Congress Needs More Members In The Squad But That Isn't The Only Way To Make A Valuable Contribution: Katie Porter

The CNN.com headline yesterday, Katie Porter isn't part of 'The Squad.' But the freshman House Democrat is stirring up trouble for Trump, was... meh. True, Katie Porter isn't part of The Squad. And true, Katie is "stirring up trouble for Trump." But... there's a lot more to it. Each member of The Squad can boast a ProgressivePunch crucial vote record of "A"-- three of them, perfect 100% scores, in fact. Katie's ProgressivePunch crucial vote score isn't as robust. And instead of their A, hers is F. Here are their raw scores plus the PVI of their districts:

• Ayanna Pressley- 100 (D+34)
• Rashida Tlaib- 100 (D+33)
• AOC- 100 (D+29)
• Ilhan Omar- 97.50 (D+26)
• Katie Porter- 72.50 (R+3)

Let's put that another way. Republicans didn't bother running candidates against Ayanna or Rashida. AOC beat Republican Anthony Pappas 110,318 (78.2%) to 19,202 (13.6%). Ilhan beat Republican Jennifer Zielinski 267,703 (78.0%) to 74,440 (21.7%). Katie had a more series problem. She ran against entrenched Republican incumbent Mimi Walters (after beating a DCCC-preferred New Dem in the primary). Walters spent $5,244,605 (+ $7,758,258 town in against Porter by Republican outside groups). In the end-- Porter managed to beat Walters 158,906 (52.1%) to 146,383 (47.9%). Trump did badly in all 5 districts-- 11.9% in Ayanna's, 18.1% in Rashida's, 18.5% in Ilhan's, 19.8% in AOC's... and 44.4% in Katie's. I'm not making an excuses for her voting record, but it's a lot easier to vote straight down the line progressive in a district where only 12% of the people back Trump that in one where 44% do.

On the other hand, few freshmen have been as valuable in their committees as Porter has been in the House Financial Services Committee, where she has used her expertise to hold banksters' and Trump appointed regulators' feet to the fire. And, as Katie Lobosco, the CNN.com reporter put it, "she's emerged as a viral star when it comes to how banks and the government treat the working poor and puncturing Trump's claims about the economy. She's carving out a Warren-esque role for herself that's included asking top officials do basic math under oath. Her targets so far have included major Wall Street players like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Equifax CEO Mark Begor and now-former Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan."

It was March when Porter grilled Sloan-- who was already facing calls from Warren and others to step down-- at a House Financial Services Committee hearing about Wells Fargo's numerous scandals over fake accounts, inappropriate mortgage fees, and charging borrowers for auto insurance they didn't need.

When it came her turn, Porter began by asking why the public should trust Sloan's promises that Wells Fargo was changing its ways. Then, she ducked under the table to bring up a poster board printed with huge text, displaying what Wells Fargo attorneys had said in court.

"Why Mr. Sloan, if you don't mind me asking, are your lawyers in federal court arguing that those exact statements I read are quote 'paradigmatic examples of non-actionable corporate puffery, on which no reliable investor could rely,'" she asked.

"I don't know why our lawyers are arguing that," Sloan responded.

Porter kept going.

"It's convenient for your lawyers to deflect blame in court, and say your rebranding campaign can be ignored as hyperbolic marketing, but when then you come to Congress, you want us to take you at your word," she said. "And I think that's the disconnect, that's why the American public has trouble trusting Wells Fargo."

Two weeks later, Wells Fargo announced Sloan was out.

Porter has targeted top Trump administration officials, too. She whipped out a copy of the text book she wrote, "Modern Consumer Law," to quiz Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Kathy Kraninger. She then posed a hypothetical math problem: A single mom takes out a two-week $200 payday loan with an origination fee of $20, at a rate of 10%. What is the APR? One of Porter's aides handed Kraninger a calculator.

She didn't do the math, even after Porter repeated the question, asking her to ballpark the calculation.

"I understand where you're getting. At the end of the day, the issue is certainly: When you actually are able to repay that loan and whether or not you take out an additional loan," Kraninger said.

"This is not a math exercise, though. This is a policy conversation," she added.

This week, in her office, Porter said she hopes the video clip gets people thinking about the issue.

"Like, what does it mean that calculating the APR is so hard that the vast majority of us can't do it? I guess it means that those disclosures that do it for you are pretty useful," she said.

In June, Porter asked Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson why the Federal Housing Administration is "lousy at servicing mortgages." When Carson said he had not had any discussions about that issue but that he would "look it up," Porter pushed further, asking him to explain the rate of foreclosures among those with mortgages backed by his department. She used the term REO-- which stands for real estate-owned, and refers to properties owned by a lender after an unsuccessful foreclosure-- an acronym she didn't expect to stump the head of the agency tasked with monitoring them.

"Do you know what an REO is?" Porter asked Carson.

Carson replied, "An Oreo?"

"No, not an Oreo," Porter said. "An R-E-O. REO."




Video of the exchange went viral and Carson attempted to laugh it off by sending the Congresswoman a box of the cookies.

Porter says her goal isn't to highlight incompetence, but instead to make esoteric topics more accessible-- like she did in the consumer finance law classes she taught at the University of California, Irvine.

"What I did as a professor is not that different than what I do in hearings," Porter said this week.

An average voter might not be able to articulate their position on payday loans, she said, "but when you start talking about that hypothetical exchange I had with Kraninger, people began to engage."

Like Warren, she believes that debates about protecting the ability to make a living, buy a home, and afford college are really conversations about the "heart and soul of America."

Her back-and-forth with Dimon, she said, was meant to highlight the issue of CEO pay disparity. Porter ran through a hypothetical Chase bank employee's budget, this time with a white board.

"She's short $567, what would you suggest she do?" asked the bank CEO.

"I don't know, I'd have to think about that," Dimon said.

Whether or not the professor-turned-congresswoman can turn her unique way of questioning government officials and Wall Street executives into making real legislative change remains to be seen. A bicameral bill she brought forth with Democratic Sens. Warren, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Tom Udall of New Mexico would bolster the power of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau so that it could oversee student loan servicers. Porter has also introduced legislation with Harris that would strengthen the power of state attorneys general to monitor banks.

So far none of these bills have major support from Republicans. But a bill she introduced that would raise the civil penalties assessed to security law violators was marked up by committee last week and a similar Senate bill is cosponsored by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. Two of her other bills-- one on mental health and the other addressing homecare for seniors-- have some support from across the aisle.

The Democrat could be vulnerable in her reelection bid. When she won in 2018, it was the first time her Southern California district had gone blue since its creation in 1983. That was in part because two-term incumbent Republican Mimi Walters was consistently voting in line with Trump in a district Clinton won by five percentage points.

But last month, Porter became one of the first Democrats who won Republican districts in 2018 to come out in support of impeaching Trump. The move seemed to win her some support. Her campaign brought in more than $1 million in the second quarter, out-fundraising many other vulnerable Democrats.

Porter said she is working to be a voice for families concerned about how they're going to pay the bills, something she believes Trump's candidacy also tapped into.

"The financial instability and sometimes insecurity that families feel, deeply motivates how they respond politically," Porter said last week.

"I think one thing he (Trump) played into was fear about 'Am I going to be able to make ends meet, and is there going be a job for my kids?' Those are real concerns, and as a mom I have them, too."

So far Katie has half a dozen GOP opponents running against her in the open primary, alphabetically Deputy District Attorney Ray Gennawey, Yorba Linda City Councilor and Deputy Attorney General Peggy Huang, random person Julie Proctor, Mission Viejo City Councilman Greg Raths, Laguna Hills City Councilman Don Sedgwick, Orange County Board of Education Member Lisa Sparks ad a second random person, Brenton Woolworth. And some of them are raising real money:

• Don Sedgwick: $621,120
• Peggy Huang (self-funder)- $263,791
• Greg Raths (self funder)- $209,770
• Lisa Sparks Triggers- $151,251
• Ray Gennawey- $73,210
• Brenton Woolworth- $8,845

But, speaking of The Squad, with the Republican Party having nothing to run on, they've decided to take their racism and xenophobia and turn it into an issue, an issue that shows the public exactly who and what they are. This is from the Illinois Republican Party. I have a feeling the California GOP is going to back away from using it, but... who really knows for sure. It looks like the kind of thing that Don Sedgwick and Greg Rath would absolutely love.

#3 In Our Series About The Freshmen: What About Katie Porter?

Last cycle, the NRCC was so certain that they would hold CA-45 in Orange County that they didn't even bother putting incumbent Mimi Walters into their Patriot Program for vulnerable House members. That may have been a mistake. The district, which went into the race with a PVI of R+3, had given Romney a 55-43% win over Obama but gave Hillary 49% to Trump's 44%. With a $92,378 median income, it's the 13th richest congressional district in the country. Ethnically, it's 53.2% White, 22.4% Asian. 18.7% Latino and 1.7% Black. It seemed safer than any of the other Orange County districts. The GOP hadn't really thought that every one of them would get caught up in the anti-red/anti-Trump 2018 wave. But they did. Walters lost to first-time candidate Katie Porter:

Porter's campaign was largely based on her promise to "to hold Donald Trump and the powerful special interests in Washington accountable on behalf of Orange County families" and her pledge to support Medicare-For-All. She has signed on as an original co-sponsor of Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All Act and her work in the House Financial Services Committee holding the Wall Street special interests' feet to the fire has become her trademark already.

Katie was backed by Blue America and we were a little nonplused when her voting record quickly started diverging from progressives. Even now, her ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is nothing to write home about-- a "D," tied with 5 New Dems, like Susie Lee, Chrissy Houlahan and Dean Phillips. An endorsement committee of a board I'm on asked me what was wrong and if we should consider not re-endorsing her. My advise based on two things-- 1- that she is doing incredible work in her committee and 2- that there are still too few votes to make a decision like that, even if we'd rather see her voting with AOC and Mike Levin (in the district next door) than like conservatives like Lee, Houlahan and Phillips. They have nothing going for them-- just the poor voting record-- while she is fulfilling her campaign promise to hold special interests accountable... and in a way few freshman members can match.

Blue America is still watching and waiting to see how her first year looks before we re-endorse. But the other board... I voted yes, to endorse again. I suspect Blue America will as well. She may need the help too. There are already 4 Republicans in the primary, Don Sedgwick, a Laguna Hills City Councilman, who has raised big money ($140,977), Ray Gennawey, Mission Viego Mayor Greg Raths and Yorba Linda City Councilwoman Peggy Huang. At one point, Mimi Walters said she would like a rematch and filed paper work with the FEC but she's been quiet and hasn't raised any money so far. Voter registration in CA-45 favors Republicans by about 5 points over Democrats.



She has roughed up congressional witnesses in her committee, like billionaire Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase and Well Fargo CEO Tim Sloan, as well as the top dogs at Equifax and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's already considered the best financial affairs interrogator in Congress. But aside from making a name for herself for nailing banksters' and Trump officials' hides to the wall-- watch the 3 videos on this page-- Porter has raised an impressive $416,122.85 for her reelection campaign.

When compulsive liar and Trumpist press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted last week that congressional Democrats are not "smart enough" to review Trump’s tax returns, Porter went on CNN to respond and offered to "take that bet anytime... I’m trained in tax law. I’m a legal professor. I’m ready to take a look." Huckabee hasn't brought the taxes over for her to look at-- nor, apparently chastened-- has she responded in any other way.

Trump Is Bringing Back Predatory Lenders To Prey On Poor People

Last cycle payday lenders only handed out $1,302,189 to congressional candidates, mostly to incumbents. And mostly to Republicans ($1,054,081). The biggest players were Harpeth Financial Services, Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Advance Financial, Online Lenders Alliance, Select Management Resources and Moneytree, Inc. Since 1990 Payday lenders have contributed $11,754,614 to men and women running for Congress-- $4,214,274 to Democrats and $7,505,887 to Republicans. Most of the scumbags who took the most sewer money from the payday lenders are now gone from Congress-- Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Harry Reid (D-NV), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Kendrick Meek (D-FL). This was the list of people who did the bidding of the payday lenders and were rewarded with 6-figure bribes.

Now let's take a look at the 10 corrupt members of Congress who are still serving in the House and who were the biggest recipients of Payday lender bribes just in the 2018 cycle:

• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- Financial Services Committee- $50,600
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- Appropriations Committee- $43,000
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- Rules Committee- $41,000
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- Financial Services Committee- $40,400
• Tom Graves (R-GA)- Appropriations Committee- $39,800
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- Energy and Commerce- $32,600
• Patrick McHenry (R-GA)- Financial Services Committee- $23,500
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- Financial Services Committee- $23,000
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- Financial Services Committee- $20,000
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- Financial Services Committee- $18,150

I'm sure you've noted that 60% of them come from just one committee, Financial Services. That's not a coincidence. The Trump regime announced last week that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau plans to roll back Obama-era restrictions on predatory payday lenders.

NBC News reported that critics worry that "payday lenders take advantage of impoverished Americans who often turn to them for small dollar loans in a pinch. These high-interest loans can force financially vulnerable people into a trap of loans, renewals and exorbitant fees that lead to more debt... Cordray said on Wednesday that the Trump administration's action favors the 'profits of payday lenders' over 'some of the hardest-hit consumers. The move to unwind the rule is based on a claim of protecting access to credit-- but credit that is offered without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay is irresponsible and often predatory,' he said in a statement. 'Extensive data analysis shows this is true for payday lenders. The Trump administration’s political efforts to roll back the rule will hurt those who are being abused and mistreated by ruinous loans. So today’s action should be and will be subject to a stiff legal challenge'."

Alex Horowitz, the senior research officer with Pew Charitable Trusts consumer finance project, warned that the rule change would leave the 12 million Americans who use payday loans annually unprotected from predatory interest rates, which average 400 percent.

"This proposal is not a tweak to the existing rule; instead, it's a complete dismantling of the consumer protections finalized in 2017," Horowitz said in a statement. "The rule was working. Lenders were making changes even before it formally took effect, safer credit was already starting to flow, and harmful practices were beginning to fade." Lending groups, however, celebrated the decision. Some even pushed for CFPB to rescind the rule in its entirety.

The Community Financial Services Association of America, a group that sued the CFBP over its rule against payday lending, said that it was pleased with the announcement, but added that it did not think the current director’s decision went far enough.

Critics of the new policy said this fulfilled their fears that the Trump administration was working to undo consumer protections and would put financially vulnerable Americans at risk.

“[CFPB Director] Kathy Kraninger is siding with the payday loan sharks instead of the American people,” said Rebecca Borné, senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending. “The CFPB, under a previous director, spent five years developing these consumer safeguards, taking input from lenders, faith leaders, veteran and military organizations, civil rights groups, consumer advocates, and consumers from across the country.”

Because of the Democratic takeover of the House-- and the restructuring of the House Financial Services Committee-- crooked banisters and payday lenders can only depend on Trump to give them license to steal. Last year the committee was run by 34 Republicans-- all crooked-- and among the 26 Democrats, over half were slimy Blue Dog/New Dems. This time 34 Democrats run the show and, although there are still quite a few slimeballs and bankster allies-- Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), Lacy Clay (MO), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), Denny Heck (Dem Dem-WA), Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)-- new members include fighting reformers: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Katie Porter (CA), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ayanna Pressley (MA). And the new ranking member is one of Congress' most corrupt and dishonest members, Patrick McHenry (NC).

Too Much Money Sloshing Around Without Strict Regulation Corrupts Democracy-- Always

The Trump Regime has been working to rig the campaign finance rules in preparation for his reelection efforts; more on that below. It has also ordered the gutting of the task forces protecting elections from foreign meddling. At an earlier time in history, a leader like Trump would have been dragged out of his palace and lynched... or guillotined. We don't do that any more. Betsy Woodruff wrote yesterday that "Two teams of federal officials assembled to fight foreign election interference are being dramatically downsized, according to three current and former Department of Homeland Security officials. And now, those sources say they fear the department won’t prepare adequately for election threats in 2020." Who would have guessed?

“The clear assessment from the intelligence community is that 2020 is going to be the perfect storm,” said a DHS official familiar with the teams. “We know Russia is going to be engaged. Other state actors have seen the success of Russia and realize the value of disinformation operations. So it’s very curious why the task forces were demoted in the bureaucracy and the leadership has not committed resources to prepare for the 2020 election.”

The task forces, part of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), were assembled in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. One focuses in part on securing election infrastructure and the other focuses on foreign influence efforts, including social media disinformation campaigns.

...The election task force has worked to shield election infrastructure from foreign efforts to change vote counts. And the foreign influence task force is working to publicly reveal efforts by foreign actors to shape American political discourse on social media—in the hopes of significantly expanding Americans’ understanding of the threat. It was also designed to improve DHS’s coordination with foreign allies who face the same threat, and to help DHS better alert the private sector about threats.

To help guarantee even a chance at reelection, the colossally unpopular-- even hated-- Trump moved quickly to rig his fund-raising operation by having Mnuchin institute a Treasury Department rule that allows political 501 (c)(4) dark money "charities"-- which can take massive amounts of illegal money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Brazil and other Trump allies from around the world-- and pass them on to Trump's campaign without anyone knowing.

On December 12, the Senate voted 50-49 to abrogate the rule, Susan Collins (R-ME) voting with every Democrat and Thom Tillis (R-NC) absent. Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy immediately declared that the legislation would not get a vote in the House... so it died-- at least for the session.

Things have changed after the midterms. The Democrats control the House and this rule change would easily pass. But the Senate is Trumpier now and it's less likely the Democrats could get it through-- if McConnell even allowed it to come up for a vote again, which is unlikely. Meanwhile campaign finance watchdogs are furious because Mnuchin and Trump are encouraging foreign interference in U.S. elections.

Titled the “Spotlight Act,” legislation from Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jon Tester (D-MT)-- accompanied by an identical bill from Rep. David Price (D-NC in the House-- would overturn the rule change and restore donor disclosure to the IRS.

“At a time when our elections are plagued by unlimited corporate spending, anonymous donors, and illegal foreign meddling, the Trump administration’s decision to obscure millions in dark campaign money weakens our already failing campaign finance system and diminishes the power of voters,” Price said in a statement.

Dark money groups reported nearly $148 million in outside spending to the FEC during the 2018 cycle, not including money spent toward so-called issue ads aired before election season and other undisclosed political efforts, and contributed more than $176 million to super PACs.

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making federal contributions and politically-active groups cannot use foreign funds to influence elections. Though the IRS doesn’t directly enforce the foreign money ban, the FEC or Department of Justice (DOJ) could request an unredacted version of a politically-active nonprofit’s tax returns in order to assess whether it had received foreign money, said Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center.

McClatchy reported in July 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller likely got access to the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) hidden donors as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A few weeks later, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the IRS rule change, just hours after the arrest of alleged Russian agent Maria Butina-- accused of infiltrating the NRA.

The NRA spent a record $54.4 million in 2016, much of which went to help elect President Donald Trump, all while keeping its donors hidden as a dark money nonprofit. In a letter to Wyden, the NRA said it received roughly $2,500 from Russian sources in 2016.

Mnuchin justified the IRS rule change by noting it will prevent confidential donor information from leaking-- as it did in 2013 when the IRS posted unredacted tax forms revealing donors to the Republican Governors Association Public Policy Committee. He also noted that nonprofits must continue to keep donor information in their own records.

Even if the bill reached the Senate floor and passed both chambers, President Donald Trump would be waiting on the other side with a veto ready-- and a two-thirds override appears impossible. The December 2018 resolution passed with just 50 votes, with every Republican except Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voting nay.

There's a new cop on the beat at the House Financial Services Committee, a committee the banisters and their lobbyists have always thought-- and for good reason-- was there to do their bidding. Even when it was controlled by Democrats, chairman Barney Frank accepted millions in bribes and never let the regulating get "out of hand." Now the banksters and lobbyists will have to face down serious reformers with a serious agenda: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Elizabeth Warren protégée Katie Porter (D-CA). The committee is still dominated by crooks and bribe takers, from ranking member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) to a pacel of bribe-hungry Blue Dogs and New Dems like Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT) and Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY).

Let's take a minute and see how much the Finance Sector schmeired each member of the current committee in the last cycle. This is sickening, especially if you have this in mind when you read it. And remember, this is for just one cycle. Some of these members have taken millions in bribes from the banksters over time.

The names of the freshman members on the committee have their names in red on the list below. They haven't had enough time yet to get the really big bucks flowing in yet-- at least most of them haven't. But most of them will.

• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,985,233
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $1,692,156
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $1,491,455
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,427,138
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $1,357,140
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)- $1,314,213
• French Hill (R-AR)- $1,160,462
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $1,039,719
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $1,012,350
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $960,750
• Carolyn Mahoney (D-NY)- $779,561
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $766,617
• Katie Porter (D-CA)- $691,718
• Tom Emmer (R-MN)- $652,679
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)- $636,580
• Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)- $622,300
• Ted Budd (R-NC)- $606,530
• David Kustoff (R-TN)- $585,288
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $581,335
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $580,192
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $564,100
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $519,355
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- $512,750
• Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)- $512,140
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- $480,437
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)- $471,722
• Joyce Beaty (D-OH)- $454,085
• Brad Sherman (D-CA)- $452,225
• Scott Tipton (R-CO)- $447,376
• Alex Mooney (R-WV)- $446,970
• Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)- $437,900
• Maxine Waters (D-CA)- $431,256
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)- $424,685
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)- $415,313
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $391,850
• Bryan Steil (R-WI)- $369,602
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- $354,794
• Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)- $351,849
• Peter King (R-NY)-$335,925
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- $301,502
• Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)- $300,099
• Warren Davidson (R-OH)- $288,750
• Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH)- $284,389
• Denver Riggleman (R-VA)- $280,943
• Lance Gooden (R-TX)- $255,000
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)- $229,618
• Lacy Clay (D-MO)- $212,220
• Bill Posey (R-FL)- $197,350
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- $136,352
• John Rose (R-TN)- $127,999
• Al Green (D-TX)- $119,688

[less than 6 figures in a cycle means the member has sworn off bribery and this is just normal contributions from tellers and realtors and individuals in related fields]

• Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)- $94,836
• Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY)- $90,189
• Madeleine Dean (New Dem-PA)- $88,151
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)- $82,690
• Alma Adams (D-NC)- $79,290
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)- $73,363
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)- $60,526
• Jesús "Chuy" García (D-IL)- $50,958

The tweet above was used in a Reuters story last week by Pete Schroeder and Michelle Price, Banks Weight Whether To Embrace Or Avoid Progressive Firebrand Ocasio-Cortez. I was laughing when I read it because the reaction from the banksters and their lobbyists isn't that different from the reaction of the Democratic establishment. "Barely a month into the new Congress," they wrote, "financial lobbyists in Washington are already strategizing how to handle the star power of rookie Democrat lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Democratic Socialist and Wall Street critic joined the 60-member House Financial Services Committee in mid-January and more than a dozen lobbyists interviewed by Reuters say the 29-year-old activist and former bartender is too high-profile to ignore." They have the same problem Pelosi and Hoyer have.

Richard Hunt, chief executive of the Consumer Bankers Association, said he had not encountered a lawmaker like Ocasio-Cortez in more than 20 years in Washington. “She has the ability to influence unlike a lot of other freshmen.”

...An economics major and self-confessed “science nerd,” Ocasio-Cortez campaigned on issues that put her at odds with the financial industry, including separating commercial and investment banking, breaking up large banks, and forgiving student debt.

Central to her campaign has been the rejection of corporate campaign dollars, closing off a traditional avenue for industry access and influence on Capitol Hill.

Now lobbyists fear that her enlarged platform will help the first-term junior lawmaker push her ideas into the mainstream and are trying to figure out how best to respond.

Lobbyists representing big banks, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley, which have embraced progressive causes such as diversity, inclusion, gun control or above-minimum wages, want to push these credentials. They also want to highlight how they employ thousands of people in Ocasio-Cortez’s district in Queens and the Bronx, they said.

Smaller and mid-size firms, meanwhile, want to distance themselves from Wall Street titans and emphasize their critical role as community lenders.

Several financial lobbyists, noting she lacks a financial services background, said they were keen to meet with Ocasio-Cortez to explain their business models and issues.

Paul Merski, executive vice president at the Independent Community Bankers of America, said the group had contacted the lawmaker’s office and was hoping to schedule a meeting. He added his focus would be to draw the distinction between larger financial firms and ICBA’s members, which as small community lenders have built-up “tremendous goodwill” across the aisle.

Spokespeople for JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

Speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event on Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez said the appointment of progressives like her to the panel “sends a very powerful message” to the financial industry.

She said she wanted to pursue aggressive oversight and expose financial corporations’ role in broader areas of concern, such as the detention of children in privately-funded facilities on the Mexico border.

“We can leap back in and say, what does a responsible financial sector looks like?”

Other lobbyists worry, however, engaging her could backfire, especially if Ocasio-Cortez uses social media to publicize the meeting. For example, she went on Twitter to name and shame corporate lobbyists at a Congressional freshman orientation event in December.

“The fear is, it’s like going in to talk to the FBI, anything you do or say can be used against you,” said one lobbyist for a major bank.

Lobbyists note how Ocasio-Cortez has already ignited a public debate on climate change and inequality by calling for a Green New Deal and proposing a 70 percent tax on income exceeding $10 million, an idea Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has endorsed.

Waleed Shahid, a former campaign aide and a spokesman for Justice Democrats, the progressive group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez, said her ability to raise public awareness about complex issues had caught the establishment’s attention.

“She can really explain what is happening with Wall Street in a way the public can understand it, and that’s why Wall Street is terrified.”

Speaking to Reuters, Ocasio-Cortez did not rule out listening to industry concerns to arrive at responsible regulation, but said “they have more than enough sympathetic ears” on the committee.

“We also saw in 2008 just a lot of advocacy for policies that were at its core totally irresponsible. But they were dressed up as conservative fair-minded measures,” she added.

Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez, whose Twitter handle is @AOC, had his own message for the industry: “@AOC is here to hold Wall Street accountable, not be your buddy,” he Tweeted on Wednesday in response to this story.

The financial industry faced a similar challenge in 2012 when newly elected progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren joined the Senate Banking Committee and her grilling of bank executives and regulators won her a national following.

But while Warren was well-known as a consumer advocate before joining Congress, she did not have the same social media platform as Ocasio-Cortez. Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Washington-based boutique investment bank Compass Point Research & Trading, said that whichever bank slips up next will get “taken to the woodshed in a way that we haven’t seen before.”

Often caught flatfooted by Warren, the industry hopes to rebuild bipartisan support it enjoyed in Congress before the 2007-2009 financial crisis. And with many incumbent centrist Democrats smarting after Ocasio-Cortez called them out for doing big business’s bidding, some see an opportunity to divide and conquer.

Several lobbyists told Reuters they believed they could isolate Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives on the financial services committee by building coalitions with moderate Democrats, such as fellow New York Representative Gregory Meeks, and centrist Republicans.

They said they would also lean on Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat and a liberal who has pledged to work across the aisle, to rein in the progressive wing.

I'm sure they would-- and will. And they can always get their man Steny to crack the whip when push comes to shove. He's not on the committee but the Finance Sector has been very nice to him-- to the tune of $6,865,814 in bribes since 1990-- and that ain't chump change. Nor is the kind of money that people contribute to a politician because they like his sense of humor or how sharply he dresses. They expect Hoyer to deliver-- and he always does. This has long been the single most corrupt committee in Congress-- and the lobbyists, the banksters and the members who have been fattened on their bribes-- the Gregory Meekses, the Josh Gottheimers and the Patrick McHenrys are not going to give up all their power just because of some damned progressive busy-bodies butting in on their business.

Congress Has A Lot More To Do Than Just Investigate Trump

David Cicilline (D-RI) is now the chair of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. There's not doubt we can count on him doing a much better-- and very different-- job than the one former chair Tom Marino was doing. In fact, with nightmare Republican extremist like Matt Gaetz (FL), Ken Buck (CO), Darrell Issa (CA), John Ratcliffe (TX) and Doug Collins (GA), nothing worthwhile has come out of that subcommittee for a long longtime. Welcome to a new day. This week, Barry Lynn, head of the Open Markets Institute wrote that "over the last year, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joe Simons has been strongly criticized for his failure to enforce the agency's 2011 consent decree on Facebook but has largely skirted scrutiny of his unwillingness to address the ongoing merger frenzy in any meaningful way. Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief Makan Delrahim, meanwhile, has largely escaped the public spotlight, with the notable exception of his agency’s poorly thought-out case to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The new Democratic majority in Congress means this is now likely to change." 

The new Chairman of the House Antitrust Subcommittee is likely to be Congressman David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Democratic House leadership. Cicilline is an aggressive anti-monopolist and has a track record of skepticism towards tech platforms. He has written legislation allowing newspapers to bargain collectively over advertising revenues with large online ad companies and has pledged to author new legislation expanding antitrust authority against dominant platforms.

Cicilline is also willing to act. Last month, he questioned Google CEO Sundar Pichai on the search giant’s plans to launch a Chinese product. He said Facebook executives “will always put their massive profits ahead of the interests of their customers” and noted that “it is long past time for us to take action.” In 2017, ;Cicilline ;called for hearings on the Amazon-Whole Foods merger. With his new authority, Cicilline can now bring pressure on both agencies to actually do the jobs they were hired to do. Delrahim’s failure to take on corporate concentration has been especially striking. Early on, Delrahim pledged to be a strong enforcer, portraying himself as a traditional pro-competition conservative. Delrahim attacked the idea f complex deals designed to let mergers go in exchange for conditions that require the agency to monitor a corporation’s post-deal behavior. Instead, ;he advocated preventing mergers outright, and took an especially strong stance against vertical integration, like in the tie-up between AT&T and Time Warner. Delrahim even called for jail time for employers engaging in wage-fixing against employees.

But in recent months, the Antitrust Division seems to have closed up shop even before the government shutdown took effect. Delrahim’s team conditionally cleared the drug store giant CVS to acquire insurancance company Aetna, despite innumerable conflicts of interest such a vertical deal creates, incurring the wrath of a generally pro-monopoly Judge Richard Leon. The DOJ also intervened in favor of Apple in the Supreme Court case Apple v. Pepper, which asks whether iPhone users can sue Apple for abusing its monopoly over the sale of apps. Delrahim has also not followed through on pledges to file criminal charges against wage-fixers. Perhaps most disturbingly, the DOJ has moved to restrict the rights of state enforcers and private plaintiffs to bring cases against instances of monopolization.

The libertarian anti-enforcement bent of the DOJ’s political team was made clear in recent comments by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch, who argued in a December speech at a Capitol Forum conference that “consumers often benefit from concentration” and that antitrust laws “are concerned with competition, not concentration.” He called suggestions to break up or regulate tech platforms “drastic” and warned that any such actions would reduce entrepreneurial activity.

Simons and Delrahim came into their offices with strong words for would-be monopolists. In 2019, Simons and Delrahim can expect at least one congressional committee chairman to demand answers on why this has not happened.

And it isn't just Cicilline's subcommittee where this kind of important work is going to be done. There are high expectations now that Maxine Waters has replaced Jeb Hensarling as head of the House Financial Services Committee. The committee that is charged with congressional oversight of, among other things, Wall Street has been captured by Wall Street. Every Republican and all the New Dems and Blue Dogs on the committee are there specifically to set themselves up as bribe-taking machines. Wall Street pumps immense amounts of money into the members of one of Congress' most popular committees and have gotten to write their own legislation in return. Nice deal. Of the members still on the committee, these are the criminal who have taken $2 million or more from the Finance Sector:

• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $6,327,421
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $6,279,357
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $5,598,776
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,586,542
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)- $4,111,253
• Brad Sherman (D-CA)- $3,823,403
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $3,772,203
• ean Duffy (R-WI)- $3,679,647
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $3,661,288
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $3,568,176
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- $3,260,344
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- $3,165,972
• Peter King (R-NY)- $3,092,721
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $3,041,599
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,967,427
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $2,801,450
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $2,780,919
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $2,483,427
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $2,408,711
• French Hill (R-AR)- $2,386,049
• Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)- $2,380,936
• Gwen Moore (D-WI)- $2,184,850
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $2,152,130
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)- $2,084,356

Yesterday in a post about committees at The Intercept by David Dayen, Ryan Grim and Aida Chávez, an assertion was made that "Democrats have struggled to find many members to serve on Financial Services, leading to speculation that the party would actually shrink the size of the committee. Alternatively, that quandary could result in progressives being added as a last resort." That would be a drastic change over past years, when members would practically murder each other to get onto the biggest honeypot committee in Congress.

Dayen and his team further reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Katie Porter (D-CA) are being assigned to the committee, and that Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) may be as well. "The imminent Financial Services Committee announcement," they wrote, "would take some sting out of several disappointments for the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s high-profile rising stars, who on Wednesday were largely shut out of new assignments to three critical committees where they sought expanded representation."

The Progressive Caucus had cut a deal with Pelosi for increased representation on the so-called money committees that handle most domestic legislation. They sought membership on the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Appropriations, and Financial Services committees equal to their roughly 40 percent membership in the Democratic caucus.

...The Progressive Caucus’s demand for 40 percent representation was stymied by the composition of the caucus itself. There are no real barriers to membership and the caucus rarely whips its members for votes, meaning that members who want to wear a progressive badge without altering their legislative record can do so. Some members of the Progressive Caucus are even also affiliated with its centrist counterpoint, the New Democrat Coalition

Pelosi and House leadership made skillful use of those progressive/New Dem hybrids in making the committee assignments, which may be cynical from a leadership perspective, but was only possible as a result of the Progressive Caucus’s less-than-stringent membership rules-- rules that are within their own control.

And adding CPC members who are not genuine progressives to positions of power on committees could actually be a net loss, argued some operatives. Indeed, it sets up a dynamic in which weak legislation could earn the imprimatur of an influential CPC member, which makes it more difficult for the CPC itself to oppose.

...Instead of pushing for proportional representation for a disorganized, amorphous caucus, the CPC should have first organized itself, then pursued power, argued Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which backed Ocasio-Cortez and other freshmen whose bids for the committees were rebuffed. “Numbers won’t mean much if being progressive means nothing. If everyone has their own definition and now has increased personal power through a seat on an executive committee, accountability to the progressive movement will be more difficult,” Shahid told The Intercept.

The move by Pelosi, to tap CPC members who are also in the New Dems, should have been anticipated, he argued. “Pelosi played by the CPC’s rules and appointed some of the least committed progressives to executive committees, including five CPC members who are also members of the centrist, corporate-friendly New Democratic caucus. Nearly all of the CPC members appointed to executive committees still receive corporate PAC donations,” he said.

“Instead of racing for numbers, the CPC should consider demanding stricter membership criteria-- such as rejecting corporate PAC money, co-sponsoring priority legislation, and willingness to engage in bloc voting-- otherwise progressive ideas risk being significantly watered down,” he said.

Zachery Warmbrodt also mentioned Ocasio-Cortez's likely assignment to House Financial Services and also referred to it as "a victory for progressives fighting to curb Wall Street's clout in Washington and inside the Democratic Party itself." I'm, a little wary that Pelosi is going to put that kind of power into the hands of genuine-- rather than Pocan-manufactured-- progressives. Something doesn't smell right here. Warmbrodt wrote that the assignment "would pit the 29-year-old New Yorker not only against banks that make up a major local industry but also potentially against business-friendly [outside the Beltway, that means stinking of corruption and in need of a long prison sentence, but "business-friendly" sounds more genteel] Democrats who have backed financial deregulation. Some moderate [again-- corrupt conservatives are described as "moderate" in Politico] Democrats have privately raised concerns that they’ll be targeted by the former bartender-turned-progressive icon, whose willingness to challenge her party’s establishment propelled her to Congress and the national spotlight... Ocasio-Cortez, who identifies as a democratic socialist, has criticized Democrats for supporting deregulation. She has also shunned corporate campaign donations-- traditionally a big draw for lawmakers to join the Financial Services Committee. 'This is why I am running for Congress," Ocasio-Cortez said after the House passed a sweeping set of banking rollbacks in June 2017. 'Because we cannot stand idly as big banks gut every last protection working families have left.'" The corrupt sack of runny shit who she defeated, Joe Crowley, was a big-time bankster-buddy who served on the House Ways and Means Committee and was happy to be the proud recipient of $7,446,114 in bribes from the Finance Sector, $1,276,890 last year alone.

With a single tweet, Ocasio-Cortez could frustrate efforts by moderate Democrats to cut deregulatory deals with Republicans, said Jeff Hauser, who tracks corporate influence as executive director of the Revolving Door Project.

"When industry lobbyists or their shills in Congress throw shade at a new member, it probably reflects a genuine fear that the newcomers will become a force for fixing a broken system," said Porter McConnell, campaign director of the Take On Wall Street coalition.

Lobbyists privately expressed mixed views on the prospect of her joining the committee. Some see her as a potential threat when it comes to Democrats working out legislation with Republicans. But others say she will be one among dozens on the committee and that it will be difficult for a low-ranking member to make noise.

For Waters, who is touting a committee agenda focused on consumer protection and housing, having an outspoken Democrat to her left could be a new kind of test, in addition to the tensions she has faced with more centrist members who have been more willing to work with Republicans. ["Centrist" at Politico means right-of-center but not fascist.]

But Waters has praised the fighting spirit of incoming lawmakers, and her own agenda could be bolstered by recruiting like-minded members. In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the committee is expected to take on other new progressive members including possibly Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), a protégé of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

"You're going to see a new kind of approach in the hearings that we have," Waters said in a recent MSNBC interview. "They're going to come right out with it. They won't be ashamed. They won't be afraid. They really believe in what they're doing. I think that's good for the institution."

..."Who knows," said [Rep. Lacy Clay, a real sleaze bag on the committee]. "She may deal with some issues over this first term and her supporters may start referring to her as a sellout."

Apparently he thinks everyone is just like he is. AOC isn't-- and neither is Katie Porter.

Congress Should Change The Name Of The House Financial Services Committee To The Neoliberalism Committee

This is propaganda

Members of Congress mostly sign up for the Financial Services Committee because it's the easiest committee in Congress to sell your vote for big bucks. There are a lot of really corrupt committees, but Financial Services is numero uno. Every now and then a Democrat or two will manage to get on the committee with the express purpose of reforming it. They rarely last long. The out-going chair, Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) is leaving Congress just in time to see control of the committee which from Republicans to Democrats. His legacy is having taken immense amounts of money from the banksters in return for destroying as many regulations on their behavior as he could. These are the bribes he earned-- and how the amount stacked up to other members of the House who were busy taking bribes last year:

• Financial Sector as a whole- $7,905,748 (2nd most)
• Stock brokers and the Investment Industry- $1,536,111 (12th most)
• Finance/Credit companies- $738,104 (#1)
• Hedge Funds- $107,350
• Mortgage Banking- $251,555 (2nd most)
• Payday Lenders- $202,000 (2nd most)
• Commercial Banking- $1,459,388 (the most)
• Savings and Loans- $85,903 (2nd most)

Well now he's gone and the new chair, Maxine Waters (D-CA), doesn't spend her life gobbling up bribes on a level Hensarling did. Hensarling isn't the only Republican who is leaving Congress from the committee. No more payoffs will be flowing to these criminals, in order of seniority and including how much they've taken from the Finance Sector:

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $7,593,842
• Stevan Pearce (R-NM)- $2,015,512
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL)- $2,368,537
• Dennis Ross (R-FL)- $1,983,567

• Robert Pittenger (R-NC)- $1,367,745
• Keith Rothfus (R-PA)- $2,252,763
• Luke Messer (R-IN)- $1,828,341
• Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- $2,357,049
• Mia Love (R-UT)- $1,812,806
• Dave Trott (R-MI)- $577,765
• Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)- $1,308,469
• Claudia Tenney (R-NY)- $984,180

• Mike Capuano (D-MA)- $2,686,760
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)- $914,294
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)- $2,537,077
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $4,208,505

I don't know who McCarthy has decided to anoint as the GOP ranking member this year but the three with the most seniority on the committee are Peter King (R-NY- $3,092,721) Frank Lucas (R-OK- $2,483,427) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC- $5,586,542) and it will presumably one of them. McHenry is the most corrupt and I'd bet hell get the job.

OK, while I was researching this I noticed something else. If you want to power-goose the bribes, the subcommittee to be on is Capital Markets, Securities and Investment. OMG! Do these crooks just roll in the cash-- more than anyone else, short of leadership positions. I can't wait to watch which crooked freshmen gravitate towards this one, The chairman was Bill Huizenga (R-MI) and he managed to grab $2,801,450 and the new chair is an incredibly corrupt NYC Democrat, Carolyn Maloney who has taken a startling $6,327,421 from the Finance sector. The Democrats should be ashamed to appoint this crook to chair the subcommittee. But they're not.

These are the Capital Markets, Securities and Investment subcommittee members, the ones who aren't leaving the House (so I won't mention that Kyrsten Sinema, who's going to the Senate accepted $4,208,505 in bribes while serving on this subcommittee) who have taken over a million bucks each from the Finance Sector:

• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $6,327,421

• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $6,279,357
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $5,598,776
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,586,542
• Brad Sherman (New Dem- CA)- $3,823,403
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)- $3,679,647
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $3,661,288
• David Scott (New Dem-GA)- $3,260,344
• Peter King (R-NY)- $3,092,721
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $3,041,599
• Josh Gottheimer (New Dem-NJ)- $2,967,427
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $2,801,450
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $2,780,919
• French Hill (R-AR)- $2,386,049
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)- $2,084,356
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-TX)- $1,706,965
• Tom Emmer (R-MN)- $1,333,623

So that leaves us with the freshmen who took the most money from the banksters-- over $700,000-- while they were running. I've never seen a freshman class entering Congress with this kind of a debt to the banksters. And notice-- not one of them is a Republican! These are the ones the banksters are counting on to allow them to go on cheating their customers and ripping off the country:

• Mikie Sherrill (New Dem-NJ)- $1,356,124
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,079,022
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,077,633
• Dan McCready (New Dem-NC)- $1,006,825
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $949,192
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $946,554
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $907,303
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $894,376
• Abigail Spanberger (New Dem-VA)- $793,472
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- $775,938
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $756,569
• Max Rose (New Dem)- $746,093
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $732,502
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $729,600
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- $710,436
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $710,273
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $710,109

17 freshmen who have already taken over $700K from the Finance Sector-- unheard of! And notice that 15 out of the 17 are New Dems, the caucus invented to sell their votes to Wall Street. Lookin' pretty miserable already. And that brings us to an interesting essay that Rainer Shea published on Sunday at the Ghion Journal-- Neoliberalism Is The Rationalization For Corporate Tyranny. It helps to explain the ideology behind the New Dems that even many of them don't fully grok themselves. "To understand the pathologies behind our paradigm of militarism, institutional racism, and extreme inequality," he began, "we should focus not so much on the attitudes of the elites but on the ideology that they use to advance their agendas."

When was the last time we had someone in Congress willing to say anything like this?

He makes the point that neoliberalism-- the extreme version of capitalism-- is the ideology "that the ruling class has made into conventional political thought. And neoliberalism is an exceptionally useful worldview for a power elite to propagate because it gives those who share their ideology the same mindset that the elites themselves have."

Like every dominant class throughout history, the plutocrats see those in the lower rungs of society as inferior. But neoliberalism causes this hostility towards the poor to spread among the broader population. Following in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and propagated by right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, an attitude has developed among many people that one’s economic position is always their own fault. Resentment towards perceived freeloaders is widespread, with even lower-class people often being suspicious that their economic peers are siphoning off society’s resources through welfare.

When this impulse to blame the country’s decay on laziness and “degeneracy” is fed by the dominant political forces, the ruling elite’s belief in the supreme moral value of wealth and the need for a corporate capitalist “free market” becomes the worldview of much of the rest of society. The super-rich believe that “freedom” means the ability to gain unlimited amounts of wealth without accountability, and this is essentially how most conventional political thinkers also view freedom. The domination of the neoliberal consensus applies to both the mainstream “conservative” and “liberal” sides since the Democratic Party reliably helps Wall Street and large corporations while marginalizing potential progressive reformers.

In reality, our political system is controlled by neither conservatives nor liberals. Electoral politics, government agencies, the courts, the universities, and the media have been bought out by corporations and billionaires. America’s economy is tied in with permanent wars, which are waged to sustain the demands of a global corporate-controlled empire. Our politics and our culture have been subverted by a tiny ruling circle, whose agenda isn’t to advance the traditional definitions of conservatism or liberalism but to protect their own wealth and power. And these elites have gotten many people to rationalize their tyrannical rule-or to even be unaware that a dominating class exists-by branding the accumulation of wealth as a personal freedom that shouldn’t be limited.

This economically centered concept of “freedom” is popularized by giving Americans-- especially white Americans-- the sense that they have the opportunity to succeed in the game of capitalism. Of course, the vast majority of white working class people never become part of the capitalist class. But the promise that they can theoretically become the commanders of the capitalist apparatus is rooted in the Western mentality of individualism, which is psychologically compelling for someone who’s told that the masters of business are society’s deserving “winners.” And the fact that becoming part of the capitalist class would entail domination over society’s “losers” is justified by the darker part of Western culture that glorifies conquest. This aspect of our culture derives from the mentalities behind colonialism and slavery, and it’s now being used to justify our current period of exploitation.

The shallow culture of consumerism enforces this lack of concern for the common good, as well as the regimentation and lack of community that our modern suburban paradigm has created. America’s culture is in a crisis of empathy, where people are encouraged to only think of their own interests while ignoring the circumstances of those who are different from them. Anthropologically, it makes sense for a population in these circumstances to largely be cynical, suspicious of outsiders, and loyal to authority.

...As the clinical psychologist John F. Schumaker recently wrote about the empathy deficit that modern consumerist capitalism has created:

Only the odd diehard biophile or flower child still preaches love as the revolutionary force that could awaken a higher humanity and reverse our death march. People have become less loveable, both in terms of their loveableness and, more crucially, their ability to love.

The lesson is that if we want to make things better, we need to spread compassion and generosity throughout our daily lives. Even more important is the creation of a mass movement that seeks to overthrow corporate capitalism, and then creates a society which protects the planet while ensuring that every person has a safe and comfortable life.