Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
February 13, 2016
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/12/who_endorsed_hillary_clinton_the_congressional
Meeks was trounced. Sachs responds in outstanding fashion to every distortion and false frame that went along with the CBCPAC endorsement.
Really!
Watch it!
(Or read it if you prefer!)
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/12/who_endorsed_hillary_clinton_the_congressional
Please try to watch Democracy Now episode 2/12/16
Amy has Representative Meeks and Jeffry Sachs facing off over the debate and Hillary.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Columbia University professor, leading economist, Jeffrey Sachs, here in New York, and joining us from the Capitol rotunda, Congressmember Gregory Meeks of New York. He is chair of the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee, which has just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Can you talk about this endorsement? A lot of headlines have gotten it wrong, Congressmember Meeks. They’ve said that the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, endorsed, but it is the Congressional Black Caucus’s PAC. And one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressmember Keith Ellison, said— tweeted the "Cong’l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me." And then he had a follow-up tweet saying, "The point [is] that endorsements should be the product of a fair open process. Didn’t happen," he said. Can you respond to that?
REP. GREGORY MEEKS: Absolutely. But first let me apologize to Professor Sachs. I think I called him "Leeds" in my reply, so I just want to make sure I got that straight.
Yes, the Congressional Black Caucus does not ever endorse in any race at any time, because it is a composite group that can include and does include Republicans as well as Democrats. And it is a nonpolitical entity that just focuses on legislation. The political wing of the Congressional Black Caucus is a—is the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee. It is the only group of the Congressional Black Caucus that is not a 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) or anything of that nature, and it does engage in political actions. And so—and it has a board. And the board considers, as part of its consideration, where the majority of members are in the Congressional Black Caucus.
For example, in this race, not only did we know and had had a prior and long-standing working relationship and partnership with Senator Clinton in making sure that we moved Democrats and democracy forward in a progressive way, it is also the fact that—and with Senator Sanders, who actually is an independent and not a Democrat, who we have pleasure—we’re greatly—he caucuses with us, but has not gone out to partner with us to elect Democrats. And so, that’s what the process is. Same thing like the Progressive Party, from what I understand...
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Columbia University professor, leading economist, Jeffrey Sachs, here in New York, and joining us from the Capitol rotunda, Congressmember Gregory Meeks of New York. He is chair of the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee, which has just endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Can you talk about this endorsement? A lot of headlines have gotten it wrong, Congressmember Meeks. They’ve said that the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, endorsed, but it is the Congressional Black Caucus’s PAC. And one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressmember Keith Ellison, said— tweeted the "Cong’l Black Caucus (CBC) has NOT endorsed in presidential. Separate CBCPAC endorsed withOUT input from CBC membership, including me." And then he had a follow-up tweet saying, "The point [is] that endorsements should be the product of a fair open process. Didn’t happen," he said. Can you respond to that?
REP. GREGORY MEEKS: Absolutely. But first let me apologize to Professor Sachs. I think I called him "Leeds" in my reply, so I just want to make sure I got that straight.
Yes, the Congressional Black Caucus does not ever endorse in any race at any time, because it is a composite group that can include and does include Republicans as well as Democrats. And it is a nonpolitical entity that just focuses on legislation. The political wing of the Congressional Black Caucus is a—is the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee. It is the only group of the Congressional Black Caucus that is not a 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) or anything of that nature, and it does engage in political actions. And so—and it has a board. And the board considers, as part of its consideration, where the majority of members are in the Congressional Black Caucus.
For example, in this race, not only did we know and had had a prior and long-standing working relationship and partnership with Senator Clinton in making sure that we moved Democrats and democracy forward in a progressive way, it is also the fact that—and with Senator Sanders, who actually is an independent and not a Democrat, who we have pleasure—we’re greatly—he caucuses with us, but has not gone out to partner with us to elect Democrats. And so, that’s what the process is. Same thing like the Progressive Party, from what I understand...
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/12/who_endorsed_hillary_clinton_the_congressional
Meeks was trounced. Sachs responds in outstanding fashion to every distortion and false frame that went along with the CBCPAC endorsement.
Really!
Watch it!
(Or read it if you prefer!)
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/12/who_endorsed_hillary_clinton_the_congressional
February 13, 2016
How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
By Matea Gold May 12, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.
On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.
That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.
The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified,” then-FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said at the time...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/
By Matea Gold May 12, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.
On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.
That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.
The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified,” then-FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said at the time...
February 13, 2016
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-sanders-and-clinton-nevada-dead-heat
Full poll available at link
Poll: Sanders and Clinton in Nevada dead heat
Poll: Sanders and Clinton in Nevada dead heat
by Jon Ralston Fri, 02/12/2016 - 08:12
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in a tight race to win Nevada, according to a poll taken this week.
The survey, paid for by the conservative Free Beacon, shows a 45-45 tie. It was conducted by TargetPoint of 1,236 potential Nevada caucusgoers from Feb. 8-10, with a margin of error just under 3 percent. That's a lot of interviews -- "867 interviews were completed using automated telephone technology and 369 were conducted using mobile phones," according to the polling instrument, which I have posted below along with the crosstabs.
<snip>
►Clinton loses on trust, 53-29; on who cares about people like you, 49-36; and who is progressive, 49-36. Danger, Will Robinson!
►The sample is almost 60 percent female (about what it as in '08), which ought to worry Clinton. Sanders leads 63-16 among young voters (18-29), and if there are a lot of youngsters who register on Caucus Day.... She's also losing among independents, as the Free Beacon reported.
by Jon Ralston Fri, 02/12/2016 - 08:12
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in a tight race to win Nevada, according to a poll taken this week.
The survey, paid for by the conservative Free Beacon, shows a 45-45 tie. It was conducted by TargetPoint of 1,236 potential Nevada caucusgoers from Feb. 8-10, with a margin of error just under 3 percent. That's a lot of interviews -- "867 interviews were completed using automated telephone technology and 369 were conducted using mobile phones," according to the polling instrument, which I have posted below along with the crosstabs.
<snip>
►Clinton loses on trust, 53-29; on who cares about people like you, 49-36; and who is progressive, 49-36. Danger, Will Robinson!
►The sample is almost 60 percent female (about what it as in '08), which ought to worry Clinton. Sanders leads 63-16 among young voters (18-29), and if there are a lot of youngsters who register on Caucus Day.... She's also losing among independents, as the Free Beacon reported.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-sanders-and-clinton-nevada-dead-heat
Full poll available at link
February 12, 2016
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Why isn't Sanders using this study in his campaign?
Is there a way to ensure that he, personally, is aware of it?
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
February 12, 2016
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Why isn't Bernie using this study in the campaign?
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
February 12, 2016
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/09/ex-treasury-secretary-geithner-cashing-wall-street/80057762/
What is "the Establishment" and is there a problem?
Ex T-man Geithner cashing in on Wall Street
By: Darrell Delamaide
USA Today
Thursday, February 11, 2016
WASHINGTON – Timothy Geithner is finally cashing in.
After an appropriate stint at a think tank to write his memoir and a quiet transition to Wall Street, President Obama’s first Treasury secretary, who left office in 2013, is now ready to make millions thanks to help from a big bank he used to regulate.
Bloomberg News this week disclosed that Geithner has gotten a line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s biggest bank, to invest in a new $12 billion fund at the private equity firm where he works, Warburg Pincus.
The filing with the New York Department of State does not give the amount of the line of credit or the terms, but according to Bloomberg, Warburg Pincus executives are signing up for a total $800 million and Geithner, as a top officer, is probably getting a sizable chunk of that....
By: Darrell Delamaide
USA Today
Thursday, February 11, 2016
WASHINGTON – Timothy Geithner is finally cashing in.
After an appropriate stint at a think tank to write his memoir and a quiet transition to Wall Street, President Obama’s first Treasury secretary, who left office in 2013, is now ready to make millions thanks to help from a big bank he used to regulate.
Bloomberg News this week disclosed that Geithner has gotten a line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s biggest bank, to invest in a new $12 billion fund at the private equity firm where he works, Warburg Pincus.
The filing with the New York Department of State does not give the amount of the line of credit or the terms, but according to Bloomberg, Warburg Pincus executives are signing up for a total $800 million and Geithner, as a top officer, is probably getting a sizable chunk of that....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/09/ex-treasury-secretary-geithner-cashing-wall-street/80057762/
February 9, 2016
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops
Apparently, if there is one thing that promotes bipartisanship in Washington, it’s delivering handouts to Wall Street.
A handful of Senate Democrats is teaming up with Republicans on legislation to undermine Wall Street cops and sabotage financial regulation. It would drown new rules in red tape, give politicians more freedom to pressure independent regulators, and even potentially create a commission of political appointees to target and repeal common-sense rules.1 The New York Times Editorial Board says that if these provisions become law, “the winners would be big banks and big businesses. The losers would be ordinary Americans.”2
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is fighting back, declaring that the package “heads in the wrong direction, giving lobbyists and lawyers more chances to block outcomes they don’t like.”3 We need to show that we stand with her, and not with Senate Democrats who want to help Wall Street at our expense.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click here to sign the petition.
The strategy of undermining regulators with “cost-benefit analyses” is the brainchild ofconservative lawyer Eugene Scalia, the son of extreme right-wing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.4 CREDO members and our allies have fought off similar packages in the past. But a handful of corporate Democrats – including Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota – keep plotting with Republicans to help sabotage the financial cops-on-the-beat.5
We need reforms that will break up the big banks, close corporate tax loopholes, and keep big companies from jacking up prices and exploiting consumers.
But this package does just the opposite. It would:
Strong regulators are essential to make sure capitalism works and America stays strong and healthy. They make sure markets are fair, protect our air and our water, and ensure that we’re not taken advantage of giant corporations or gouged by Wall Street banks. We need to reform and strengthen our regulators and make sure they are always working for us, not tie up their hands.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click here to sign the petition.
Conservatives have promoted “cost-benefit” analysis as a way to paralyze the people who keep us safe, and Democrats should not be helping. This package is so extreme, even Wall-Street-friendly regulators like Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White oppose it.9
According to the New York Times, supporters still need two more Democrats to endorse this package in order to avoid it being blocked on the senate floor.10 We need to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click below to sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/sign/sabotaging_regulators?t=7&akid=16753.7336195.Gcnoiw
Thank you for speaking out,
Murshed Zaheed, Deputy Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Sign the petition ►
Victoria Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators,” The New York Times, January 19, 2016.
The New York Times Editorial Board, “Deregulating Corporate America,” The New York Times, January 19, 2016.
Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators.”
Patrick Caldwell, “Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform?” Mother Jones, July-August 2014 issue.
Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators.”
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Via email
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops
Petition to Senate Democrats:"Don’t make it harder for regulators to protect Americans. Oppose attempts to undermine the work of corporate regulators and financial cops with new rules imposing “cost-benefit” analyses, extra commissions, sunset clauses, or any provisions."
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops
Apparently, if there is one thing that promotes bipartisanship in Washington, it’s delivering handouts to Wall Street.
A handful of Senate Democrats is teaming up with Republicans on legislation to undermine Wall Street cops and sabotage financial regulation. It would drown new rules in red tape, give politicians more freedom to pressure independent regulators, and even potentially create a commission of political appointees to target and repeal common-sense rules.1 The New York Times Editorial Board says that if these provisions become law, “the winners would be big banks and big businesses. The losers would be ordinary Americans.”2
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is fighting back, declaring that the package “heads in the wrong direction, giving lobbyists and lawyers more chances to block outcomes they don’t like.”3 We need to show that we stand with her, and not with Senate Democrats who want to help Wall Street at our expense.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click here to sign the petition.
The strategy of undermining regulators with “cost-benefit analyses” is the brainchild ofconservative lawyer Eugene Scalia, the son of extreme right-wing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.4 CREDO members and our allies have fought off similar packages in the past. But a handful of corporate Democrats – including Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota – keep plotting with Republicans to help sabotage the financial cops-on-the-beat.5
We need reforms that will break up the big banks, close corporate tax loopholes, and keep big companies from jacking up prices and exploiting consumers.
But this package does just the opposite. It would:
Give lobbyists more power, by making the process to create new rules on big corporations more complicated, with more opportunities for well-funded lawyers to file lawsuits to gum up the works.6
Undermine regulators with unnecessary red tape, demanding time-consuming extra work from regulators under the guise of “cost-benefit” analysis, and even creating a new division of the Congressional Budget Office that would have to review rules before they can go into effect.7
Sabotage financial regulation with a commission of political appointees that would target regulations for Congress to repeal, a new mandate that rules on corporations would have to be reviewed every 10 years with the potential for repeal (unlike tax cuts for corporations), and more.8
Strong regulators are essential to make sure capitalism works and America stays strong and healthy. They make sure markets are fair, protect our air and our water, and ensure that we’re not taken advantage of giant corporations or gouged by Wall Street banks. We need to reform and strengthen our regulators and make sure they are always working for us, not tie up their hands.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click here to sign the petition.
Conservatives have promoted “cost-benefit” analysis as a way to paralyze the people who keep us safe, and Democrats should not be helping. This package is so extreme, even Wall-Street-friendly regulators like Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White oppose it.9
According to the New York Times, supporters still need two more Democrats to endorse this package in order to avoid it being blocked on the senate floor.10 We need to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Stand with Sen. Warren: Tell Senate Democrats not to sabotage Wall Street cops. Click below to sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/sign/sabotaging_regulators?t=7&akid=16753.7336195.Gcnoiw
Thank you for speaking out,
Murshed Zaheed, Deputy Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Sign the petition ►
Victoria Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators,” The New York Times, January 19, 2016.
The New York Times Editorial Board, “Deregulating Corporate America,” The New York Times, January 19, 2016.
Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators.”
Patrick Caldwell, “Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform?” Mother Jones, July-August 2014 issue.
Finkle, “Proposed Legislation Would Add Scrutiny of Wall Street Regulators.”
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Via email
February 9, 2016
Via FB
Robert Reich - Bill Clinton's scolding of Bernie on blame for Wall St collapse
Robert Reich
Yesterday, Bill Clinton scolded Bernie Sanders for being part of the near-unanimous House vote in favor of the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which removed derivative transactions from oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – and contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. Clinton charged that “her opponent, a champion of all things small, an enemy of all things big, voted for that bill. But you will never hear her say that he is the tool of Wall Street because of that."
Bill Clinton neglected to mention he was the president who signed that bill into law. And before he signed it, his Treasury Secretary and Deputy Treasury Secretary (Bob Rubin and Larry Summers) privately and publicly attacked those who sought to regulate derivatives, including Brooksley Born, then chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Yesterday, Bill Clinton scolded Bernie Sanders for being part of the near-unanimous House vote in favor of the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which removed derivative transactions from oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – and contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. Clinton charged that “her opponent, a champion of all things small, an enemy of all things big, voted for that bill. But you will never hear her say that he is the tool of Wall Street because of that."
Bill Clinton neglected to mention he was the president who signed that bill into law. And before he signed it, his Treasury Secretary and Deputy Treasury Secretary (Bob Rubin and Larry Summers) privately and publicly attacked those who sought to regulate derivatives, including Brooksley Born, then chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Via FB
February 9, 2016
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.
Who believes this crystalizes what this election is about?
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
