June 3, 2015

Why Politicians DON'T CARE That Much About Reelection

~snip~

On December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis. Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work. Today, Clinton is worth something on the order of $80 million (probably much more, but we don’t really know), and these speeches have become a lucrative and consistent revenue stream for his family. Clinton spends his time offering policy advice, writing books, stumping for political candidates, and running a global foundation. He’s now a vegan. He makes money from books. But the speaking fee money stream keeps coming in, year after year, in larger and larger amounts. Most activists and political operatives are under a delusion about American politics, which goes as follows. Politicians will do *anything* to get reelected, and they will pander, beg, borrow, lie, cheat and steal, just to stay in office. It’s all about their job.



This is 100% wrong. The dirty secret of American politics is that, for most politicians, getting re-elected is just not that important. What matters is post-election employment. It’s all about staying in the elite political class, which means being respected in a dense network of corporate-funded think tanks, high-powered law firms, banks, defense contractors, prestigious universities, and corporations. If you run a campaign based on populist themes, that’s a threat to your post-election employment prospects. This is why rising Democratic star and Newark Mayor Corey Booker reacted so strongly against criticism of private equity – he’s looking out for a potential client after his political career is over, or perhaps, during interludes between offices. Running as a vague populist is manageable, as long as you’re lying to voters. If you actually go after powerful interests while in office, then you better win, because if you don’t, you’ll have basically nowhere to go. And if you lose, but you were a team player, then you’ll have plenty of money and opportunity. The most lucrative scenario is to win and be a team player, which is what Bill and Hillary Clinton did. The Clinton’s are the best at the political game – it’s not a coincidence that deregulation accelerated in the late 1990s, as Clinton and his whole team began thinking about their post-Presidential prospects. Corruption used to be more overt. Lyndon Johnson made money while in office, by illicitly garnering lucrative FCC licenses. It was the first neoliberal President, Jimmy Carter, who began the post-career payoff trend in the Democratic Party. In 1978, Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas convinced Carter to back ethanol subsidies. After Carter lost to Reagan, he faced financial problems, as his peanut warehouse had been mismanaged and was going bankrupt. AMD stepped in, overpaying for the property. But Carter wasn’t nearly as skilled as Clinton, because he didn’t stay in the club.


~snip~

Speaking fee money isn’t just money, it is easy money. In one appearance, for one hour, Clinton can make $125,000 to $500,000. At an hourly rate, that’s between $250 million to $1 billion annually. It isn’t the case that Clinton is a billionaire, but it is the case that Clinton can, whenever he wants, make money as quickly and as easily as a billionaire. He is awash in cash, and cash is useful. Cash finances his lifestyle. Cash helped backstop his wife’s Presidential campaign when it was on the ropes. And these speaking fees aren’t the only money Clinton got, it’s just the easiest cash to find because of disclosure laws. Apparently, Clinton’s firm apparently had a paid $100k+ a month consulting relationship with MF Global, and Clinton and Tony Blair have teamed up to help hedge funds raise money. His daughter worked for a giant hedge fund and political ally (Avenue Capital). And Clinton has unusual relationships with billionaires and Dubai-based investors. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the best at what they do, but they aren’t the only ones who do it. In fact, this is what politics is increasingly about, not elections, but staying in the club. Erskine Bowles, former White House Chief of Staff, lost two Senate elections. But he’s on the board of Facebook and Morgan Stanley, as well as authoring the highly influential Simpson-Bowles plan to gut Social Security and Medicare. Tom Daschle, who lost a Senate race in 2004, is a millionaire who in large part crafted Obama’s health care plan. Former Senator Judd Gregg is now at Goldman Sachs. Current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made $12 million in between his stint at the Clinton White House which ended in 2000 and his election to Congress in 2002. Former Congressman Harold Ford, now at Morgan Stanley, is routinely on TV making political claims. Larry Summers is on the board of the high-flying start-up Square. Meanwhile, Russ Feingold, a Senator who did go after Wall Street, is a professor in the Midwest. Eliot Spitzer is a struggling TV host and writer.



In other words, Barack Obama and his franchise are emulating the Clinton’s, and are speaking not to voters, but to potential post-election patrons. That’s what their policy goals are organized around. So when you hear someone talking about how politicians just want to be reelected, roll your eyes. When you hear an argument about the best message or policy framework to use for reelection, stop listening. That’s not what politicians really care about. Elections in many ways are just like regular season games in basketball – they are worth winning, but it’s not worth risking an injury. The reason Obama won’t prosecute bankers, or run anything but a very mild sort of populism, is because he’s not really talking to voters. He just wants to be slightly more appealing than Romney. He’s really talking to the people who made Bill and Hillary Clinton a very wealthy couple, his future prospective clients. We don’t call it bribery, but that’s what it is. Bill Clinton made a lot of money when he signed the bill deregulating derivatives and repealed Glass-Steagall. The payout just came later, in the form of speaking fees from elite banks and their allies. Ironically, Clinton has come to express regret about deregulating derivatives. He has not given the money back.




cont'


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/its-not-about-reelection-bill-clintons-80-million-payday.html

June 3, 2015

Can Bernie Sanders BEAT Hillary Clinton?

Share with Friends......




.

June 3, 2015

Poll Finds 80% Of REPUBLICANS Agree With Bernie Sanders On Citizens United

Sen. Bernie Sanders is often characterized by the media as an out of the mainstream presidential candidate, but a new CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 80% of Republicans agree with Sanders on the issue of getting money out of politics.




All of these positions are held by Bernie Sanders, and the opinion of the majority on each question is the exact opposite of the reasoning used by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision. Where Republicans differ from the rest of the country is that a substantial number (48%) believe that money is free speech, and they believe that both parties benefit equally (62%), but among those who picked a party that benefitted more, they felt that Democrats (24%) benefitted more from the current campaign finance system than Republicans (6%). Fifty-five percent of Independents and 53% of Democrats felt that money is not free speech. Fifty-two percent of Democrats believe that Republicans benefit more from the current system.




Overall, 84% of Americans agree with Bernie Sanders that money has too much influence in U.S. politics. Seventy-five percent favor donor disclosure and 77% favor limiting contributions. Hillary Clinton and President Obama also favor getting the money out of politics, but both of them have been forced to raise huge sums of money in order to be competitive.



cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/02/poll-finds-80-republicans-agree-bernie-sanders-citizens-united.html

June 2, 2015

Senator Warren ATTACKS SEC Head Mary Jo White

You may recall that White was granted a waiver last year allowing her to vote on agency issues affecting Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, a major corporate law firm that was also a former client of hers, and which represents some of the biggest names on Wall Street. She couldn't possibly be thinking about her post-government career, could she? Via the Boston Globe:






http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/sen-warren-attacks-sec-head-mary-jo-white

June 2, 2015

Martin O'Malley TAKES A SWIPE At Hillary

Looks like O'Malley Has begun his campaign with a SWIPE at Hillary......hmm, two Royal families.......

June 2, 2015

New Dems And Blue Dogs WHINING It Costs Them More To Run For Congress Than It Costs Real Democrats

Writing for Stars and Stripes and the Washington Post Sunday, Anne Kim, an operative for Wall Street's deceptively named Progressive Policy Institute (a pro-corporate/anti-worker New Dem outfit that was founded by the DLC to promote neoliberal ideas like NAFTA and the TPP), decries how much more it costs reactionary Democrats-- New Dems and Blue Dogs-- to run for election than it costs real Democrats. It costs the Democrats who support the Republican/Wall Street agenda double what it costs actual Democrats to run for office. Kim's research finds that the fake Dems "spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats." That trend is getting more pronounced and she pointed out that for every dollar that the average Progressive Caucus member directly spent to defend his or her seat in 2014, the average right-wing Democrat spent $1.93. By comparison, right-wing Democrats shelled out $1.54 for every campaign dollar spent by liberals by 2012 and $1.65 in 2010.

She doesn't get into it, but these figures include the way Wall Street-backed conservaDems gigantically outspend progressives in primaries, often with the help of the Democratic Beltway Establishment which has now entirely abandoned its pretense of being neutral in primaries. Let's look at a few of the most recent examples from the last cycle. Here are 4 notable races that pitted New Dem types who back cutting Social Security benefits against progressives who favor expanding Social Security. In each case, the corporate-backed right-winger seriously outspent the progressive:



The New Dem analysis for why they have to spend more than real Democrats never touches on the fact that the New Dems' conservative policy agenda turns off Democratic primary voters. Instead they claim that "moderate districts are by definition competitive... In 2014, outside groups spent an average of $2.2 million per race in New Democrat and Blue Dog districts, compared with an average of $299,339 in Progressive Caucus districts. All told, outside groups spent $121 million on moderate districts, vs. $20.4 million in liberal ones." [Keep in mind that New Dems and Blue Dogs and their propagandists like Kim, always refer to them as "moderate" rather than as the conservatives that they are.] In January, after Long Island Blue Dog and DCCC chair Steve Israel led the House Democrats to a second consecutive electoral donnybrook, he gave Politico an interview indicating he has every intention of following the same catastrophic strategy that tanked the Democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 (the Israel years). Several members of Congress have told me that Israel's pointless, policy-free messaging doesn't appeal to real voters and that that's why so many Democrats just don't bother voting. Israel recruits Republican-lite candidates (in some cases, actual Republicans) and then fills the airwaves with ineffective, garbage messaging and still expects to win. He doesn't win; he loses... and loses and loses. And yet, Pelosi left him in charge-- albeit with another title-- of the DCCC again, where he is already talking about how the Democrats won't win back the House in 2016. He's right. The Democrats will never win back the House as long as Steve Israel is running the show, or even partially running the show.



And the DCCC continues spending virtually all its resources trying to reelect and elect Blue Dogs and New Dems who vote with the GOP and have no connection to the Democratic values-driven grassroots. If you contribute to the DCCC, that's the toilet your money gets flushed down. Instead, consider contributing directly to progressive candidates.



http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

June 2, 2015

Bernie Sanders SPEAKS With Katie Couric - FULL INTERVIEW

Share with Friends..........

June 2, 2015

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton ON THE ISSUES

Share with Friends......

June 1, 2015

The Ed Show: Clinton Was PAID MILLIONS BY BANKS Backing Keystone Pipeline

June 1, 2015

Bernie Sanders Unveils 3 AMAZING IDEAS That Would Improve Democratic Presidential DEBATES

In a letter to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) laid out three ideas that he felt would improve the Democratic presidential debates. In his letter, Sanders suggested earlier debates, “In recent weeks, as I have traveled around the country, I have been hearing concerns from voters about the need for vigorous candidate debate. The people of this country are tired of political gossip, personal attacks, and ugly 30-second ads. They want the candidates to engage in serious discussion about the very serious issues facing our country today. In my view, the candidates for President should engage in a series of debates beginning this summer.”


His second idea was inter-party debates, “I believe we should be open to a less traditional form of debating by welcoming the opportunity to debate not only amongst members of the Democratic Party but also having debates between Democratic and Republican candidates during the primary process. I believe that these inter-party debates would put in dramatic focus the shallow and at times ridiculous policies and proposals being advocated by the Republican candidates and by their party’s platform. It would also serve to engage large numbers of voters who typically do not pay attention to the process until much later when the general election begins to come into focus. By engaging these voters early and raising the stakes around the election, I believe we can get people to participate at higher levels which will undoubtedly benefit Democrats up and down the ticket.”


Sen. Sanders’ third idea was to hold debates all across the country, not just in early primary states, “I also think it is important for us to debate not only in the early states but also in many states which currently do not have much Democratic presidential campaign activity. While a number of these non-target states have not in the past had much-organized campaign presence, I believe it is critical for the Democratic Party and progressive forces in America to engage voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. By expanding the scope geographically of
debates beyond the early calendar states we can begin to awaken activism at the grassroots level in those states and signal to Democrats and progressives in places like Texas, Mississippi, Utah, and Wyoming that their states are not forgotten by the Democratic Party.”


If two of the Sanders ideas were adopted, they would transform the Democratic debates. The idea of inter-party debates is bound to turn some people off. These same people probably also hate interleague play in Major League Baseball, but the idea of Democratic candidates being able to challenge the unpopular positions that the Republican Party has adopted is appealing.




cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/01/bernie-sanders-unveils-3-amazing-ideas-improve-democratic-presidential-debates.html