Piss on and pissing off progressives.
The president’s new choices for Commerce secretary and FCC chair underscore how far down the rabbit hole his populist conceits have tumbled. Yet the Obama rhetoric about standing up for working people against “special interests” is as profuse as ever. Would you care for a spot of Kool-Aid at the Mad Hatter’s tea party?
Of course the Republican economic program is worse, and President Romney’s policies would have been even more corporate-driven. That doesn't in the slightest make acceptable what Obama is doing. His latest high-level appointments -- boosting corporate power and shafting the public -- are despicable.
To nominate Penny Pritzker for secretary of Commerce is to throw in the towel for any pretense of integrity that could pass a laugh test. Pritzker is “a longtime political supporter and heavyweight fundraiser,” the Chicago Tribune reported with notable understatement last week, adding: “She is on the board of Hyatt Hotels Corp., which was founded by her family and has had rocky relations with labor unions, and she could face questions about the failure of a bank partly owned by her family. With a personal fortune estimated at $1.85 billion, Pritzker is listed by Forbes magazine among the 300 wealthiest Americans.”
A more blunt assessment came from journalist Dennis Bernstein: “Her pioneering sub-prime operations, out of Superior Bank in Chicago, specifically targeted poor and working class people of color across the country. She ended up crashing Superior for a billion-dollar cost to taxpayers, and creating a personal tragedy for the 1,400 people who lost their savings when the bank failed.” Pritzker, whose family controls Hyatt Regency Hotels, has a vile anti-union record.
Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker? What’s next? Labor Secretary Donald Trump? SEC Chairman Bernie Madoff?Truthout | Op Ed
Obama in Plunderland: Down the Corporate Rabbit Hole
Norman Solomon | co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy
Political choice for voters is among morons, cronies, and morons who are also cronies. Is there even one person in government that doesn't fall into one of these categories? Help me out; I can't think of any.
5 comments:
Didn't Progressives support the creation of the Fed? So instead of gold, we are now crucified on a cross of credit?
How much longer before we realize that ethics is integral to successful money creation?
"Political choice for voters is among morons, cronies, and morons who are also cronies. Is there even one person in government that doesn't fall into one of these categories? Help me out; I can't think of any."
Plenty of the rank and file bureaucrats are honest, earnest, hard-working people who believe in the missions of their agencies and offices. Plenty are no good as well, but do we really need to insult all government workers, or did you just mean the political appointees at the helm?
I am talking about TPTB, basically the chief decision makers.
Moreover, a good and well-intentioned person can be a moron. There are some of these in Congress. For example, Bernie Sanders has a sterling roster of economic advisers including MMT economists and allies. Does he consult them or listen to them if he does? Apparently not. In my book that qualifies for moron status although I believe that Bernie is acting out of the best intentions.
Fair enough, Tom. I agree that the decision makers are preponderantly morons and cronies. This reminds me of something I was musing about the other day; what are good avenues for using an MMT-based understanding of modern money to actually influence policy or the policy discussion? Are there good opportunities in government? NGOs? I'm afraid there aren't too many, but I was curious what you (or anyone else) think.
I have said previously that several things have to happen for positive change to occur. The first is a rising level of collective consciousness, and the second is ending cronyism and corruption by getting the money out of politics. closing the revolving door, and prohibiting former government officials and officeholders from lobbying.
This would allow reforming key private institutions, especially banking and finance, and ending privilege and the double standard of justice and by holding people accountable equally.
Post a Comment