The Climate Criminals project: A five-pronged approach to climate solution

This falls under the heading "wouldn't it be nice." I think the proposal below, if executed, would add considerable muscle to the existing (and frustrated) climate crisis movement.

I'm calling this proposal the "Climate Criminals" project — a label for the five-pronged approach to a climate solution that I've been writing about — for example here:

Solving the climate crisis — Goals, targets and tactics (a summary)

I won't detail the project's tactics yet — this piece is already long enough — but I do want to identify the targets of those tactics, show how those targets would be approached, and set up the next few posts in this series.

First, though, two reminders — what problem are we solving, and what strategies don't seem to be working?

(To skip immediately to the project itself, click here.)

The problem, the solution, and the "ask"

Before going further, let's make sure we're on the same page — all of us solving the same problem. For example, I'm not solving this problem:

How to keep the Koch Bros rich while transitioning to alternate energy sources.

Instead, I'm solving this:

The problem — Humans continue to put carbon into the air. What's already there is too much.

Even if we stopped tomorrow, we've still created a terrible mess that we'll need to adapt to. That adaptation will not be easy. What you've seen through the past few summers is exactly half the warming we're already predestined to get. The other half is in the pipeline, just waiting to show up.

Defining the problem the way I have makes the solution-statement obvious:

The solution — Put the carbon industry out of business. Completely.

As long as the carbon industry is open for business, carbon will be added to the air. Zero new man-made carbon is the right number; any greater number is the wrong one.

Which means there's only one thing the climate crisis movement should ask for:

The right "ask" — "Stop now." Stop putting man-made carbon into the air at the most-strictly-defined earliest-possible moment.

The consequences of not stopping are far more important than the profits of a handful of super-wealthy egomaniacs.

In addition, the disruptions to us all of an abrupt stop and energy conversion, however great, will be minor compared to life in a chaotic 3°C, 4°C, or 6°C warmer world. Life in those worlds will be hell.

As noted above, we're at "only" .8°C warmer now. Any less discomfort we seek for ourselves now will come at a huge price in the years to come.

Put another way, the decision to "stop later" is the decision to make our own lives marginally less bad by pushing the disaster (including a possible "mass extinction" event) onto our children.

Some would call that victimizing the next generation. It's at least a very unfriendly act. I assume we won't be thanked for it.

What doesn't work; what isn't sufficient

Before we look at what I'm recommending, let's look at what doesn't work and why:

1. Personal behavior change — individual action — is not enough. That discussion is here. The bottom line, even if you went totally green, you'd have to get power from somewhere. And that "somewhere" is under political control, not personal control. Behavior change is critical, but not enough.
   
   
2. Technology alone is not going to save us. That discussion is here. New technology is critical, but again, not enough. Even if the needed technology were available now, deploying it quickly is a choice between relative discomforts, not benefits — some discomfort now forestalling huge problems later. "More discomfort now" is a very hard sell, even if the political forces weren't arrayed against us.
   
   
3. A carbon tax is not the answer. That discussion is here. First, markets don't work in an orderly way, so a market-based solution can't be counted on (for example, see here). Besides, giving people permission to emit carbon is not our goal; our goal is the opposite — forcing the end of all new atmospheric carbon. (And yes, it will take force.)
   
   
4. Mass protest and awareness movements are not going to solve the problem by themselves. They're a vital part of the effort to "unconfuse the people" (one of our goals). But raising awareness isn't enough by itself to change the behavior of politicians.
   
   Three examples should suffice: (1) Recent mass protests against the Keystone Pipeline, which only delayed approval. (2) Worldwide mass protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (3) Comparison of "will of the people" polling on economic matters — e.g., Bush-Obama Tax Cuts, banker bailouts, cuts to the safety net — versus the desires and actions of our rulers.

What is the five-pronged approach?

The Climate Criminals five-pronged approach is a plan for a cadre-led movement to:

• Target the perps, the "carbon criminals"
• Catalyze leadership among on-the-fence politicians and media
• Unconfuse the people about global warming consequences

The Climate Criminals project is conceived as a supplement to current action, not a replacement. It attempts to "up the ante" on consequences to produce a more effective result and more effective messaging.

This is a U.S.–based project, under the assumption that if the U.S. can't be changed, no leveraged worldwide change is possible.

The first four prongs target four groups of perps who are blocking all attempts at climate solution and mitigation — carbon CEOs; their political enablers and retainers; their big-media enablers and retainers; their bought climate scientists (the paid "tobacco scientists" of our day).

The approach targets individuals in each group — perps in the crisis, the reason world climate is getting worse, plus key fence-sitters — for public identification as "climate criminals" and for non-violent but effective action.

The approach also attempts to recruit "climate converts" and leaders among the perps, especially within the political and media classes.

The fifth prong is aimed at the people themselves. At the moment the mass of people are terribly confused — partly because writers and communicators have not told the real story well, and partly because the four groups of perps have deliberately reinforced the confusion.

This approach attempts to change that — to unconfuse the people with clear messaging.

Now the details, target by target:

Perp 1 — Carbon CEOs. These are the main "climate criminals"— the core reason we haven't solved this problem already. The greed and megalomania of less than 100 humans is what stands between 7 billion humans and a climate solution.

Even though global warming and the greenhouse effect were identified as early as 1861, today's carbon CEOs make obscene personal profit by continuing to monetize the greenhouse chemicals under their control. They've shown by their behavior where their loyalty lies.

Carbon CEOs are the primary reason carbon is still going into the air. They control the political and media classes to make sure their wishes, and no one else's, become the public policy and message. They also control a number of paid-off scientists (the tobacco scientists of our day) who make sure the science messaging appears confused.

When the generation alive in 2100 wants to know who gave them their hot chaotic world, these criminals will head the list.

A Climate Criminals project would identify each of these people by name, starting with the top 10 or so; identify how much money each is making from global climate destruction; identify how much wealth each has extracted from the misery of future generations; and ask — probably in vain — for a conversion of conscience to help aggressively solve the problem each has caused.

Carbon CEOs need to be made the permanent face of the catastrophe. Every time bad climate news appears, the people need to see these faces as the perps.

Perp 2 — Political enablers. This group includes two types — known climate criminals like James Inhofe, whose record is clear, and supposed fence-sitters like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (who will soon get to approve — or disapprove — the Keystone Pipeline from her perch in the State Dept).

A Climate Criminals project would name important enablers like Inhofe — treating them just like the criminal CEOs — then take the important fence-sitters off the fence by putting people like Barack Obama, the Clintons, Harry Reid and others, one by one, firmly on the record.

The key to putting people like Obama on the record is the Keystone Pipeline. I would start with Obama — first by stating the climate case vis-à-vis Keystone, then by asking:

"Mr. Obama, will you swear to veto any legislation that contains any approval for the Keystone Pipeline in the United States, regardless of whatever else the legislation contains?"

A Yes makes him a Climate Protector and the project would publicize him as such (thus keeping him on the record).

A No or a waffle — either — makes him a Climate Criminal. This is entirely fair. Keystone Pipeline approval is a guarantee of 3°C or greater global warming and the mass extinction that will follow.

After Obama, similar questions should be put to the Clintons, Biden, Reid. The process could be continued as necessary. Fence-sitting senators up for election in blue states are especially interesting, as are congresstypes on environmental committees.

Perp 3 — Media enablers. The model for action is the same as for the political enablers. Again, there are two groups — the known bads like George Will and those who can be put on the record, one by one.

For the second group, I'd start with one of the primary network anchors — David Gregory comes to mind — then pick someone from MSNBC like Chris Matthews. Entertainers like Jay Leno and David Letterman should also be included. At Comedy Central I'd start with Colbert, who probably gets it, then move to Stewart, who may or may not.

The ask:

"Do you agree with the climate assessments and the timetable? If so, do you agree that every time the subject comes up, it needs to be framed in a way that correctly represents the situation — in a way that unconfuses people, not further confuses them?"

To be clear: Handling the news or the comedy is up to them. We're only asking that they not confuse people with contra-factual framing.

The goal is to seek new protectors, people who will agree and follow through with clear recognition that this is indeed a crisis. Only those like George Will who are died-in-the-wool deniers should go into the criminals group. Perhaps a third group — "climate fence-sitters" — might be useful here, especially as evidence from places like the Arctic mounts.

Perp 4 — Paid science deniers. Similar to groups 2 and 3, people should be put on the spot, then classified. Here, the question isn't about the intention behind a climate denial position — that's hard to determine — but the funding, which is easy to discover.

Starting with an empty deniers' Climate Criminals list, I'd approach any prominent researcher who takes money from Koch Industries, the Heartland Institute or a similar organization and simply ask them to reject the funding in order to clear up any confusion about their motives.

A researcher's motives are only suspect if known-denial-funding changes hands. Otherwise, they're presumed to be simply a contrarian, a perfectly fair position in science. The ask is therefore:

"Will you reject and return all funding from [denier funding org] so that your motives will not appear to be compromised?"

A researcher who agrees to reject denial funding should be presumed sincere. Paid contrarians, however, are a different beast, and should be moved from "unknown" to the Climate Criminals list.

The people. There has to be a strong program to "unconfuse the people." The goal is not to terrify, but to make people appropriately concerned — concerned enough to hug the monster and act with urgency.

This brings in the writers, filmmakers and other professional communicators. The message:

"We're facing a serious problem. These are the timelines.

"We better get our house in order because anyone who lives through most of the current century will experience the start of the climate chaos era. That means our children.

"Help us paint that picture before it's too late to act."

All five prongs work together in this part of the effort. Finding climate protectors among politicians and media would give mainstream cred to the "unconfuse" messaging. As interest mounts, people could even make money at it.

Bottom line

I've been writing for a while about the problem — we're less than a generation, perhaps less than a decade, from watching the climate start to spin out of control.

Once 3°C — 5½°F — is inevitable, the only option left will be to mitigate and survive. And a decade or two after that, when 3°C does arrive, it will bring degrees and levels of chaos that will make global coordination impossible. At least in my view.

So the time to act is now, before 3°C is inevitable. Is current effort going to be enough? In my opinion, no. Ultimately, nothing but force will budge the CEOs and their paid politicians. Time to add (completely non-violent) force into the equation.

A Climate Criminals project, or something similar, would be one way to up the pressure. A project like this would highlight the true perps, make them the face of the crisis, and allow all kinds of other actions to take place around that understanding.

It would also put politicians and media on the record — and on the spot — in a way that isn't happening now.

Again, my proposed Climate Criminals project is a plan for a cadre-led movement to:

• Target the perps, the "carbon criminals"
• Catalyze leadership among on-the-fence politicians and media
• Unconfuse the people about global warming consequences

I hope, if it gains momentum, you give it your support. The next posts will include a to-do list and some examples of using force that, under the right circumstances, could very well work.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Excerpts of Bill Clinton's speech at Democratic Convention

EXCERPTS of President Bill Clinton’s Remarks to the Democratic National Convention
 
Below are excerpts of President Bill Clinton’s remarks as prepared for delivery:
 
“In Tampa the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple:  We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.

“I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better.  He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

“The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in?  If you want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility -- a we're-all-in-this-together society -- you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
 

Read the rest of this post...

In 2010, 75% of Americans near retirement had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts

As we approach the 2012 elections, the "fiscal cliff" (clever branding, that) and Obama's post-electoral march to the Grand Bargain sea, I want to present to you three virtual images. And an injunction.

■ Image one, from the New York Times in a recent article on retirement (my emphases and some reparagraphing throughout):

Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers.

Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.

The article is really good; do read the rest. But I want to stop here a moment.

Gather that fact — 75% of about-to-retire Americans are headed off their own "fiscal cliff." Once that $30,000 is gone, boom.

■ Image two, from the William Pitt Rivers article that led me to the quote above:

I heard the sound of clinking and clanking coming from the front of my house. I knew what it was immediately: one of the Can People was making her daily pass through my recycling bins. ...

The Can People are old men and women, stooped, wearing worn-out clothes and fraying shoes as they rattle through my refuse with gnarled, arthritic hands. ...

I wave to them when I see them, but they seldom respond, either because their eyesight is too poor to make me out as I stand on my porch like a lord, or because they are too ashamed to acknowledge the fact that I see them, and thus see what it is they must do to survive. ...

I remembered a brace of ginger ale cans I'd neglected to bring outside. Hurriedly, I tossed them into a bag and brought them to my porch. She was bent into the blue bin to the waist, and when she reared up at the sound of me, there was fear in her eyes. ...

I came to the railing, extended the bag of cans to her, and she took them without a word. Her face was a delta, a map of time itself, and she could not bring herself to meet my eye. She placed the bag of cans in her shopping cart, and I watched as she clattered her way down the sidewalk[.]

In the article, Mr. Rivers takes apart "something called Charles Lane" — a Wash Post writer and water-carrier for something called Paul Ryan. A worthy read.

■ Image three, this man, a politician whose face I've seen lately telling Clinton's money man Robert Rubin ("Bob" he says) and a roomful of Rubin's best friends (including "Roger" and "Peter") that Social Security needs reforming.

He forgot to say that he was just the man to do it, but I can't blame him for that. This was 2006 and he was not yet president of the United States.



"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938," he codedly says. Social Security was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1939, partly in response to the government's kicking the economy back into recession by reduced New Deal (stimulus) spending.

Other telling quotes:

"The coming baby boomer retirement will only add to the challenges."

And:

"Most of us are strong free-traders."

Good to be among friends.

■ The injunction — It's legitimate to consider the man above to be 2012's Lesser Evil. As near as I can tell, the current Koch-couped Republican Party is a wrecking ball.

But Lesser Evil is still evil. If you do decide to hand him four unfettered years to do as he chooses, remember — you put him there. You have to help save us from this evil as well.

I'm serious. If you vote for Romney, what he does will be your fault.

If you vote for Obama — and you don't try to stop his Keystone Dreams and the looting of the safety net to please the future funders of the Barack H. Obama World Legacy, Library, and Retirement Tour — that will be your fault too.

Stopping those who want to install "Ayn Ryan" is only half the job.

If you conspire to install Obama, you have to stop him too. It's part of the job you gave yourself by voting for him.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Two guys talking about Social Security and Medicare

These guys are in "the big club" — both of them. See how friendly?



They're in the club ... but you're not (don't click at work):



Watch these again, in order; both are short.

Protecting Social Security (and the rest of the safety net) from the Big Boys Club will be Job One during the Lame Duck session.

Obama's a charter member of that club, and he'll be off the electoral leash:



Our homework assignment — plan and organize now. Strengthen Social Security, don't weaken it. Put Obama on the record, now:

Mr. Obama. Paul Ryan wants to slash the social safety net. Will promise no cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

Including cuts by raising the retirement age and changing the cost-of-living calculation?

No waffling please — zero cuts period, right? 'Cause if we wanted a waffle, we'd go to Belgium. From you we want an unequivocal answer.

Your friends,
People who will rewrite your legacy if you fail us

Electing the lesser evil is still electing evil. Those of you who believe in "lesser evil voting" have work to do.

Only half of your task is finished in November. The other half is protecting the rest of us from the "lesser evil" guy you voted for.

No waffling please. Obama's been a member of the kill-it-to-save-it club since 2006.

And like Mr. Carlin said, he's coming for it, just like the two nice guys up top.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

In memoriam, Gore Vidal

To the memory of Gore Vidal.

I've been looking for a while — ever since the passing over a week ago — for a way to eulogize Gore Vidal. For my money, Vidal was one of this nation's best-of-bests: one of our best writers, best historians, and best political thinkers.

His style is a delight, his story-telling superb, and his insight in a class with Chomsky's and Zinn's.

So in memoriam Gore Vidal, I offer these.

First, from a banned (at the time) interview and portrait written for Hollywood's trade paper Variety, but never run. The occasion was the release of the stunning Tim Robbins film of 1992, Bob Roberts. My emphasis and paragraphing throughout.

On Bill Clinton:

The only plus about Clinton is that he has absolutely no principles of any sort, and he's intelligent.

Franklin Roosevelt was like that, too. A principled man, like Herbert Hoover, will stick to a balanced budget whatever happens, and the stock market will crash. Roosevelt, faced with the Depression, took us off the gold standard and put the economy back on course. ...

[But] Clinton hasn't got the character of Roosevelt — you can have character without principles.

And then the following, from an excellent eulogy by the masterful John Nichols, a Vidal fan and friend (lucky man indeed). His memorial piece should be read through; it's that good.

Here's a taste:

“Policy formation is the province of a bipartisan power elite of corporate rich [Rockefeller, Mellon] and their career hirelings [Nixon, McNamara] who work through an interlocking and overlapping maze of foundations, universities and institutes, discussion groups, associations and commissions...

“Political parties are only for finding interesting and genial people [usually ambitious middle-class lawyers] to ratify and implement these policies in such a way that the under classes feel themselves to be, somehow, a part of the governmental process.

Politics is not exactly the heart of the action but it is nice work—if you can afford to campaign for it.”

My word for "hirelings" is "retainers" — I think Vidal's is both more accurate and more impertinent. Points to him for both. (By the way, "underclasses" means "rubes." Just saying.)

Here's Gore Vidal on Shays' Rebellion, taught in "standard" (i.e., rinsed in orthodoxy) history books as the first "bad" rebellion against the "good" founders' republic:

“Property is power, as those Massachusetts veterans of the revolution discovered when they joined Captain Daniel Shays in his resistance to the landed gentry’s replacement of a loose confederation of states with a tax-levying central government,” Gore wrote in 1972.

“The veterans thought that they had been fighting a war for true independence. They did not want London to be replaced by New York.

They did want an abolition of debts and a division of property. Their rebellion was promptly put down.

But so shaken was the elite by the experience that their most important (and wealthiest) figure grimly emerged from private life with a letter to Harry Lee.

‘You talk of employing influence,’ wrote George Washington, ‘to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured or let us know the worst at once.’

So was born the Property Party and with it the Constitution of the United States. We have known the ‘best’ for nearly 200 years. What would the ‘worst’ have been like?”

Here's what Vidal meant by the term Property Party (from elsewhere in Nichol's eulogy):

Gore imagined a “Property Party”—or, to be more precise, he renewed an old populist critique that employed variations on the term—that was made up of Democrats and Republicans with shared loyalty to their paymasters on Wall Street.

Sound familiar? (I'll have what he's having. It didn't hurt him one bit.)

Farewell, Mr. Vidal. You're horribly missed, at least in this man's estimation.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Is TPP ("NAFTA on steroids") Obama's Bain Capital?

More about the super-secret (and genuinely scary) Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") trade agreement, courtesy of Public Citizen.

The TPP pact is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état"

A characterization of the super-secret TPP from Lori Wallach, writing in The Nation (my emphasis and paragraphing throughout):

The TPP has been cleverly misbranded as a trade agreement (yawn) by its corporate boosters. As a result, since George W. Bush initiated negotiations in 2008, it has cruised along under the radar.

The Obama administration initially paused the talks, ostensibly to develop a new approach compatible with candidate Obama’s pledges to replace the old NAFTA-based trade model. But by late 2009, talks restarted just where Bush had left off. [Note this; I have a separate point to make on this below.]

Since then, US negotiators have proposed new rights for Big Pharma and pushed into the text aspects of the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would limit Internet freedom, despite the derailing of SOPA in Congress earlier this year thanks to public activism.

In June a text of the TPP investment chapter was leaked, revealing that US negotiators are even pushing to expand NAFTA’s notorious corporate tribunals, which have been used to attack domestic public interest laws. [Our coverage of those sovereignty-killing trade courts here.]

Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters.

The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation.

They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more.

"The most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation." Like them apples? Obama does. That's why he's negotiating for them.

Ms. Wallach makes the same point we did earlier, that TPP is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état":

The stakes are extremely high, because the TPP may well be the last “trade” agreement Washington negotiates. This is because if it’s completed, the TPP would remain open for any other country to join. ...

Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état[.]

This means, as we said earlier:

Because treaties like NAFTA are folded into national constitutions, international corporations have found a way to establish a new international system of dispute resolution that trumps national governments. ... "NAFTA" Bill Clinton has much to answer for.

Like them apples? Obama does.

Does TPP undercut Obama's "enemy of vulture capital" pose?

As you know (I hope) a presidential election is just an ad campaign — "these hub caps are shinier" or "this candidate is nicer to dogs." Like with all ad campaigns, the campaigners are primarily concerned with the manipulation of appearances.

As in 2008, Barack Obama has reverted from the "here's how I roll" reality to his "think of me this way" self-presentation. (See here for a Tale of Two Baracks.)

So President Obama is back in the closet, and Candidate Obama is back on the stump, saying nice things about himself.

This year's version of "Candidate Obama" is selling himself as the Bane of Bain, the enemy of offshoring predator capitalism.

You're not the first to have noticed that Obama, Bane of Bain is the enemy of Obama, Friend of the Corporate Coup. Will voters notice? They will if this keep up. From a Public Citizen press release:

Growing congressional, state legislator and activist protests of closed-door negotiations on the Obama administration’s first trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), threatened to undermine the Obama campaign’s attack on Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital U.S. job offshoring activities.

The latest round of TPP talks wrapped up today in San Diego following a week of protests outside the venue, growing concern about TPP in Congress, a letter warning of opposition from state legislators representing all 50 states and delivery of two different petitions with nearly 100,000 signatories each.

A text of the TPP’s investment chapter that leaked last month shows that it includes an expanded version of the rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that incentivize investment and job offshoring by eliminating the risks of relocating to lower-wage countries and guaranteeing preferential treatment for relocated firms.

“U.S. negotiators have tried to keep TPP negotiations totally below the radar, but even so opposition to the current “NAFTA-on-steroids-with-Asia” approach is escalating, which is good news for the public but a serious complication for the Obama campaign’s attack on Romney as a U.S. job offshorer,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

Ms. Wallach is the author of the Nation article quoted above, and well-versed in this subject.

Will Obama's high-pressure support for TPP undercut the Obama campaign's primary selling point? Stay tuned.

A post-2012 note to Progressives: We need a plan

NeoLiberal Robert Rubin–acolyte Barack Obama is pushing TPP as hard — and as secretly — as he can. What does that make Barack Obama?

In my view, it might make Barack Obama the second most dangerous enemy of progressive and anti-corporate causes in the country. The first most dangerous is anyone bankrolled by Movement Conservative billionaires, because those guys don't even have to pretend.

This doesn't mean I'm telling you how to vote in November. In my opinion, that election is over, and I have no interest in inciting Left-on-Left violence over a done deal. People can do what they like till November; I'm good with all of it.

But I am saying that Movement Progressives better get ready, starting now if possible. Because of all possible outcomes post-November, one of them is a full-on assault on progressive values by a completely unfettered 2nd-term friend-of-the-corporate-coup.

It's up to you to decide what an unfettered Obama will do. I don't have a crystal ball. But whatever it is he really really wants, I guarantee that's what he'll shoot for.

• Does he want TPP? Seems to.
• A nice new sludge-filled Keystone Pipeline? Almost guaranteed.
• Expanded drone-kill rights? Jonas Bros, watch out.
• A Grand Bargain on steroids? Just watch in December (search for the phrase "still on the table").
• Anything else? My guess: yes. He's going to owe a lot of favors in return for his $1 billion dollar ad campaign.

We could spend a long time on that list. I haven't even touched Israel and the war with Iran.

My point? Hope is not a plan. If Progressives want to be a player in the Battle of the Next Four Years, we need to do better than hope for the best. We need a plan for a worst-case Obama second term. It's called hugging the monster.

I'm serious. It's a good thing to act. It's better to act with a plan. Mes centimes (French for "word").

Our previous TPP coverage

For reference, a short list of our previous coverage:

■ Why are the Trans Pacific free trade negotiations secret? — May 11, 2012

■ Obama trade document leaked, reveals new corporate powers and broken promises — June 14, 2012

Thanks for your attention to this subject. In my opinion, this pales next to the global warming catastrophe, but not by much, since it will structurally change the government of the world. And this catastrophe will happen first, unless we put ourselves in the way of it.

Mes centimes,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Five Questions: Frances Causey, director of the documentary "Heist"

One more interview in our series, Five Questions, about American history, progressives, Democrats and the future.

Today's interviewee is Frances Causey, producer–director of the new, highly acclaimed documentary Heist: Who Stole the American Dream?

Heist tells the story of the theft of America, starting with the Powell memo; strong stuff, and a story every progressive should be aware of.

Five questions, Frances Causey with Gaius Publius, recorded at Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:



About the movie: The trailer tag line says: "This is the story of the biggest heist in American history." You can play that trailer here.

The longer version of the trailer is below, and watching it would be an excellent use of time. It tells a well-told tale and provides a valuable look back. Knowing how we got into this mess shows the way out.



The full list of "Five Questions" interviews includes the following. Links to names will take you to previously-published interviews.

• Alan Grayson, former (and perhaps future) U.S. Congressman
• Marcy Wheeler, of emptywheel.net
• Cliff Schecter, who comments regularly with Sam Seder at Majority.fm among many other places
• Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist with DailyKos and This Modern World
• Alex Lawson of StrengthenSocialSecurity.org
• Josh Orton, with Russ Feingold's Progressives United
• Frances Causey, producer–director of Heist, the documentary
• Chris Pearson, a Progressive Party Vermont state legislator
• Susan Smith, Progressive Caucus chair of the Florida Democratic Party
• Sarah Burris, labor activist and progressive youth organizer

These interviews will be concluded this week. Thanks for listening to them.

(If you have trouble with this audio, please let me know in the comments and I'll address it as quickly as I can. Thanks.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Bill Cinton proposes tax cuts to address "recession"

As always, the 1%-er Bill Clinton is fully supportive of policies that we know are destructive to America. Clinton helped ushered in the destructive economic policies that directly led to the economic meltdown that still plagues the US and now he's proposing more bad policies.

Clinton may have understood the 99% at one time but those days are long gone. Whether it's defending Wall Street, working for Wall Street or other radical plans of the 1%, Bill Clinton is no friend of the American middle class or poor. He represents everything that's wrong and destructive about the modern Democratic party.

More on Clinton's irresponsible tax cut proposal via CNBC:

"They will probably have to put everything off until early next year," he added. "That's probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don't want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people, and I don't think the president should do that."

However, Clinton did say that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.

Those across-the-board cuts have been criticized by Democrats who say they were skewed toward upper-income earners.

Read the rest of this post...

Bill Clinton plays the "Cory Booker card"—Stop being mean to Bain Capital

Really, Bill Clinton? Really? This is Cory Booker territory.

Yes, really. Arnie Parnes at The Hill:

Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday night became the latest surrogate for President Obama to stray from campaign talking points, saying GOP nominee Mitt Romney's business experience "crosses the qualification threshold."

In an interview on the Piers Morgan show on CNN, Clinton said the Obama campaign shouldn't spend its energy criticizing Romney's work at Bain Capital, an argument that has taken central stage in the debate over which candidate can better lead the U.S. economy.

"I don't think we ought to get into the position where we say, 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, a staunch Obama supporter who has helped raise millions of dollars for the president's reelection campaign.

Go to the middle paragraph, to the phrase "the debate over which candidate can better lead the U.S. economy." That's one framing, the kind one.

The unkind framing is "the debate over whether the predatory rich are destroying the U.S. economy."

It's that second frame, that second narrative, that can't ever be acknowledged — at least among the straights.

And that's what Clinton is doing — heading off that narrative.

Remember, Clinton used politics to lever himself into the low end of the upper class. He gave us NAFTA, Telecom "reform" and the end of Glass–Steagall — and after leaving office had enough "thank you" money to pony up $3,000,000 for a wedding.

If he ever was on the side of us Littles (he may well have been, once), he's not now. This description of Barack Obama by James Galbraith, written shortly after Obama's debt-deal, could apply to either man, Obama or Clinton:

The President is not a progressive – he is not what Americans still call a “liberal.” He is a willful player in an epic drama of faux-politics, an operative for the money power, whose job is to neutralize the left with fear and distraction and then to pivot rightward and deliver a conservative result.

What Barack Obama got from the debt deal was exactly what his sponsors have wanted: a long-term lock-in of domestic spending cuts, and a path toward severe cuts in the core New Deal and Great Society insurance programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, of course, no tax increases at all.

To see the arc of political strategy, recall that from the beginning Obama handed economic policy to retainers recruited from the stables of Robert Rubin.

Clinton loves his Rubin, at which altar Obama also worships. Does more need saying?

It's unlikely that Clinton will "Booker" himself — take himself out of the conversation — with this defense. He's actually upped the Bain pushback against Obama's campaign team. It will be interesting to see if it works.

But just in case Clinton does manage to rebrand himself instead of Bain, I offer this little video to help the cause along:



Clinton and Ryan, sittin' in a tree, killing Social Securi-tee.

Not much more needs saying, in my estimation.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Youth challenge Alan Simpson to debate: "Your plan cuts benefits for young people most"

UPDATE: Simpson says Yes.
________

To continue the quote in the title: "The younger you are, the bigger the [benefit] cut." Exactly.

This is a very nice video from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org, pushing back on (and calling out) Mr. Catfood himself, Alan Simpson (he of the "310 million tits").

I've said many times that the real Grand Bargain betrayal is between the generations, not between the Dems and Republicans. Those two are united, it seems.

The real offer on the table is from Billionaires of both parties (Our Betters) to older Americans, and it goes like this:

"If you'll agree to screw your children and grandchildren out of their benefits, we'll promise to exempt your own."

The Billionaires' sell to youth goes like this:

"Why not roll over and let it happen. It won't hurt (now); just close your eyes and think of England. After all, don't you read the news? You know Social Security will be gone before you need it. Relax. Let it go. Besides, look, google glasses..."

Well, here's a bunch of those young people — presumably one-time Hope-and-Change Obama voters, note — who aren't rolling over, who aren't thinking of England.

Instead they're calling out Alan Simpson — and presumably, all who support him (like this guy, and this guy, and this kind lady) — on the cruelty of his Catfood Plan.

Watch and listen; this one is a winner:



Here's their offer on the table. Dear Mr. Simpson:

"We challenge you to a debate with our young Social Security experts, in a time and setting of your choosing, in a format you choose as well. We look forward to your response."

Will Alan Simpson take them up on it? They really are calling him out. And Simpson is just mouthy enough (sorry, man enough) to say Yes.

Help them out if you can. The entertainment value alone of this debate would be well worth the effort to make it happen. And who knows, they might just save the safety net after all.

Very nice, folks — it really will be your world, very very soon. Time to take care of it with us, don't you think?

Occupy your future. We're certainly doing our part. Thanks!

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

"Catfood Clinton" rides again—at a Pete Peterson summit to kill Social Security

Wealth inequity is not a by-product — it's the goal.

If you read here regularly, you know that Pete Peterson, the crazed billionaire who lives, breathes, eats and ... well ... to take down Social Security — a man who has spent a half billion dollars on that soulless psychopathic project — just held a Washington DC "summit" aimed at killing what he loves to hate.

Your safety net.

Granny needs some catfood in her diet, because U.S. income inequity hasn't topped out yet. There's still room on the upside.

The news — at that "summit" spoke the Big Dog himself, "Catfood Bill" Clinton (h/t Digby for the quote and for leaning on this hard):

“Our party’s problem is, we are always reluctant to give up the gains of the past to create the future,” Bill Clinton told the audience at the Pete Peterson’s fiscal summit. “Democrats are reluctant to commit to longer-term health-care savings; they don’t want to touch Social Security.”

That's all you need to know. What Digby said: "I think it's going to happen this time."

Who's helping make it happen? How about Nancy Pelosi? How about "your" Progressive Congressional Caucus?

Yes, these loveable madcaps are rumoring it about (I have grapevine ears) that they're really playing some super-smart chess of their own — acing the Republicans at their own game (wink wink).

I agree — this is what they want us to think they're doing. This may even be what they do think they're doing. But that doesn't make it what they really are doing.

What they really are doing is adding their voices to the roar for "entitlement reform." And doing it rather well, thank you.

How's this for entitlement reform:

You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.

Is that wrong? Prove it wrong. With deeds.

Action opportunity — I still like freeway blogging in Pelosi's district. It's cheap, and a determined, persistent bunch of self-enabling progressives can maybe make some noise. Besides, the "ex-liberal" slogans just write themselves. Here's a few:

"Ex-liberal Nancy Pelosi supports Catfood for Granny. Thanks, Nancy."

"Nancy stands with Steny — Let's reduce Social Security benefits just as soon as we're safely re-elected."

Or more playfully:

"Nancy & Steny, sitting in a tree
Killing Social Secur-i-ty"

I'd add a little picture to that last one. Might make the news.

How bad does gavel-ready Nancy need to keep her fundraising "brand" — the thing she wants you to think she is? You could find out. There are lots of ways to de-brand progressives who act badly.

Remember — you don't need permission to act. Just think it through first — find the leverage points (like branding), don't be violent, and press. (Joe Sudbay did just that at the 2010 Blogger Roundtable. All it takes is courage and action.)

And finally, a little video for your midnight freakout fun. Here's Catfood Clinton and BFF Paul Ryan, another "summit" featured speaker, fixing to fix you good. Hands across the aisle:



More from Clinton here.

And here's our "fierce defender" — winner of the 2008 presidential ad campaign — perhaps making plans for the looming lame duck session:



They don't want what you want, folks. They want what they want. "Catfood Bill" has his, and you can't have yours.

What Digby said: "I think it's going to happen this time." Ready to fight a tad more effectively? Me too. Hey, we might even win.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

There are three Europe stories — the Republican story, the German story, and the truth

In his latest column and a related blog post, Paul Krugman revisits the Europe problem, which turns out to be two problems.

The first problem is, How do the struggling European economies — the GIPSIs, meaning Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy — right themselves economically?

The second problem is, How (and why) do people persistently misstate and misunderstand the first problem?

Krugman looks at the second problem first. He sees three stories (explanations) of what went wrong in Europe. From the blog post (my emphases):

There are basically three stories about the euro crisis in wide circulation: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth.

The Republican story is that it’s all about excessive welfare states ... [and] the German story is that it’s about fiscal profligacy, running excessive deficits.

Why is the first the "Republican" story (more about those quotes in a second)? Because they love to tell that story, says the Professor in his column:

This story is, by the way, a perennial right-wing favorite: back in 1991, when Sweden was suffering from a banking crisis brought on by deregulation (sound familiar?), the Cato Institute published a triumphant report on how this proved the failure of the whole welfare state model.

The story is false, as this chart shows (click to open in a new tab). The red bars are the GIPSI states, the rest are in blue. Tall bars mean higher "welfare state" spending. Note that of the GIPSIs, only Italy is in the top six of welfare spenders, behind four rather healthy economies.

So much for "Republicans." What about the German story?

[T]he German story ... is that it’s all about fiscal irresponsibility. This story seems to fit Greece, but nobody else. Italy ran deficits in the years before the crisis, but they were only slightly larger than Germany’s (Italy’s large debt is a legacy from irresponsible policies many years ago). Portugal’s deficits were significantly smaller, while Spain and Ireland actually ran surpluses.

And the truth?

[T]he creation of the euro fostered a false sense of security among private investors, unleashing huge, unsustainable flows of capital into nations all around Europe’s periphery. As a consequence of these inflows, costs and prices rose, manufacturing became uncompetitive, and nations that had roughly balanced trade in 1999 began running large trade deficits instead. Then the music stopped.

Where did the GIPSIs (and the U.S.) go wrong?

The best way to think about that last quote is as a simple supply and demand situation (phrases like "capital inflows" make the non-economist's brain hurt). When there's too much cash chasing not enough goods and services, prices simply go up. How can they not?

"Capital inflows" is economist-speak for "cash coming into a country." Investors dumped a lot of eager money into the peripheral countries, more money than the countries could absorb.

The eagerness of investors created a sellers' market for suppliers of goods and services (like manufacturing and labor). Sellers charged what the market would bear (why shouldn't they?) and the peripheral economies experience a bubble-like boom. The money flowed like wine (so to speak).

The same thing happened in the U.S. with the housing market. Take, for example, the temporary boom in towns like Hemet, California. In the days when "no one could lose money on housing," little Hemet was being build up as fast as money could be found to do it.

Why? Hemet was considered "driving close" (under an hour and a half) to the city of Riverside, a place with actual jobs, and houses in Hemet were cheap compared to those in Riverside. Buyers traded driving time for home prices, on the assumption that housing would never go down (and that gas would not go very far up).

Investors were eager to build in Hemet because buyers were eager to buy. Add in the illusion of safety, and the economy of sleepy little Hemet exploded — till it crashed.

The "illusion of safety" that did so much to wreck the U.S. economy also wrecked the peripheral economies of Europe. In the U.S., that illusion was supplied by the supposedly bullet-proof housing market — and by the ratings agencies that "blessed" with AAA ratings all of the mortgage-based derivative products the banks were buying and selling.

In Europe, the euro supplied the illusion. The common currency made everything magically safe. As long as France and Germany were strong, the euro would be strong everywhere. Investment in Portugal, Spain, and other peripherals was "blessed" by German strength, and investors in the GIPSI countries lined up at the door.

"Then the music stopped"

What happened next in Europe is the same as what happened here. After the crash, the elites (Our Betters) had only one bottom line. Make sure no banker loses money. Which explains Krugman's "Republican" and German stories perfectly.

■ "Republican" story — If it's the people's fault (for being lazy and spendy), then it's right to punish them by taking away their welfare benefits (and give it to the banks to make good their derivative-based losses).

■ German story — If it's the GIPSI's fault (for being "fiscally irresponsible"), then it's right to take the losses out of their hide (and give it to the banks to cover their now-vulnerable investments).

What's the answer to the first question above — "How do the GIPSIs right themselves?" They don't. They wait until the crisis is so great that leaving the euro won't make it worse, then they leave the euro, one by one. From the blog post (the article says roughly the same thing):

[I]f you’re running a peripheral nation, and the troika [European Commission, IMF, World Bank] demands austerity, you have no choice except the nuclear option of leaving the euro, coming soon to a Balkan nation near you.

Count on it.

Why the scare quotes around "Republican"?

Those quotes are mine alone. Krugman calls his anti-welfare story Republican (no quotes) because the state of the Krugman is Dem-friendly in these articles.

Yes, the Republicans hate welfare, but they're not alone. The fact is that all of Our Betters, including the NeoLiberals, the Obamas and the Clintons, the Leahys and the Schumers, think like the so-called "Republicans."

It's not a Republican story, it's a Village story, an elite story, the DC cocktail story they all are telling.

Bill Clinton got caught here agreeing with Paul Ryan about the safety net.



By "paralysis" Clinton means "failure to cut the safety net." He might lie to you (remember all those NAFTA jobs?) but not to Paul Ryan. Village-on-Village violence is beyond the pale.

This is, unfortunately, the one time you can trust Bill Clinton. (Does the phrase "Tea Party the Democrats" suggest anything to you now?)

GP Read the rest of this post...

The Rachet Effect—Why do post-Carter politics only move to the right?

This post is about the goal of a real Progressive Coalition, should we ever get one. I'll be writing about a "real progressive coalition" much more as we move into the election and post-election seasons.

In a recent piece on Obama, the Republican Bishops, and contraception, I mentioned the Overton Window (click to read if you're not familiar with the concept).

Commenter Roman Berry then added another interesting analogy — the "Rachet Effect," and pointed us to this chapter in an online work-in-progress by Michael J. Smith.

I don't endorse the book (which I haven't read), but I really like this metaphor as an clear explanation of what we've been observing since 1978, if not earlier.

In a chapter called "The rachet effect" the author writes (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

The ratchet is a simple, ubiquitous, ancient bit of machinery. There's one in your bicycle wheel (it allows you to coast without pedaling), there's one in your watch (if you're the old-fashioned type and have a mechanical watch) ... What the ratchet does is permit rotation in one direction but not in the other.

Here's a diagram of a simple rachet:


Rachets have a wheel (item 1), a pawl (item 2), and a base which locks them together. Note that this wheel can move counter-clockwise all it wants. But if it attempts to reverse any move, the pawl prevents it. The wheel can stand still or move forward; it just can't move back.

Exactly like our political system. The author again:

The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation. The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.

The Democrats' role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don't resist the rightward movement -- they let it happen -- but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.

Whatever the cause, it's a perfect analogy, isn't it? Very clever on the part of the author.

As to the answer to the question in the headline — "Why?" — my explanation is simple. Money enables Republicans and neuters Dems.

In support, Smith offers this story:

I have a somewhat unlikely friend, a rich man in Chicago -- let's call him Al. Politics is not Al's profession, or even his first interest in life, but he is a well-connected, intelligent guy who has some pet political causes. I happened to ask him one year, during a Senatorial campaign, which candidate he and his friends were contributing to. ... Al looked at me as if I had just revealed unsuspected depths of idiocy. "Both, of course," he replied. ...

"But... which one do you want to win?" He laughed. "It doesn't matter. We own 'em both."

And that's the name of the game, in one handy metaphor.

In my view, it's the job of the Progressive Coalition, if we ever get one, to remove the pawl.

Offered for your mechanical enlightenment,

GP Read the rest of this post...

Apple has created up to 700,000 jobs ... in Asia

This is a two-fer; I'm going to link two opinion pieces to make one point.

First, Paul Krugman, in a recent column commenting on Mitch Daniels' assertion that American businessman Steve Jobs was a hero–job creator who should be emulated. He gets to the Apple point midway through (my emphasis):

[A]nyone who reads The New York Times knows that [Daniels'] assertion about job creation was completely false: Apple employs very few people in this country.

A big report in The Times last Sunday laid out the facts. Although Apple is now America’s biggest U.S. corporation as measured by market value, it employs only 43,000 people in the United States, a tenth as many as General Motors employed when it was the largest American firm.

Apple does, however, indirectly employ around 700,000 people in its various suppliers. Unfortunately, almost none of those people are in America.

Krugman points out that it's not just the low wages; it's also the local supply infrastructure. But even so, how did the whole of it, the factories and that lovely network of local parts suppliers, get there to begin with?

Answer — American industrial policy. Yes, we did it to ourselves. (By "we" I mean the do-ers, Our Betters; and by "ourselves" I mean the do-ees, you and me.)

American government always has an industrial policy. We've never been without one. And in the last 30 years, the right-wing Reagan government — and every U.S. government since — has grown campaign-contribution-fat by picking corporate winners and labor losers in the newspeakishly named "free market." The rest is just disinformation, something to keep you confused until they've robbed you totally blind.

Here's Robert Reich to make the connection:

Jobs Won't Come Back to America Until the Government Pushes Greedy Corporate Executives to Invest at Home

That's his headline, not to put too fine a point on it.

And here's a bit of the meat (my emphasis below).

... An Apple executive says “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” He might have added “and showing a big enough profits to continually increase our share price.”

Most executives of American companies agree. If they can make it best and cheapest in China, or anywhere else, that’s where it will be made. Don’t blame them. ... What they want in America is lower corporate taxes, less regulation, and fewer unionized workers. But none of these will bring good jobs to America. These steps may lower the costs of production here, but global companies can always find even lower costs abroad. ...

But here’s the political problem. American firms have huge clout in Washington. They maintain legions of lobbyists and are pouring boatloads of money into political campaigns. After the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, there’s no limit.

Who represents the American workforce? ... [C]orporate America isn’t their friend. Without bold government action on behalf of our workforce, good American jobs will continue to disappear.

The headline makes the point stronger than the piece itself, but still, the point is there.

Government always acts (or not-acts) in someone's behalf. It always picks winners and losers, in exactly the same way you do when you decide to see Chucky Does Paris rather than Midnight in Missoula — or even when you stay home instead with a big box of deep-fried Drummer Boy Wings and your tears. Someone walks away with your dollar, and the rest just walk. Same diff.

The real question is — What's American labor, chained as it is to the NeoLiberal-dominated Democratic party, going to do about it?

Not many choices, are there? I can think of just three — Leave the party. Kick those corporate-financed NeoLibs out of first position and take over. Whine.

If you don't pick (1) or (2), the third picks you (not to put too fine a point on it).

GP Read the rest of this post...

After creating a dysfunctional Wall Street, Clinton now supports OWS

Here's the classic Bill Clinton that we've seen for years.

Let's not kid ourselves and think that he had nothing to do with the abuses on Wall Street that brought down the economy. Maybe the GOP was leading the charge for scrapping the protections that kept America safe from Wall Street for decades, but Bill Clinton embraced the "reforms" and his team - Wall Streeters themselves - implemented the plans.

It was Clinton who signed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act back in 1999. The Clinton team at the center of the changes - Larry Summers and Robert Rubin - later went on to cash in themselves (Rubin was already a Wall Street giant) on the reforms and made millions more on Wall Street. Bill Clinton himself was no stranger to Wall Street gigs. Sorry if I'm not buying into the new and improved Bill Clinton who supposedly supports OWS, but I'd much rather hear him explain how bad his decisions were and how those terrible decisions left Americans with the worst economy since the Great Depression. It wasn't that long ago that Bill Clinton was defending Wall Street ("time to lower the rhetoric and talk about the facts") and telling Americans to shut up since Wall Street did nothing illegal. It wasn't illegal because people like Bill Clinton helped legalize the abuse of the system, which left Americans holding the bag while Wall Street continued the celebration with fat checks.

As long as people like Bill Clinton remain involved in the political process, there's really no hope for reform. He cashed in on his public service and takes money from the highest bidder. He's clever enough to tell which way the wind is blowing, but it doesn't make him any less cynical and opportunistic. It may not be polite to say in Democratic circles, but that's the way it is with our party elder. Forbes:

“I think what they’re doing is great,” he said. “Occupy Wall Street has done more in the short time they’ve been out there than I’ve been able to do in more than the last eleven years trying to draw attention to some of the same problems we have to address,” he said. Without once looking around, but completely engaging me, the statesman continued. “There are a lot of young people out there, I see a lot of unemployed students and they are upset, he said. They don’t know where the jobs and opportunities are for them, and they are worried about how they’re going to pay off their student loans without going broke.”

Read the rest of this post...

NBC hires Chelsea Clinton

From Michael Calderone at HuffPost:

Chelsea Clinton may have officially joined the media on Monday, but several journalists who covered the 2008 election remain skeptical about the press-averse former First Daughter entering their ranks.

"The supreme irony of Chelsea Clinton becoming an NBC reporter: I'm pretty sure she's never granted an interview," tweeted The New York Times' Jodi Kantor.

The New York Times' Amy Chozick, who covered the 2008 election for the Wall Street Journal, responded that not only did Clinton refuse to give interviews, but "seemed to absolutely hate us on [Clinton's campaign] plane." In another tweet, Chozick wrote that Clinton "disdained reporters." (Chozick, reached by phone, declined to elaborate.)

Politico's Ken Vogel tweeted that Clinton gave reporters the "total cold shoulder" during the previous election cycle. And Glenn Thrush echoed his Politico colleague's experience on Twitter: "In '08, Chelsea Clinton (in NH) told me 'Sorry, I don't talk to the media.' I said, 'But you are all grown up now.' Now she IS the media."

Well, she could have disdain for the reporters she's dealt with and still not have disdain for the profession. Maybe she's going to make journalism reputable, kind of like what gay Republicans claim they're going to do to the Republican party but then never do. Read the rest of this post...

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to join hedge fund business

Apparently neither of them has cashed in enough from their public service so will make every effort to do so now. Some politicians retire and try to make the world a better place and then there are the Bill Clinton's and Blair's of the world who will take the cash over an ounce of dignity. You might think that after ushering in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression there might be some interest in righting that wrong but no, that might mean only being worth $100 million. Huffington Post:

Former President Bill Clinton is teaming up with a top aide, a former State Department envoy, and Tony Blair to start a hedge fund and global consulting company.

Declan Kelly, a former top State Department envoy and major donor to the secretary of state's 2008 presidential campaign, has left government service to launch Teneo Capital, hiring Bill Clinton and the former U.K. prime minister as advisers for an undisclosed sum. Kelly's partner in the venture is Douglas Band, a longtime Clinton aide who set up the Clinton Global Initiative and remains the former president's right-hand man.

Bill Clinton earlier faced questions about whether his business ties would create conflicts for his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and vowed to let the State Department sign off on his ventures. Kelly told HuffPost that State has approved Clinton's involvement in Teneo Capital.

Read the rest of this post...

Will the GOP hold accused sexual assaulter Herman Cain to the "Clinton Standard"?

As John points out, you can never quite tell if Republicans are going to let a scandal sink one of their own.

But the GOP treatment of Herman Cain needs to be judged according to their treatment of Bill Clinton, who they impeached over a consensual affair. Neither Monica Lewinsky nor Hilary Clinton ever made a public complaint about the sex, so why was it ever anyone else's business?

If Sharon Bialek's claims are true, she is doing her party a big favor by stepping forward now (she's a Republican). One of the reasons that the GOP suffered such devastating losses in the 2006 midterms was the Mark Foley scandal that broke only days before the election. Then- GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert's attempts to achieve a cover-up compounded the disgust the public already felt for the failed Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Better to have bad news come out now than a week before the election.

Until today, the only indication of the seriousness of the allegations against Cain came from the fact that the National Restaurant Association had paid a significant sum in at least one settlement. But did that really mean that the harassment was serious, or even real? (After all, settlements are sometimes paid simply because they're cheaper than litigation, even if you're innocent.) If Sharon Bialek's claims are true, the complaints were quite obviously about much more than some mildly inappropriate banter. It was not so much an allegation of sexual harassment as sexual assault.  And that makes these allegations far more serious than anything of which Bill Clinton was accused.

Another angle on the scandal that does not seem to have been considered is the fact that Cain is an associate minister at a Baptist church, and has made his faith a significant part of his campaign. I have no objection to consensual adultery: If it improves his presidential job performance, let him recruit a harem via Craig's List, for all I care. Hypocrisy is another matter entirely. If a politician is preaching family values by day and philandering by night then throw him to the wolves. In this case, Cain is a minister and he is quite literally preaching family values, both in church and on the campaign trail. Read the rest of this post...

Chart shows how 35+ banks became 4 too-big-to-fail monster institutions

Mother Jones has created an amazing historical chart that shows in one clear picture the mergers that turned 35+ banks into just four — Citigroup, JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo.

Click to see; amazing.

All the conglomeration our money-soaked, corrupt political institutions can buy. That's a lot of conglomeration if you have all the money in the world.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Gloria Steinem will headline Obama NY fundraiser as part of big push for women’s vote in 2012

From Amanda Terkel at the Huff Post:

First Lady Michelle Obama, longtime feminist activist Gloria Steinem and several other prominent Democratic women will be the featured guests at a fundraiser in New York City next month for President Barack Obama's reelection campaign, in an effort to mobilize and energize Democratic women for 2012.

The Park Avenue fundraiser on Sept. 20 will also feature EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards and Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

Tickets prices start at $500 and go up to $38,500.

That's the first take-away, that Gloria Steinem and Stephanie Schriock are joined at the hip with Cecile Richards and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at least as far as 2012 goes. Self-declarations are always welcome; thanks. (And EMILY, you can stop asking for money. I don't need a cut-out; I can give to Obama directly.)

Now for your second take-away: Obama doesn't win if women don't vote for him. He and McCain split the male vote in 2008, and women could be a problem this time around. Terkel again:

A recent AP-GfK poll found that less than half of all women approve of the job Obama is doing. That's a significant drop from the 100-day mark of his presidency, when 68 percent of women approved of his performance. Fifty percent now say he deserves reelection.

The Obama election still sees the problem as communicating its successes, not creating them. Good luck with that.

And your third take-away: Looks like the Clinton machine is all in for Obama. (Has he absorbed them, or are they just playing nicely together?) This good article also includes a long list of Clinton bundlers who are bundling for Obama. (Jon Corzine caught my eye. Carol Pensky was one of Hillary's 2008 superdelegates.)

To know them is ... to know them. A good piece of research.

GP

Read the rest of this post...