: Vultures, rampant, on a field of bones

Bain Capital's managing director and the Obama circle's choice for next president. "We get the government we deserve in a democracy," Deval Patrick unironically said, according to the original caption (Photograph by John Trotter/MAPS for The New Yorker).

by Gaius Publius

Yet another agent of wealth is being touted as a Democratic Party candidate for president — it seems there's no end of them. This time the candidate is no Mike Bloomberg, with his suspect past, his narcissistic sense of entitlement, and openly limousine lifestyle, but an under-the-radar Democratic governor named Deval Patrick.

Patrick ticks all the boxes. He's loved by the Obama organization, he has that next-Obama feel on the stump, and he's a "moderate" (meaning corporatist) in a year when Third Way organizations are searching hard for a "sounds progressive, serves the donors" candidate to throw against the Donald Trump or Mike Pence wall in 2020.

And now he has the the big New York media pushing his candidacy, firing his big opening salvos for him. Jeffrey Toobin, not a no-name writer, has an absolutely glowing piece about Patrick in The New Yorker. Let's take a look (emphasis mine throughout):

Toobin open this way:
On Election Night last week, Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, went out to dinner with his wife, Diane, near their apartment, in Boston’s Back Bay. They propped up their iPads on the table, trying to synchronize their schedules after a hectic couple of months. On weekdays, Patrick had been on the road for his job, as a managing director at Bain Capital, the investment firm founded by his predecessor as governor, Mitt Romney. On weekends, he had travelled to a dozen states, to campaign for Democratic candidates in the midterms, and, in the process, to generate the kind of good will and name recognition that could help him if he chooses to run for President in 2020. Diane, meanwhile, had been winding down her law practice, as a management-side labor lawyer at the major Boston firm Ropes & Gray, where she had recently given up her partnership after working there since 1995. Back at home, after dinner, Patrick took a quick look at the election results, and then turned in early, rising, as is his custom, at dawn, to take stock.
Notice, among the down home details of this warm portrait, these critical facts: Deval Patrick is managing director of Bain Capital. His wife Diane is a labor lawyer, but on the management side, meaning she helps corporations fend off unions.

Toobin clearly doesn't see any of that as a minus, but he should. Bain Capital, worth nearly $100 billion in privately held assets, is an acquirer and destroyer of companies:
In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital, was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends. In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.
A classic "leveraged buyout" company, a vulture capital operation. Here's what Bain did to Toys 'R' Us in 2018:
Just a few years ago, Toys 'R' Us was an iconic American retailer. Six months ago, it filed for bankruptcy. Two days ago, it announced that all 800 of its American stores, and all 100 of its British ones, are closing or being sold. As many as 33,000 workers could lose their jobs.

What happened to America's biggest toy store?

Simply put, vulture capitalists ate it.
One of those vultures was Bain Capital. Deval Patrick was its managing director, the man in charge, when this occurred.

So why is Jeffrey Toobin writing about him? Maybe because Patrick is much loved by the Obama inner circle:
Patrick would enter the race with one significant distinction: he is a kind of political heir to Barack Obama, and enjoys broad support from people close to the former President. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s former senior adviser and still a close friend, told me, “Deval would make an outstanding President. He’d make a terrific candidate.” She added, “President Obama and Deval are very much alike in terms of their core values, what drove them into public service, their willingness to lend a hand, the responsibility to give back. I think they share a basic philosophy about what it means to be a good citizen.” Obama and Patrick also have in common roots in Chicago, Ivy League educations, and complicated relationships with largely absent fathers (which both men have chronicled in memoirs that feature youthful pilgrimages to Africa). They espouse a politics of unapologetic idealism, with a largely moderate, center-left orientation. On the stump, both are part teacher and part preacher. “Deval is a very genuine person, a very empathetic person,” David Axelrod, who has been a strategist for Patrick as well as for Obama, told me. “He is a guy who makes people feel comfortable. He’s very principled, you can see that—just like Obama.”
Ignore the adoring prose layered into that paragraph — "They [Obama and Patrick] espouse a politics of unapologetic idealism, with a largely moderate, center-left orientation. On the stump, both are part teacher and part preacher" — and focus on the endorsements. Patrick's "unapologetic idealism" is just not true; both Obama and Patrick are corporatists who serve wealth first. Being "part teacher and part preacher" just means he, like Obama, is a good Elmer Gantry.

As for Patrick being "principled," indeed he is; he's principled "just like Obama," though I'm sure Toobin doesn't mean this as ironically it sounds to any real student of Obama.

Most of the piece is like that — painfully praising, and painfully revealing in a way unintended by Toobin. For example, here's Toobin on why Patrick was opposed to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination:
That afternoon, Patrick and I sat down at a diner in Asbury Park. In Washington, Brett Kavanaugh was being confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Patrick explained his opposition to the nomination. “Some of it is very personal,” he said. ... In 1993, Patrick’s brother-in-law was convicted of raping Patrick’s sister, and Diane has talked openly about being a victim of domestic abuse during her first marriage. “I can confirm that the experience of not being believed or having the experience not taken as seriously or treated as seriously is extremely painful,” he said. He spoke with sorrow and emotional distance, and [Toobin couldn't bring himself to write "but"], notably, didn’t denounce Kavanaugh directly, or Trump for choosing him.
Note in this passage the compelling verbal portrait of a man whose sister had been raped, speaking "with sorrow and emotional distance," followed immediately by the lack of condemnation of either the rapist, the radical who nominated him, or the destructive agenda the Kavanaugh court will enact. Toobin's personal access to Patrick ("That afternoon, Patrick and I sat down at a diner in Asbury Park"), his front-and-center self-placement as the writer picked to roll out Valerie Jarrett's front-runner, also stands out. The piece is a paint job, and deaf to its ironies.

None of this means that Patrick won't be a force to be reckoned with in 2020. Both Toobin and David Axelrod attest to Patrick's preacher power on the stump. Toobin: "Soon after Patrick started to campaign, Axelrod got a phone call from his sister Joan, who lives in Massachusetts ... “She had never done anything like this before, but she gets on the phone and says she’s just met Deval and he is incredible. ‘He’s the real deal. You have to come here and work for him.’” ... Patrick beat Reilly by twenty points in the primary."

As a sleeper, Patrick is well positioned to surprise. Be prepared to find him in the running as the race evolves, with both money and power behind him and yes-we-can media angels at his shoulder.

Toobin, closing on a note of swelling church-organ glory, emphasizes Patrick's chosen theme, "hope and kindness":
"It struck me that something is so wrong when we learn to shout our anger and whisper our kindness,” he went on. “We have got to learn to stop being ashamed of being kind." In the church and elsewhere, Patrick left a message of hope and kindness. The question, for Patrick and everyone else, is whether there is a wider audience for it in this fierce and broken political moment.
Is there a place for "hope and kindness" in this "fierce and broken moment"? Let's ask the broken employees of Toys 'R' Us before seeking kindness from Deval Patrick, their destroyer.

GP
 

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 10, 2018

Why Is Thomas Frank Puzzled?

>

A Bernie Sanders event in Madison, Wisconsin during the 2016 Democratic Party primary (click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

“I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”

I want to take just a few minutes to reflect on Thomas Frank's bepuzzlement, as expressed in his recent exit piece in the Guardian. (Frank is off to write "a few books" and will return in a few years to "see how things have gone." Those will be interesting years.)

His problem is this: "[U]nderstanding the perversity of rightwing populism only brought me to another mystery: the continuing failure of liberals to defeat this thing ... My brain twirls to think that rightwing populism is still running strong in 2018 ... that the invective and the journalism and the TV shows and all the mournful books about the decline of the middle class have amounted, basically, to nothing."

He lays that failure, correctly, at the feet of the Democratic Party, which had the perfect opportunity in 2008 to reverse course, and didn't. Which left the "task of capturing public anger" to Donald Trump.

"We're going to pay for that failure for a long time," he says, then professes not to know why it happened:
For all their cunning, Republicans are a known quantity. Democrats, however, remain a mystery. We watch them hesitate at crucial moments, betray the movements that support them, and even try to suppress the leaders and ideas that generate any kind of populist electricity. Not only do they seem uninterested in doing their duty toward the middle class, but sometimes we suspect they don’t even want to win.
As evidence of his suspicion, he quotes Tony Blair (see the top of this piece). Then instead of saying why all this happened, why the Democrats betrayed their roots, historical and grass, he turns instead to a plea: "Beating the right cannot simply be a matter of waiting for a dolt in the Oval Office to screw things up. There has to be a plan for actively challenging and reversing it".

And there he ends. Which leads me to ask, why is he puzzled? He already knows the answer.

Tony Blair would rather lose to conservatives than to progressives in his own party. It's the same in this country, where 2016 Democratic leaders, in their wisdom and hubris, were more determined to throw the dice with Clinton, who could not fill a gymnasium, than pick the candidate their voting base packed stadiums to see.

We are indeed a nation in crisis (again). That crisis, that revolutionary discussion about the shape of our next constitution, our next agreement between government and the people, is not resolved. The radical right is in ascendance and will soon take complete and lasting control of the Supreme Court unless Democrats block their candidate and stop them.

Will a completion of the radical rightwing agenda resolve this crisis and create a government most of us can live under? Of course not. The truly radical right — a small handful of people — is vastly outnumbered by those opposed to its ideas. No one, not even Republican voters, will live under the government this minority is determined to create.

Will a return to neoliberal rule, to Obamism and Clintonism, create a stable order? Again, no. It's precisely that order that people in both parties rose to resist. The rebellion against that order, unheeded by Democratic Party leaders, created the opening the radical right just exploited.

Even a Sanders-style government, supported by the masses as FDR's government was, will face a counter-rebellion, this time by the dethroned rich — and I strongly suspect the Obamists and Clintonists in the Democratic Party would join that "resistance" as eagerly as they join the present one.

So what is Thomas Frank puzzled about? Isn't he really asking, why do the forces of money hate the people?

Because if he had asked that question, he wouldn't be puzzled at all. His book provides all the answers anyone need.

GP
 

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Obama Energy Secretary Named to Board of Utility Giant

>

A two-party race to the bottom (source)

by Gaius Publius

As one commenter noted after reading this news, "Well, that just says it all." My inner reply: Services rendered; services paid.

From The Hill (my emphasis throughout):
Obama energy secretary named to utility giant’s board

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has been tapped to serve on the board of electric utility giant Southern Co.

Moniz, who served under former President Obama from 2013 to 2017, will be an independent director on the board.

“I have long admired Southern Company for its innovative approach to research and development within the clean energy space, and look forward to joining the board,” Moniz said in a late Monday statement.

“Tom is an industry leader and I’m eager to work with him and the entire board in helping Southern advance at a time of great change in the energy world,” he said of Tom Fanning, Southern’s CEO.
Its "innovative approach to research and development within the clean energy space" means ... what? "I love how cleverly they keep their profits flowing"?

Or "I love how nicely they reward me for service to their industry"?

Perhaps the latter. The Hill again:
The company is working to build two new reactors at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, the only nuclear power plant currently under construction in the country. But they are years away from completion and billions of dollars over budget.

The Vogtle project has benefited significantly from federal government actions, such as major Energy Department loan guarantees announced last year and Congress’s decision this month to extend the eligibility dates for tax credits for newly-built nuclear plants.
Feathering his nest by irradiating yours. That's Mr. Moniz below. If you see him on the street, feel free to say, "Thank you for your service."

Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (Getty Images)

Services rendered; services paid.

Obama's Energy Secretary Is Not Alone

Other Obama alumni have taken well-paid Big Energy positions. There's an excellent report here, from DeSmogBlog. The case of Obama's "climate czar" Heather Zichal is particularly galling ... or telling. Obama in 2013:
Obama praises departing climate czar

President Obama on Friday praised Heather Zichal, who is resigning from her post as his energy and climate czar....

"For more than five years, I have been fortunate to have Heather Zichal as a trusted advisor," Obama said in a statement on Friday.

"She crafted my energy and climate change agenda in the 2008 campaign, then again on my Presidential transition, and as my top energy and climate adviser at the White House, she has been a strong and steady voice for policies that reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, protect public health and our environment, and combat the threat of global climate change," Obama said.
How does she "combat the threat of global climate change"? By cashing in her chips at the Bank of Big Energy, like Obama's Energy Secretary just did.
Obama Alums Are Pushing Fracked Gas Exports. That’s Exactly What Trump Wants.

...At least five of these Obama officials now work for natural gas export companies, four of them for Cheniere and another for Tellurian.

Though pitched as the “cleaner fossil fuel” by many of these former Obama officials, the high levels of methane in natural gas carry a climate punch....

Heather Zichal

One of those Obama alums, former top White House climate and energy staffer Heather Zichal, now sits on the Board of Directors for Cheniere. She also recently was named managing director of corporate engagement for the environmental group The Nature Conservancy....
Keep those names in mind — The Nature Conservancy and methane giant Cheniere.

About The Nature Conservancy, Naomi Klein had this to say:
In her book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, Naomi Klein reveals that The Nature Conservancy actually owns an oil well in Texas and uses the financial earnings which come from it as part of its funding stream. Further, both BP and Chevron sit on The Nature Conservancy's Business Council.
And about Zichal, Obama and Cheniere:
As DeSmog previously reported, White House meeting logs show that Zichal met twice with Cheniere officials in 2013 while she was working under Obama. Not only was Cheniere the first company to receive an LNG export permit from the Obama administration in 2012, it was the first to receive such a permit in over 50 years.
"Working" on the Cheniere Board of Directors seems to pay well: "According to forms filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Zichal earned $90,000 for her service on the board in fiscal year 2016 and another $90,014 worth of stock options, for a total of about $180,000 in compensation."

Zichel is just one of several top Obama officials profiled in the report. Others include a Director of Public Affairs in the Obama Energy Department, a Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, a Chief of Staff in the Obama's Office of Fossil Energy, and several others.

Would Mainstream Democrats Risk the 2018 Election for Money?

It's really hard not to see these actions as venal. Mainstream Democrats — feathering their nest by boiling yours.

It's also hard not to see these actions as risky. Do mainstream Democrats think they won't take a hit in 2018 when they do stuff like this? Do they even care? Or do they imagine the blue wave (if it comes) will sweep them to power no matter what they do? (One could argue that Hillary Clinton risked her own election for money: Did she not know, when she gave all those Wall Street speeches, that she'd start running for president two years later — and that they'd make a difference?)

I'm amazed at what we're witnessing. As low as the Republicans have sink — and they've reached a decades-long Party bottom in their attempts to "win absolutely" for big money donors — mainstream Democrats are giving them a run for their money, a downhill run, looking for their own Party bottom.

This story has "national tragedy" written all over it.

GP
 

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 08, 2018

The Story of 2017 (Part 2)

>

Life in the New Stone Age (upper image; source). Life in the Old Stone Age (lower image; source). The Neolithic era, or New Stone Age, started with the move from hunter-gatherer life to agriculture, lasted just a few thousand years, and ended with the discovery and use of metals. The Paleolithic era, or Old Stone Age, lasted many millions of years before it. We're on our way back through the later Neolithic era to the earlier one.

by Gaius Publius

2017 has been an such unusual year in so many ways that its unusuality has masked the ways in which it has been a very usual year, a very much more-of-the-same series of months. This piece continues our look at 2017 through the most significant pieces we've written last year.

Part 1 is here, with a longer introduction to the year itself. Briefly, these have been the themes of the year:

     • The feckless Democrats, who seem to insist on throwing away a perfectly good opportunity to make a new first impression, to clean-sweep a political return in a country aching for actual political change.

     • The Republican Party, attempting at last to "win absolutely" after generations spent combatting the New Deal, the Great Society, and that Party's most hated phrase in the U.S. Constitution — "promote the general welfare."

     • The continuation of the failed electoral revolt of 2016, which saw its one real champion lose, defeated by his own party, and its one fake champion win.

     • The next phase in the Praetorian Guard-ization of the security state, which is working overtime to unseat an unfit, though elected president. (Do you really think Russia is the only foreign power to ever influence an American election? If you do, you haven't been paying attention.)

     • And finally, the relentless devolutionary march to the Old Stone Age as the last, minimal window of escape from a world-historical change in climate closes as we watch.

These were the stories of 2017 from the perspective of our seat at the Chair by the Window.

The Story of 2017, Part 2

Without further ado, here is the rest of our list, eleven further pieces of writing that defined the year for us.

May 22 — The Dying Fossil Fuel Industry

Big Oil has a fatal disease, two of them in fact, and either or both are going to end its life as an industry. The only real question for us is not when the industry collapses, but how it collapses.

A sudden collapse that happens fairly quickly would also be chaotic, but that may not be bad, all things considered. Imagine what could happen in the country and the world if oil prices fall to, say, $25 per barrel from today's price of about $50 per barrel. Smaller fossil fuel companies would disappear as suddenly as firefly light on a hot summer evening. The industry would be in economic turmoil, desperate for funding.

You can almost hear the cries for even greater government subsidies, added to the already massive global subsidies it now receives, $1.82 trillion, or 3.8 percent of global GDP. This would amount to our next big national bailout after the Wall Street bailout of 2009, as before with taxpayer money.

Would Americans foot the bill for a second massive bailout, so soon after the first? Would they do it if Big Oil is the recipient? I think the political chaos surrounding that public discussion would be deadly to Big Oil all on its own.

A chaotic event as well, yes, but also very welcome from a climate change standpoint.

June 15 — The Collapsing Social Contract

America's most abundant manufactured product may be pain. 

August 7 — There Is No "Political Center" in Modern America

If there are no voters in the political "center," a strategy based on winning them is likely to fail. So why pursue it? Perhaps because voters aren't what the Democratic Party, or either American political party these days, is pursuing. Perhaps it's because what both parties are actually pursuing ... is money.

September 28 — The American Flag and What It Stands For

During the Nixon era, enemies of Vietnam War protestors and draft dodgers appropriated the flag as a symbol of their own aggression and anger — anger at "the hippies"; at free love (which to a man they envied); at "unpatriotic" protests against the nation's wrongdoing; at anything and anyone who didn't rejoice, in essence, in the macho, patriarchal, authoritarian demands for obedience to right-wing leaders like Richard Nixon.

That's not an overstatement, and everyone reading this knows it. Why do cops wear flags on their uniforms, for example, but not nurses? Ignore the cover-story explanations and ask, is it "national pride" and patriotism the police are expressing, or something closer to their authoritarian anger?

October 2 — Capitalism, Infinite Growth, Climate Change & Manufactured Hopelessness

Why do we see so little move toward positive change, and so much shrinking into simple fear? Militarized late-stage capitalism, targeting a single end — its self defense. As David Graeber noted, "the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures."

October 19 — European Colonialism Is the Central Fact of Politics on Earth

What we did, we do — in our Ferguson-like neighborhoods; in our innocence-be-damned, glory-in-punishment courts and prisons; in abandoned storm-torn Puerto Rico; in our eager, invisible bombings and dronings throughout the Middle East and into Asia; in our happy, unironic interference in every election on earth we care about; and so much more.

International colonizing by Western Europe and its Sun King offspring, the United States, is entirely invisible to its perpetrators.

Yet nothing about the state of the world today — from a nearly inevitable climate change disaster to wealth inequality beyond the dreams of avarice — can be understood without accounting for the invisible celebrations of rape and plunder that underpin everything done by the West to the rest of the world.

October 26 — Defining Neoliberalism

In a world where competition is right and good, a world in which the "market" is the defining metaphor for human activity, all social ties are broken, the individual is an atom left to survive as an individual only, the strongest relentlessly consume the weakest — and that's as it should be. It's easy to imagine how the apex predators of our social order would be attracted to this, and insist on it with force.

Thus the bipartisan world we live in today. Under a neoliberal regime, everyone gets what they deserve. Big fish deserve their meal. Little fish deserve their death. And government sets the table for the feast.

October 30 — The Resistance, the #Resistance and Harvey Weinstein

There's something greatly troubling about what the media-fronted #Resistance has morphed into, but I'm having trouble writing about it (it's lightly touched here: "A Nation in Crisis, Again"). Partly the problem is the marshaling of pages of proof; partly the problem is the unstoppable train wreck that's coming. Perhaps I should write about the train wreck instead.

After all, no Praetorian Guard, once it grows muscular, reverts back to a simple barracks unit just because new leadership arrives. And the anti-Trump leadership in both parties is growing us a Praetorian Guard, if we don't have one already. You may be cheering it onward as we speak, but what you're cheering, if you do, enables an unelected, uncontrolled, muscular security state, one you've certainly been appalled by in many other contexts.

Trump will go; but the unelected state grows only stronger, now with help from the #Resistance. Do you see the dilemma? How to write about this to a nation in love with what it will come, but only later, to hate?

November 27 — The Building Is Burning and All the World’s Babies Are In It — Using Force to Fight Climate Change

Just as the climate disaster is and will be a rolling nightmare, advancing from frontier to frontier in its destruction — meaning, it won't all happen at once, but in stages — so is disaster mitigation a rolling series of preventions that can knock off the worst climate effects one by one. But only if we act.

Any number of mitigating events could and will happen in the next 10 years, events that won't cancel climate consequences — that ship has sailed — but that could offset a great many of those effects still in doubt. In that sense, it's not "already over" — that's way too digital, too all-or-nothing an analysis. It's only "already over" if no one acts at all, and that's just not what's happening. That's encouraging.

It's also encouraging that the real (and so far failed) Resistance, which started with Occupy and continued through the 2016 election, has not ended. That fight — against Rule by the Rich — is also the climate fight. 

December 4 — Deficit Talk Is a Trap. Will Democrats Fall Into It?

Government spending is good. It's the way a government that controls its own currency puts money into the economy, making it possible for you and me to buy things. The question isn't, Should government spend money at all? If government spent no money, you would have none yourself. The question is, Whom should the government spend money on — you or the already rich?

Will Democrats take the Republican bait and agree that just their donors deserve largesse? Or will they finally learn the lesson of the Failed Revolt of 2016 and spend to benefit their voters as well? The Tax Cut bill of 2017 sets up this trap. Will Democrats walk into it?

December 18 — What Would Happen If Sanders Ran for President in 2020?

A look into the farther political future, all the way to 2020. If Sanders ran again, or a credible, not money-owned, Sanders-like candidate ran in his place, how would he or she be treated? I'm not talking about a Sanders-lite, or a Sanders-masked neoliberal, but an actual threat to the status quo, as Sanders was. Eight questions about how he would be treated by the Party and the press — in the primary, in the general election, and finally if he won the presidency.

A Year of Consequences

Thus ended, for us, the year of consequences, 2017, the year that followed the crossroads year of 2016.

When we think of climate crossroads, many of us think of the election of 1980, an election that Reagan arguably stole from a man who would have put us on course to address — with just enough time to do it — the emerging climate emergency.

When we think of economic crossroads, those who don't regret the failed Obama opportunity of 2009 — he had an FDR Congress, an FDR crisis, an FDR popular mandate, and laid them all at the feet of his donor class — those of us without Obama on our minds think of Sanders, Clinton and Trump; the Failed Revolt of 2016; and the road not allowed to be taken.

Our betters chose another path for us, and the rest, I'm afraid, will merely be consequences, the train wreck mentioned above, easily foreseen. Perhaps we won't write about the train wreck after all, but something less widely anticipated. History, after all, doesn't end with the Trump-and-Pence presidency. That's just where its next phase starts.

GP
  

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 04, 2018

The Story of 2017 (Part 1)

>


by Gaius Publius

2017 has been an such unusual year in so many ways that its unusuality has masked the ways in which it has been a very usual year, a very more-of-the-same series of months.

For one thing, "The Resistance" has gone from being a meaningful idea to something almost seems like it could be added to anything to indicate added value — "Dove soap, now with #Resistance." I've seen "resistance" claims from those who fought to keep the oligarchy in check during the primary, and from those who fight today to enhance the oligarchy's grip after it (I could mention some fervently pro-corporate Democrats I get incessant mailings from).

Almost like the phrase "fake news," which was immediately so overused it became meaningless less than four days after it was created, "The Resistance" hides a disturbing fact — that while we may be witnessing an enhanced and crueler version of your daddy's Republicans, we are not witnessing an enlightened, more "woke" set of mainstream Democrats.

The only thing that's "woke" about those who (still) hold power in the Party ... is the new coat of branding that asks you to think they are.

Trump may himself be new, in that he took the election by running as Bernie Sanders — a candidate the entire Democratic Party seemed united to destroy during the primary. But the only thing new about the response to Trump, to these eyes, is the unified ad campaign — by the Democratic Party establishment, the national security establishment, and the press — to (a) unseat Trump; and (b) restore an acceptable Establishment candidate to power.

That "acceptable Establishment candidate," by the way, may well be Mike Pence, at least in the eyes of two of the three establishments listed above. Sorry Democrats. Letting the CIA bed you doesn't guarantee you girlfriend status in the morning. Nice try, though.

The Story of 2017

All of this is intro to the following list of my favorite "GP" posts of 2017, my sideways view of the melange of battles we witnessed during the year, including:

     • The mainstream Democratic Party's only occasional "resistance," and their attempt to restore their own worst elements to power while pretending to have "woke."

     • The Republican Party's attempt to use the Trump presidency to "win absolutely," end the New Deal forever, destroy all government-mandated environmentalism and dismantle entirely the Roosevelt regulatory state. In short, their hard and constant push to deliver the wettest of wet dreams to the billionaire octogenarians they serve.

     • The national security establishment's increasingly obvious attempt to rid itself of the occasionally heterodox ("Who needs NATO?") elected president it pretends to serve and report to.

     • The country's (so far failed) attempt to say to its ruling establishments, "Please please please, won't someone serve our needs?" A cry so far unheard.

     • The maybe-fatal implications of all the above.

     • Oh ... and the almost certain, easily witnessable birth of the New Old Stone Age thanks to the can both parties are kicking down the road, if not crushing under foot as they resolutely march toward the cliff. I mean, of course, a real response to the coming, almost certain, easily witnessable worldwide climate disaster.

The List that Tells the Story (Part 1)

So, without further ado, part one of the story of 2017, at least as witnessed by the writer in the chair by the window. (Part two will appear next time.)

January 5 — What Democrats Failed to Do on January 3

What they failed to do, of course, is to use the power they briefly had to undo Merrick Garland's Supreme Court appointment. Yes, they could have done it. Do you wonder why they didn't?

January 11 — Obama's Other Legacy: "The Greatest Disintegration of Black Wealth in Recent Memory" 

The Party considers Obama a saint and a savior. It's the greatest triumph of branding since Bill Clinton. Clinton's brand seems to be teetering though. Will Obama's similarly wobble, or will he enter his own sunset years un-reexamined?

January 12 — Who’s Blackmailing the President & Why Aren't  Democrats Upset About It?

Our first look at Trump and his adventures with the national security state he ostensibly leads. Not our last look though. That story continues. 

January 25 — Mike Pompeo, Torture and the Future of the Democratic Party

The Party's second chance, a blown one of course, to make a new first impression. And we're not out of January yet.

February 27 — Obama and the Perez Election — Are the Democrats Trying to Fail?

Yet another chance for mainstream Democrats, let by Obama himself, to show where they stand, to choose between controlling the Party or serving the nation. Do they think the nation's independent voters aren't watching? (Yes, they do think that.)

March 23 — The State of the Climate in 2017: "Truly Uncharted Territory"

A starting point for a theme we came back to. This political generation thinks it can kick the climate can down to the next one, then die with a feeling of righteousness. It can't. It will die in defiance or shame, watching the mess that it itself made unfold around it.

April 6 — The Chevron Decision, the Regulatory State and "Consent of the Governed"

An examination of one of the ways those who control the Republican Party are trying to "win absolutely" — by dismantling absolutely the U.S. regulatory state. This looks at the Supreme Court rulings it wants to overturn, and why.

Thanks to the Democratic Party's unwillingness to unseat Merrick Garland on January 3, the Republicans may well succeed. What can any reasonable person think the outcome of that will be?

May 8 — About the Next Great Crash

A first look at another theme we returned to several more times — the relationship between money creation, private debt, and government enslavement to the financial sector. Because of that combination, most Americans have seen no recovery almost a decade after the last crash. This almost guarantees the next one — and the messy civil war that may well follow.

If you're counting, this will be the second cause of the "rolling civil war" we're already starting to see. I can think of three more we haven't gotten to yet. 

At the heart of this particular problem lies a key: Government creates money and gives it to billionaires whenever it wants to (think of the Iraq War as a $3 trillion gift of newly created dollars to the owners of the corporate military state). If it wanted to, it could create money for other, better purposes — mortgage and student debt relief, free colleges, Medicare for All. If it wanted to.

Making sure you don't see that as a choice is their goal. Making sure you do see that as a choice is ours. This is our first foray of the year in that direction, and not the last. 

May 11 — A Nation in Crisis, Again

A few of my guesses were wrong — a prosecutor was indeed appointed, though no one knows if he will be allowed to remain. But the conclusion is certainly valid:
"This country has had a constitutional crisis every 70 years, after which the government restructured itself. In effect, we have been ruled by three Constitutions, not just one, each producing, in practice, very different governments and societies. We're rapidly producing a crisis that will produce a fourth."
This is also true:
"Whatever happens next, whether Trump is impeached or not, I think we've already been changed as a nation forever by what's already led us to this moment. After all, in 2016 the nation wanted someone like Sanders to be president, wanted an agent of change, and look what it got. This is in fact our second failed attempt this century at change that makes our lives better.

"I don't think that point's been lost on anyone. We're in transition no matter what happens to Trump. Transition to what, we'll have to find out later."
This is an appropriate place to end for now, with a look at where the failed citizen's revolt of 2016 leaves us going forward. The rest of our story of 2017 next time.

GP
 

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Obama Follows Clinton, Boards the Millionaire Speech Train to Wall Street

>

Democratic Party loyalists didn't decide the last election, and they won't decide the next.

by Gaius Publius

“I never had any money until I got out of the White House, you know, but I’ve done reasonably well since then.” 

Like Bill Clinton before him, ex-President Barack Obama has gotten on the Wall Street-financed train to millionaire riches. Clinton:
On December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis. Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City.  A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work. [emphasis mine]
Times change, prices go up, but the song remains the same. Obama:
Last month, just before [Hillary Clinton's] book “What Happened” was published, Barack Obama spoke in New York to clients of Northern Trust Corp. for about $400,000, a person familiar with his appearance said. Last week, he reminisced about the White House for Carlyle Group LP, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to two people who were there. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s health-care conference.

Obama is coming to Wall Street less than a year after leaving the White House, following a path that’s well trod and well paid. [emphasis mine]
If the first figure is his fee, as it reportedly is for the Cantor Fitzgerald speech as well, he'll pocket $1.2 million from three Wall Street speeches in about a month's time. 

The issue is not just the cashing in on career-long, eager service to mega-wealthy Wall Street bankers — including especially his failure to prosecute not one of them for massive and systemic fraud, let's remember. That's the smallest of the problems with this story. A larger issue is its effect on the desperate attempt of the Democratic Party to distance its current self-presentation, "The Party That Speaks For The People," from its most recent self, "The Party Of The Top Ten Percent." Or at least, its attempt to appear to create that distance. 

This move by Obama won't help those attempts at a new-minted reversal of appearance. As the article points out, "While he can’t run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power. His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on". No one in the bottom 90% — most of us, in other words — is "torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power."

It's a come-to-Jesus moment for the Democratic Party, and Obama brought Eve's apple to the discussion.

A Pre-Revolutionary Nation

The nation is at a crossroads, in a pre-revolutionary condition, and so is the Democratic Party. The revolution in the nation is proceeding. Ever since Obama's betrayal of his mandate in 2009, discontent with Establishment rule, by supporters of both parties, has grown almost geometrically, starting with the Democratic Party disaster in 2010. In 2016 that revolt kept Republicans in charge, despite a Senate winnable by the Democrats, and it helped put Trump and Pence in the White House for the next four years.

Revolt against Establishment rule would have put Sanders in the White House instead, if Democratic leadership had allowed it. Consider:


The argument against Sanders by Democratic leaders is that people who filled football stadiums to support Sanders weren't Democrats. Neither are most voters, however, as the chart above shows. Think that through.

A Price for Democratic Party Dithering

And now the debt for Democratic Party misdeeds, for sticking with the Establishment playbook, comes due. In 2018 and 2020 the nation will get its last real chance, before our twin tsunamis hit, at putting leaders in place to actually deal with them. Those twin tsunamis — bankruptcy-, death- and anger-fueled revolt against rule by the rich; and fossil-fueled destruction of a climate that can sustain seven billion living breathing humans. Both crises are reaching social and political tipping points. Neither will wait while Democrats continue to dither and the Party's still-in-place leaders try to stretch their corrupt profit-taking practices into an indefinite future.

Will Party leadership convince enough voters that they hold a better answer than the next faux-populist demon from the right, our nation's own monster from the id? Or will apathy to Democratic Party corruption suppress turnout enough to keep Republicans in power in 2018 and elevate their next monster from the id to the White House in 2020?

It's not like Obama is an outlier among Democrats. The Party is shot through with this kind of corruption. It's put up or shut up for the nation, and put up or shut up for Democratic leaders as well.

Needless to say, Obama's new Wall Street wealth, and Democratic Party defense of it, isn't likely to help either us or them.

Quid Pro Quo for Carlyle Group?

One final point. In the case of his paid speech to mega-wealthy equity firm Carlyle Group, there do seem to be quids and quos. From the International Business Times (emphasis mine):
Several years after private equity firm Carlyle Group LP successfully pushed the White House to relax Environmental Protection Agency rules to the benefit of two Carlyle-owned oil refineries in Pennsylvania, former President Barack Obama, as part of a series of paid speeches, made a stop at its conference last week.

Bloomberg first reported the former president’s recent paid speech rounds Monday, citing “two people who were there” at a Carlyle event in Washington, D.C., last week, where he “discussed his life and the decisions he made in the White House.” It’s unclear whether and how much he was paid by Carlyle, which declined to comment to International Business Times, but Bloomberg reported that he received $400,000 for a Northern Trust Corp. engagement in August, and earlier this year won the same amount from the investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald, for which he was slated to speak again next week.
After listing Carlyle Group executives who also held positions with the Obama administration, IBT writes this:
Back in 2013, Carlyle — working in tandem with Delta Air Lines, which also owned a refinery — met with Obama’s economic adviser Ronald Minsk and an EPA official, and signed a letter to the EPA with Delta and a refinery union leader as part of an effort to lobby the agency to relax its steadily rising requirements for mixing biofuels in petroleum-based fuels as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, Reuters reported in 2014.

While a boon for makers of corn-based ethanol, the requirement that U.S. petroleum output include 13.8 billion gallons of “conventional biofuel” each year would prove expensive for oil producers, as they’d have to either purchase the alternative fuel or buy a limited supply of compliance credits rapidly escalating in price. The following year would bring with it a 14.4-billion-gallon mandate. Following another letter to the EPA from then Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and his Delaware counterpart Jack Markell, the EPA announced in November 2013 that it would lower the next year’s requirement to 13 billion gallons instead of 14.4 billion, causing politicians from big corn-industry states, such as Rep. Steve King (R-Ia.), a denier of climate change, to balk. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), citing the Reuters investigation, sued the EPA “for failing to provide documents regarding oil industry efforts to influence the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard,” according to a CREW press release.

“It certainly seems as if the administration has backtracked on its commitment to renewable fuels. The question is why. Was there a back room deal orchestrated by big oil and high ranking officials in the Obama administration?” Melanie Sloan, then the group’s executive director, said in the 2014 release. “Even though it is nearly 2015, the renewable fuel standards for 2014 still haven’t been released. Is this to avoid potential political fallout in the mid-terms for siding with the oil industry over the biofuel industry?

In 2015, Delta and Carlyle, along with oil giant Valero Energy Corp. and Minsk, by then no longer Obama’s economic adviser, renewed their efforts to change the EPA RFS rules, this time by pushing the agency to relegate the burden of compliance with required biofuel levels to fuel blenders, rather than refiners.

Before the campaign to influence the EPA’s fuel-composition requirements began, Obama’s administration played a helpful role in Carlyle’s acquisition of the refinery as well.
There's more in the IBT piece. This isn't a smoking gun, of course. But there is a corpse (the biofuel standard) and a clear beneficiary, or several. One of those beneficiaries, the Carlyle Group, seems to have just said thanks.

Obama's future is quite secure and getting more secure by the day. I'm not sure the same can be said for the Democratic Party's; quite the opposite in fact. And I strongly suspect, if true, the two outcomes will prove connected.

GP
  

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,