Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumMessage to Millennials: Bernie Sanders Is Intellectually Consistent, Not Intellectually Honest 4
Keep the Tweet going please--the article lays out some truths--mainly about Sanders unrealistic proposals.
Howard Dean ?@GovHowardDean 22h22 hours ago
Message to Millennials: Bernie Sanders Is Intellectually Consistent, Not Intellectually Honest http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/message_to_millennials_bernie059844.php
via @washmonthly
446 retweets 552 likes
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/message_to_millennials_bernie059844.php
March 07, 2016 12:15 PM
Message to Millennials: Bernie Sanders Is Intellectually Consistent, Not Intellectually Honest
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/message_to_millennials_bernie059844.php
By Paul Glastris
.......................Its in the realm of policy, however, where I find Bernie intellectually quite dishonest, and Hillary pretty damned honest. When you scrutinize his policy ideas, as wonky liberals have begun doing (finally) in the last couple of months, those ideas dont stand up, on a bunch of different levels.
One of those levels is politicalas in theres no way, in the foreseeable future, there will be sixty votes in the Senate, much less support in a likely GOP-controlled House, to pass single-payer health care, or break up the big banks, or reform the political campaign system, or provide free college tuition for every student. You can excuse that by saying, Well, thats his vision, his end goal, maybe not achievable in his first term but possible over time, especially if we get the political revolution he calls for.
But theres a deeper level at which these policy ideas are intellectually dishonest. Even if you could somehow get them passed, practically they either wouldnt work or would be recklessly disruptive or both.
On health care, its not just that corporate interests would resist single-payer, as Bernie rightly says. Its that given the fact that, for historical reasons, weve built out an employer-based system, any legislation that attempted to rip up that entire system from the bottom up would lead to logistical and economic chaos and to political backlash that would dwarf what the Democrats got hit with after they passed Obamacare. Why in the world would you do that, especially now that, with Obamacare, weve taken a huge step toward making the existing system work for those whove been excluded, and made at least some steps toward cost containment (though we need more, as Hillary is calling for)?
But even if you think itd be worth all the turmoil and stress to at least try to get rid of our cumbersome and expensive health care system and replace it with one on a Canadian or European modelthose systems are, on the whole, more cost-effective and of the same or better quality than oursits hard to take seriously Bernies specific plan to get there. In fact, its pretty clear that Bernie himself doesnt take his plan seriously. When he first rolled it outhours before the Iowa caucusesknowledgeable (and sympathetically liberal) health policy experts were shocked at how sloppy it was. For instance, he promised to save Americans more per year on prescription drugs than we currently spend in total per year on prescription drugs. (By the way, Donald Trump has made the same impossible promise regarding prescription drugs.)
On reforming the financial sector, its not just that the big banks will resist Bernies plan to break them up and to restore Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law (since overturned) that kept federally insured banks from gambling with their depositors money by trading securities and engaging in other forms of high-risk behavior, as uninsured institutions like investment banks are free to do. Its that breaking up the big banks and restoring Glass-Steagall wouldnt accomplish the practical task of making the financial sector more stable and less likely to tank the economy.
Remember, it wasnt the big banks we bailed out that caused the financial collapse of 2008. Rather, it was the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the mismanagement of AIG, and the subprime mortgages being peddled by firms like Countrywide. None of these companies were all that big. None had deposits insured by the government, and hence their behavior wouldnt have been stopped even if Glass-Steagall still had been in force. They were part of the shadow banking system that Dodd-Frank has gone a long way to regulate and that Hillary wants, rightly and sensibly, to tighten the screws on. Big banks remain a problem, but mostly because weve allowed the financial sector, as with most industries, to consolidate in a handful of coastal cities (more on this in our next issue, out next week).
On the billionaire class, its not just that America has never, since its founding, been able to keep money out of political campaigns (though the problem has clearly gotten much worse in recent years). Its that campaign donations are not remotely the most important way billionaires and corporations rig the system to their benefit. Rather, its through the money that flows into the Washington lobbying machine, and Bernies campaign finance reforms wont do squat about that.
On our bloated prisons and abusive policing in poor and minority communities, its not just that progressives blame these problems on Bill Clintons 1994 crime bill, and hence on Hillary, even though then Congressman Bernie Sanders voted for the bill. Nor is it that the crime bill, with its stress on community policing, helped lower the crime rate in poor communities while improving police behavior (though to get GOP votes it did increase sentences and incarceration). Its that Bernies pledges to fix these problems are unserious and outright dishonest. At a candidate debate in February, Sanders pointed out, rightly, that America has more of its citizens behind bars than any other country, including China, then promised that at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country. Even some of his strongest boosters, like the MSNBC host Chris Hayes, pointed out that Sanders was making promises he wouldnt, as president, have the power to keep. States house 87 percent of the nations prisoners; even if a President Sanders were to pardon every inmate of every federal prisonthe only ones he would controlthe United States would still have more people behind bars than China.
And then theres the issue.....................
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)nah nah nah nah nah
I can't hear you!
livetohike
(22,121 posts)sure this will sway any votes of Sanders' supporters, but it is nice to see this criticism in print. Finally.
riversedge
(70,077 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)FloridaBlues
(4,004 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)Bernie's campaign would never have gotten off the ground. Bernie is winning because people no longer believe when people like this tell them that these things are impossible.
Just a glaring example, on breaking up the banks. This author is lecturing millenials that breaking up the banks needs "60 votes in the Senate". But Hillary is saying Dodd-Frank gives that power.
kjones
(1,053 posts)Just because someone believes your tall tale doesn't make it true.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I should have said "competing".
Blue Idaho
(5,038 posts)Falling further behind after each primary Tuesday - if we're shooting of intellectual honesty that is...
spooky3
(34,405 posts)The article provides specifics and facts that smart Millennials can and do consider.
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)This is the section Hillary is referring to:
http://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_Frank_Act_Text_Section_121.html
Dodd Frank Act Section 121
SEC. 121. MITIGATION OF RISKS TO FINANCIAL STABILITY.
(a) MITIGATORY ACTIONS.If the Board of Governors determines that a bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $50,000,000,000 or more, or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors, poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States, the Board of Governors, upon an affirmative vote of not fewer than 2?3 of the voting members of the Council then serving, shall
(1) limit the ability of the company to merge with, acquire, consolidate with, or otherwise become affiliated with another company;
(2) restrict the ability of the company to offer a financial product or products;
(3) require the company to terminate one or more activities;
(4) impose conditions on the manner in which the company conducts 1 or more activities; or
(5) if the Board of Governors determines that the actions described in paragraphs (1) through (4) are inadequate to mitigate a threat to the financial stability of the United States in its recommendation, require the company to sell or otherwise transfer assets or off-balance-sheet items to unaffiliated entities.
(b) NOTICE AND HEARING.
(1) IN GENERAL.The Board of Governors, in consultation with the Council, shall provide to a company described in subsection (a) written notice that such company is being considered for mitigatory action pursuant to this section, including an explanation of the basis for, and description of, the proposed mitigatory action.
(2) HEARING.Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of notice under paragraph (1), the company may request, in writing, an opportunity for a written or oral hearing before the Board of Governors to contest the proposed mitigatory action.
Upon receipt of a timely request, the Board of Governors shall fix a time (not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of the request) and place at which such company may appear, personally or through counsel, to submit written materials (or, at the discretion of the Board of Governors, in consultation with the Council, oral testimony and oral argument).
(3) DECISION.Not later than 60 days after the date of a hearing under paragraph (2), or not later than 60 days after the provision of a notice under paragraph (1) if no hearing was held, the Board of Governors shall notify the company of the final decision of the Board of Governors, including the results of the vote of the Council, as described in subsection (a).
(c) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.The Board of Governors and the Council shall take into consideration the factors set forth in subsection (a) or (b) of section 113, as applicable, in making any
determination under subsection (a).
(d) APPLICATION TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL COMPANIES.The Board of Governors may prescribe regulations regarding the application of this section to foreign nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors and foreign-based bank holding companies
(1) giving due regard to the principle of national treatment and equality of competitive opportunity; and
(2) taking into account the extent to which the foreign nonbank financial company or foreign-based bank holding company is subject on a consolidated basis to home country standards that are comparable to those applied to financial companies in the United States.
Read very closely: "poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States." Dodd-Frank requires banks to be stress-tested. If a bank is being operated in a stable, workmanlike manner, it doesn't pose a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States no matter how big it is. If Bernie decided to break up the big banks just because he doesn't like big banks and not because the banks are currently operating in an unsafe manner, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to stop him.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)if only all voters were critical thinkers...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,739 posts)pandr32
(11,553 posts)They won't take any of this seriously...sigh.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)or people just starting to pay attention!
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)spooky3
(34,405 posts)The specifics of many aspects of Sanders' proposals.