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
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
May 8, 2014
Macroeconomic policies, as the name suggests, take aim at the economy’s overall performance on everything from growth and job rates to price stability. Fiscal policies use taxes and public spending to shape economic growth, demand, and distribution. Monetary policies use interest rates and government securities to control the supply of money and the pace of economic growth. Macroeconomic policies, in other words, speak to both the broad parameters and priorities of public policy—where and how we raise and spend money—and the more immediate management of interest rates and the money supply.
Government revenue and spending policies, in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on economic growth and economic distribution. Federal spending reached about 20 percent of GDP during the Korean War and has been there ever since, dipping a little during good times, rising a little during recessions. Most of this spending—and its distribution—reflects changing policy priorities and demands. Defense spending, for instance, rose into the Vietnam era and then declined, with spikes in the early 1980s and after 9/11. Since then, spending on social programs, especially health care, has taken up most of the slack.
Fiscal policy also reflects the countercyclical logic of public finance: spending as a share of the economy tends to rise during economic downturns and fall during expansions, while tax revenue does the opposite. In this sense, policy commitments, especially on social programs, lean in against fluctuations in the business cycle, protecting the most vulnerable and sustaining demand during hard times. Additional spending commitments (a “stimulus” for example) can enhance these automatic stabilizers. On the other hand, cutbacks elsewhere in government budgets, at either the state or federal level, can blunt them.Choices on the tax side of the ledger, meanwhile, shape the distributional impact of all of this.
.....(snip).....
Macroeconomic Policy and American Inequality
This combination of “foot-on-the-brake” monetary policy and pervasive budgetary anxiety feeds inequality at both ends of the income spectrum. The preoccupation with inflation serves, first and foremost, the nation’s financial powers. For Wall Street, inflation has always been a particular and overriding concern. By calibrating its policies to this concern, the Fed has operated over recent decades as a guardian of the interests and assets of its member banks, not as a steward of economic growth.
This fixation on “sound money,” in turn, has had real and unfortunate consequences for working Americans. And these consequences, including high unemployment and its associated social and economic ills, haven’t been accidental. In practical terms, policymakers have dampened inflation by dampening wages, through both sustained joblessness and a wider range of policies (deregulation, trade liberalization, attacks on collective bargaining, cuts to social programs) designed to erode workers’ bargaining power. Indeed, the architects of this policy have consistently described America’s retreat from full employment as a way of “zapping labor” with concessionary bargaining, trade exposure, and monetary restraint. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/choosing-unemployment-macroeconomic-policy-and-american-inequality
Choosing Unemployment: Macroeconomic Policy and American Inequality
from Dissent magazine:
Choosing Unemployment: Macroeconomic Policy and American Inequality
By Colin Gordon - May 1, 2014
[font size="1"]Unemployed march in Washington, D.C., 1930 (Library of Congress via Washington Area Spark/Flickr)[/font]
This series is adapted from Growing Apart: A Political History of American Inequality, a resource developed for the Project on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies and inequality.org. It is presented in nine parts. The introduction laid out the basic dimensions of American inequality and examined some of the usual explanatory suspects. The political explanation for American inequality is developed through chapters looking in turn at labor relations, the minimum wage and labor standards, job-based benefits, social policy, taxes, financialization, executive pay, and macroeconomic policy. Previous installments in this series can be found here.
Macroeconomic policies, as the name suggests, take aim at the economy’s overall performance on everything from growth and job rates to price stability. Fiscal policies use taxes and public spending to shape economic growth, demand, and distribution. Monetary policies use interest rates and government securities to control the supply of money and the pace of economic growth. Macroeconomic policies, in other words, speak to both the broad parameters and priorities of public policy—where and how we raise and spend money—and the more immediate management of interest rates and the money supply.
Government revenue and spending policies, in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on economic growth and economic distribution. Federal spending reached about 20 percent of GDP during the Korean War and has been there ever since, dipping a little during good times, rising a little during recessions. Most of this spending—and its distribution—reflects changing policy priorities and demands. Defense spending, for instance, rose into the Vietnam era and then declined, with spikes in the early 1980s and after 9/11. Since then, spending on social programs, especially health care, has taken up most of the slack.
Fiscal policy also reflects the countercyclical logic of public finance: spending as a share of the economy tends to rise during economic downturns and fall during expansions, while tax revenue does the opposite. In this sense, policy commitments, especially on social programs, lean in against fluctuations in the business cycle, protecting the most vulnerable and sustaining demand during hard times. Additional spending commitments (a “stimulus” for example) can enhance these automatic stabilizers. On the other hand, cutbacks elsewhere in government budgets, at either the state or federal level, can blunt them.Choices on the tax side of the ledger, meanwhile, shape the distributional impact of all of this.
.....(snip).....
Macroeconomic Policy and American Inequality
This combination of “foot-on-the-brake” monetary policy and pervasive budgetary anxiety feeds inequality at both ends of the income spectrum. The preoccupation with inflation serves, first and foremost, the nation’s financial powers. For Wall Street, inflation has always been a particular and overriding concern. By calibrating its policies to this concern, the Fed has operated over recent decades as a guardian of the interests and assets of its member banks, not as a steward of economic growth.
This fixation on “sound money,” in turn, has had real and unfortunate consequences for working Americans. And these consequences, including high unemployment and its associated social and economic ills, haven’t been accidental. In practical terms, policymakers have dampened inflation by dampening wages, through both sustained joblessness and a wider range of policies (deregulation, trade liberalization, attacks on collective bargaining, cuts to social programs) designed to erode workers’ bargaining power. Indeed, the architects of this policy have consistently described America’s retreat from full employment as a way of “zapping labor” with concessionary bargaining, trade exposure, and monetary restraint. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/choosing-unemployment-macroeconomic-policy-and-american-inequality
May 8, 2014
Who's Fighting for Public Workers?
Wednesday, 07 May 2014 12:23
By Richard Eskow, Campaign for America's Future | News Analysis
Sometimes you have to step back a few paces to see how much conservatism has distorted the public debate. Case in point: employment. Somehow the right has managed to stigmatize public-sector jobs so effectively that only politicians of rare and admirable courage are willing to defend them.
Unfortunately, those politicians seems to be in short supply nowadays.
Bill McBride wrote an excellent overview of public and private sector job growth under the last six presidents in his Calculated Risk blog. This chart was especially striking:
......(snip)......
The outlier is Barack Obama. 710,000 public-sector jobs – that’s nearly three-quarters of a million – have been lost since Obama took office.
President Obama is not the architect of these losses. Most of them have taken place at the state and local level, although federal jobs are now gaining a larger share of the losses. At every level, job loss has been fueled by Republican-backed cuts and stymied by conservative hostility toward government jobs. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23553-whos-fighting-for-public-workers
Who's Fighting for Public Workers?
Who's Fighting for Public Workers?
Wednesday, 07 May 2014 12:23
By Richard Eskow, Campaign for America's Future | News Analysis
Sometimes you have to step back a few paces to see how much conservatism has distorted the public debate. Case in point: employment. Somehow the right has managed to stigmatize public-sector jobs so effectively that only politicians of rare and admirable courage are willing to defend them.
Unfortunately, those politicians seems to be in short supply nowadays.
Bill McBride wrote an excellent overview of public and private sector job growth under the last six presidents in his Calculated Risk blog. This chart was especially striking:
......(snip)......
The outlier is Barack Obama. 710,000 public-sector jobs – that’s nearly three-quarters of a million – have been lost since Obama took office.
President Obama is not the architect of these losses. Most of them have taken place at the state and local level, although federal jobs are now gaining a larger share of the losses. At every level, job loss has been fueled by Republican-backed cuts and stymied by conservative hostility toward government jobs. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23553-whos-fighting-for-public-workers
May 8, 2014
from truthdig:
Solitary Confinement Is Not the Answer
Posted on May 7, 2014
By Amy Goodman
There has been much attention, and rightly so, on the CIA’s extensive use of torture, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is said to have documented in its still-classified 6,000-page report. The use of torture is not limited to the CIA, however. It is all too common across the United States. Solitary confinement is torture, and it is used routinely in jails, prisons and immigration detention facilities here at home. Grass-roots movements that have been pressuring for change are beginning to yield significant results. The coalitions include prisoners, their families, a broad swath of legal and social-justice groups and, increasingly, prison guards and officials themselves.
One official who worked to reduce the use of solitary confinement was Tom Clements. The executive director of Colorado’s Department of Corrections, Clements was at home on March 19, 2013, when his doorbell rang. As he opened the door, he was gunned down, murdered by Evan Ebel, who had been released from solitary confinement directly to the street less than two months earlier. The small, nonprofit Colorado Independent was the only outlet to link the murder to the psychological damage that Ebel suffered in solitary confinement. Another ex-prisoner who corresponded with Ebel disclosed text messages with him, shortly before Ebel killed Clements. One text read, “im just feeling peculiar & the only way i know i know to remedy that is via use of ‘violence.’”
Ironically, Clements was trying, successfully, to reform Colorado’s solitary-confinement policies, referred to there as “administrative segregation.” A year before his murder, Clements told The Colorado Independent’s Susan Greene, “There’s a lot of research around solitary and isolation in recent years, some tied to POWs and some to corrections ... long periods of isolation can be counter-productive to stable behavior and long-term rehabilitation goals.” He was concerned with the direct release of prisoners from solitary back into the community, a practice that likely contributed to his murder. His successor, Rick Raemisch, continues to pursue the reforms started by Tom Clements. Raemisch subjected himself to over 20 hours in solitary, and emerged even more committed to changing the system.
Juan Mendez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, issued a special report on solitary confinement in 2011, concluding “Segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, Supermax, the hole, Secure Housing Unit (SHU) ... whatever the name, solitary confinement should be banned by states as a punishment or extortion technique.” His latest full report on global torture includes several noted alleged excesses by the United States, including abusive solitary confinement practiced from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to New York state, Louisiana and California. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/solitary_confinement_is_not_the_answer_20140507
Amy Goodman: Solitary Confinement Is Not the Answer
from truthdig:
Solitary Confinement Is Not the Answer
Posted on May 7, 2014
By Amy Goodman
There has been much attention, and rightly so, on the CIA’s extensive use of torture, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is said to have documented in its still-classified 6,000-page report. The use of torture is not limited to the CIA, however. It is all too common across the United States. Solitary confinement is torture, and it is used routinely in jails, prisons and immigration detention facilities here at home. Grass-roots movements that have been pressuring for change are beginning to yield significant results. The coalitions include prisoners, their families, a broad swath of legal and social-justice groups and, increasingly, prison guards and officials themselves.
One official who worked to reduce the use of solitary confinement was Tom Clements. The executive director of Colorado’s Department of Corrections, Clements was at home on March 19, 2013, when his doorbell rang. As he opened the door, he was gunned down, murdered by Evan Ebel, who had been released from solitary confinement directly to the street less than two months earlier. The small, nonprofit Colorado Independent was the only outlet to link the murder to the psychological damage that Ebel suffered in solitary confinement. Another ex-prisoner who corresponded with Ebel disclosed text messages with him, shortly before Ebel killed Clements. One text read, “im just feeling peculiar & the only way i know i know to remedy that is via use of ‘violence.’”
Ironically, Clements was trying, successfully, to reform Colorado’s solitary-confinement policies, referred to there as “administrative segregation.” A year before his murder, Clements told The Colorado Independent’s Susan Greene, “There’s a lot of research around solitary and isolation in recent years, some tied to POWs and some to corrections ... long periods of isolation can be counter-productive to stable behavior and long-term rehabilitation goals.” He was concerned with the direct release of prisoners from solitary back into the community, a practice that likely contributed to his murder. His successor, Rick Raemisch, continues to pursue the reforms started by Tom Clements. Raemisch subjected himself to over 20 hours in solitary, and emerged even more committed to changing the system.
Juan Mendez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, issued a special report on solitary confinement in 2011, concluding “Segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, Supermax, the hole, Secure Housing Unit (SHU) ... whatever the name, solitary confinement should be banned by states as a punishment or extortion technique.” His latest full report on global torture includes several noted alleged excesses by the United States, including abusive solitary confinement practiced from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to New York state, Louisiana and California. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/solitary_confinement_is_not_the_answer_20140507
May 7, 2014
One of the primary arguments made for investing in bus rapid transit (BRT) is that such systems can be implemented not only more cheaply, but also with more ease, than rail lines.
A look at the situation in Nashville suggests that there are limitations to that “ease.”
Much like in cities across the country, residents of Nashville have strenuously debated the merits of investing in a 7.1-mile, $174 million BRT line called the Amp. The project would link the city’s east and west sides, running from the Five Points in East Nashville through downtown to St. Thomas Hospital, past the city’s West End. With dedicated lanes along 80% of its route, frequent service, pre-paid boarding, level platforms, transit signal priority, and an improved streetscape to boot, the line could potentially serve about 5,000 rides a day, double the existing demand. In this year’s federal budget, the Department of Transportation recommended allocating it $75 million over the next few years.
From a pure public transportation perspective, the line makes perfect sense: It serves the city’s central east-west spine. Within a half-mile of its stations are 33% of the county’s jobs (132,000 of about 400,000) and 5% of its population (32,000 people), and it is currently undergoing something of a building boom. It would link several hospitals, Vanderbilt University, the downtown core, the transit center, and several tourist attractions. And it would offer transit service speeds similar to those available for private automobiles today. ...............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2014/04/03/is-effective-transit-possible-in-a-transit-hostile-city/
Is Effective Transit Possible in a Transit-Hostile City?
» Despite the sound intentions from the mayor, opposition may kill Nashville’s BRT project.
One of the primary arguments made for investing in bus rapid transit (BRT) is that such systems can be implemented not only more cheaply, but also with more ease, than rail lines.
A look at the situation in Nashville suggests that there are limitations to that “ease.”
Much like in cities across the country, residents of Nashville have strenuously debated the merits of investing in a 7.1-mile, $174 million BRT line called the Amp. The project would link the city’s east and west sides, running from the Five Points in East Nashville through downtown to St. Thomas Hospital, past the city’s West End. With dedicated lanes along 80% of its route, frequent service, pre-paid boarding, level platforms, transit signal priority, and an improved streetscape to boot, the line could potentially serve about 5,000 rides a day, double the existing demand. In this year’s federal budget, the Department of Transportation recommended allocating it $75 million over the next few years.
From a pure public transportation perspective, the line makes perfect sense: It serves the city’s central east-west spine. Within a half-mile of its stations are 33% of the county’s jobs (132,000 of about 400,000) and 5% of its population (32,000 people), and it is currently undergoing something of a building boom. It would link several hospitals, Vanderbilt University, the downtown core, the transit center, and several tourist attractions. And it would offer transit service speeds similar to those available for private automobiles today. ...............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2014/04/03/is-effective-transit-possible-in-a-transit-hostile-city/
May 7, 2014
[font size="1"]Railroad tracks leading to New York City’s Penn Station from under the Hudson River. (AP Photo/Peter Morgan)[/font]
The end may be near for the New York region's cross-harbor rail tunnels, with no good alternative in sight.
“I’m being told we got something less than 20 years before we have to shut one or two down,” said Amtrak C.E.O. Joseph Boardman at the Regional Plan Association’s conference last week at the Waldorf Astoria. “Something less than 20. I don’t know if that something less than 20 is seven, or some other number. But to build two new ones, you’re talking seven to nine years to deliver, if we all decided today that we could do it."
Tom Wright, the Regional Plan Association’s executive director, described Boardman’s remarks as “a big shock.”
“I’ve been hearing abstractly people at Amtrak and other people at New Jersey Transit say for years the tunnels are over 100 years old and we have to be worried about them,” he said. “To actually have Joe put something concrete on the table, less than 20 years … Within my office, there was a level of, ‘Wow, this is really serious.'” ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544757/clock-ticking-hudson-crossings-amtrak-warns
NY: Clock ticking on Hudson crossings, Amtrak warns
[font size="1"]Railroad tracks leading to New York City’s Penn Station from under the Hudson River. (AP Photo/Peter Morgan)[/font]
The end may be near for the New York region's cross-harbor rail tunnels, with no good alternative in sight.
“I’m being told we got something less than 20 years before we have to shut one or two down,” said Amtrak C.E.O. Joseph Boardman at the Regional Plan Association’s conference last week at the Waldorf Astoria. “Something less than 20. I don’t know if that something less than 20 is seven, or some other number. But to build two new ones, you’re talking seven to nine years to deliver, if we all decided today that we could do it."
Tom Wright, the Regional Plan Association’s executive director, described Boardman’s remarks as “a big shock.”
“I’ve been hearing abstractly people at Amtrak and other people at New Jersey Transit say for years the tunnels are over 100 years old and we have to be worried about them,” he said. “To actually have Joe put something concrete on the table, less than 20 years … Within my office, there was a level of, ‘Wow, this is really serious.'” ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544757/clock-ticking-hudson-crossings-amtrak-warns
May 7, 2014
Estimated boardings on SunRail for Thursday and Friday last week were more than 10,000 both days — about twice the number predicted.
To cope with demand, Orlando's brand-new commuter rail service is adding an extra mid-day train, and Volusia County officials are adding weekday shuttle service to the DeBary station from two parking areas.
But ridership is expected to return to around 5,000 riders daily once passengers have to start paying in the middle of the month.
Meanwhile, Rep. John Mica says while he missed SunRail's inauguration, he’s looking forward to trying out the train. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.wnyc.org/story/sunrail-exceeding-ridership-expectations-officials/
Orlando: SunRail Exceeding Ridership Expectations: Officials
Estimated boardings on SunRail for Thursday and Friday last week were more than 10,000 both days — about twice the number predicted.
To cope with demand, Orlando's brand-new commuter rail service is adding an extra mid-day train, and Volusia County officials are adding weekday shuttle service to the DeBary station from two parking areas.
But ridership is expected to return to around 5,000 riders daily once passengers have to start paying in the middle of the month.
Meanwhile, Rep. John Mica says while he missed SunRail's inauguration, he’s looking forward to trying out the train. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.wnyc.org/story/sunrail-exceeding-ridership-expectations-officials/
May 7, 2014
(In These Times) Several years ago, the United Auto Workers began a campaign to unionize roughly 4,000 workers at the Nissan auto plant in Canton, Mississippi. Organizers knew from experience that they would have to reach beyond the factory walls for support in order to achieve their goal. In many ways, the campaign has already made that leap—students at local college campuses have created support groups, and workers as far away as Brazil recently rallied to support a worker whom management had disciplined for his pro-union activities.
And on Monday, April 28, the UAW took that mission another step further. Along with the union federation IndustriALL, it officially requested that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an influential organization of 34 relatively wealthy industrial countries, initiate a review of Nissan’s observance of OECD labor rights standards.
Under this procedure, the “National Contact Point” (NCP) of the United States—a State Department official—would review Nissan’s labor rights record and invite the participation of officials from the UAW, IndustriALL, Japan (Nissan’s corporate home), France (the base for Renault, a major investor in Nissan), and the Netherlands (corporate base for the Renault-Nissan Alliance).
If the unions and the corporation both agree to participate in the process, the American NCP will gather facts about the Canton plant for three months, most likely carrying on confidential talks with the NCPs from other countries. Eventually, he could recommend bringing in a mediator, likely the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Generally, some agreement is reached—or the case is closed—within a year’s time. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16646/uaw_reminds_nissan_that_the_world_is_watching
UAW Calls in the Cavalry to Combat ‘Culture of Fear’ at Nissan Plant
(In These Times) Several years ago, the United Auto Workers began a campaign to unionize roughly 4,000 workers at the Nissan auto plant in Canton, Mississippi. Organizers knew from experience that they would have to reach beyond the factory walls for support in order to achieve their goal. In many ways, the campaign has already made that leap—students at local college campuses have created support groups, and workers as far away as Brazil recently rallied to support a worker whom management had disciplined for his pro-union activities.
And on Monday, April 28, the UAW took that mission another step further. Along with the union federation IndustriALL, it officially requested that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an influential organization of 34 relatively wealthy industrial countries, initiate a review of Nissan’s observance of OECD labor rights standards.
Under this procedure, the “National Contact Point” (NCP) of the United States—a State Department official—would review Nissan’s labor rights record and invite the participation of officials from the UAW, IndustriALL, Japan (Nissan’s corporate home), France (the base for Renault, a major investor in Nissan), and the Netherlands (corporate base for the Renault-Nissan Alliance).
If the unions and the corporation both agree to participate in the process, the American NCP will gather facts about the Canton plant for three months, most likely carrying on confidential talks with the NCPs from other countries. Eventually, he could recommend bringing in a mediator, likely the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Generally, some agreement is reached—or the case is closed—within a year’s time. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16646/uaw_reminds_nissan_that_the_world_is_watching
May 7, 2014
Lynne Cheney, wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested the Clintons are behind Monica Lewinsky's new essay in Vanity Fair.
Lewinsky is speaking out for the first time in years about her affair with former President Bill Clinton and the internet fallout that followed in the latest issue of the magazine, which will be available digitally on May 8 and on newsstands May 13. She credited her decision to come forward after years of silence to Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old who committed suicide after video of him kissing another man was broadcast online.
But Cheney suggested former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, could be behind the essay.
"I really wonder if this isn't an effort on the Clintons' part to get that story out of the way," Cheney said during an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, who guest-hosted "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday night. "Would Vanity Fair publish anything about Monica Lewinsky that Hillary didn't want in Vanity Fair?" ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/lynne-cheney-monica-lewinsky_n_5279874.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
Frogs, blood water, locusts, boils ..... and the Cheney family
Lynne Cheney, wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested the Clintons are behind Monica Lewinsky's new essay in Vanity Fair.
Lewinsky is speaking out for the first time in years about her affair with former President Bill Clinton and the internet fallout that followed in the latest issue of the magazine, which will be available digitally on May 8 and on newsstands May 13. She credited her decision to come forward after years of silence to Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old who committed suicide after video of him kissing another man was broadcast online.
But Cheney suggested former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, could be behind the essay.
"I really wonder if this isn't an effort on the Clintons' part to get that story out of the way," Cheney said during an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, who guest-hosted "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday night. "Would Vanity Fair publish anything about Monica Lewinsky that Hillary didn't want in Vanity Fair?" ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/lynne-cheney-monica-lewinsky_n_5279874.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
May 7, 2014
from truthdig:
All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power
Posted on May 6, 2014
Johnson and the Bankers’ Economy
In his spirited inaugural speech on January 20, 1965, Johnson declared, “In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry.”
He made good on his word. When Johnson began his second term, 20 percent of people in America were living in poverty. Between 1965 and 1968 he raised federal expenditures addressing the War on Poverty from $6 billion to $12 billion (Nixon would double the figure again to $24.5 billion by 1974). That spending, in conjunction with a booming economy, made a big impact. When Johnson left office in 1969, the poverty rate in America had dropped to 14 percent.
On February 18, 1965, Johnson increased his focus on his friends in finance. He invited Rockefeller, Weinberg, and other prominent bankers to an intimate White House dinner to discuss his voluntary program for an early reduction in the balance of payments deficit. His plan would require each of their firms to curtail their international transactions so as to limit dollar outflow, a request that brought the ire of Wriston when it came from Kennedy but solicited no such reprimand under Johnson.
........(snip)........
Regarding the Great Society, bankers were also becoming lukewarm. In truth, the success of those policies mattered less to bankers than overseas growth did. As long as bankers were making money and increasing their global influence, what happened domestically was of secondary importance; providing support to Johnson was no hardship. But now they were growing wary of backing Johnson’s efforts. In 1966 Johnson signed the Participation Sales Act, which encouraged substitution of public credit with private credit. The initiative, started by Eisenhower and extended by President Kennedy’s 1962 Committee on Federal Credit programs, was meant to be a favor to the bankers.
By replacing $3.3 billion in outstanding public debt (through government-issued bonds) with private debt (or bank-issued bonds), the government effectively converted public loans into private loans for the banks, giving them $3.3 billion of business guaranteed by the US government. Soon after the bill was signed, Johnson’s aide Robert Kintner suggested that Johnson form a confidential program to determine how “important business, financial, and industrial leaders feel toward the job being done by the President and particularly how they feel in relation to the Vietnam operation, the President’s European and Latin American policies, the character and duration of prosperity, and the President’s economic, financial and social policies.” The survey would be based on off-the-record interviews with prominent figures including David Rockefeller, Sidney Weinberg, Roger Blough, and Bobby Lehman. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/all_the_presidents_bankers_the_hidden_alliances_that_drive_american_power_2
All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power
from truthdig:
All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power
Posted on May 6, 2014
The following excerpt is from Truthdig contributor Nomi Prins’ bestselling new book “All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power.” In this section, Prins writes about the period during the administration of Lyndon Johnson when bankers began to move away from the president as they saw their global ambitions hemmed in by the Vietnam War.
Johnson and the Bankers’ Economy
In his spirited inaugural speech on January 20, 1965, Johnson declared, “In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry.”
He made good on his word. When Johnson began his second term, 20 percent of people in America were living in poverty. Between 1965 and 1968 he raised federal expenditures addressing the War on Poverty from $6 billion to $12 billion (Nixon would double the figure again to $24.5 billion by 1974). That spending, in conjunction with a booming economy, made a big impact. When Johnson left office in 1969, the poverty rate in America had dropped to 14 percent.
On February 18, 1965, Johnson increased his focus on his friends in finance. He invited Rockefeller, Weinberg, and other prominent bankers to an intimate White House dinner to discuss his voluntary program for an early reduction in the balance of payments deficit. His plan would require each of their firms to curtail their international transactions so as to limit dollar outflow, a request that brought the ire of Wriston when it came from Kennedy but solicited no such reprimand under Johnson.
........(snip)........
Regarding the Great Society, bankers were also becoming lukewarm. In truth, the success of those policies mattered less to bankers than overseas growth did. As long as bankers were making money and increasing their global influence, what happened domestically was of secondary importance; providing support to Johnson was no hardship. But now they were growing wary of backing Johnson’s efforts. In 1966 Johnson signed the Participation Sales Act, which encouraged substitution of public credit with private credit. The initiative, started by Eisenhower and extended by President Kennedy’s 1962 Committee on Federal Credit programs, was meant to be a favor to the bankers.
By replacing $3.3 billion in outstanding public debt (through government-issued bonds) with private debt (or bank-issued bonds), the government effectively converted public loans into private loans for the banks, giving them $3.3 billion of business guaranteed by the US government. Soon after the bill was signed, Johnson’s aide Robert Kintner suggested that Johnson form a confidential program to determine how “important business, financial, and industrial leaders feel toward the job being done by the President and particularly how they feel in relation to the Vietnam operation, the President’s European and Latin American policies, the character and duration of prosperity, and the President’s economic, financial and social policies.” The survey would be based on off-the-record interviews with prominent figures including David Rockefeller, Sidney Weinberg, Roger Blough, and Bobby Lehman. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/all_the_presidents_bankers_the_hidden_alliances_that_drive_american_power_2
May 7, 2014
An overwhelming majority of voters would support sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court, as trust and confidence in the institution has eroded in recent years, according to a new survey by the Democratic-aligned firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.
Wide majorities disagree with the recent 5-4 party-line rulings that have upended a century of campaign finance law and tilted the rules in favor of the extremely wealthy and major corporations. The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less.
By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines. John Roberts swore before Congress during his confirmation hearings that he had great respect for precedent. But once confirmed as chief justice, he embarked on a remarkable run of conservative judicial activism that has favored the wealthy while undermining affirmative action and protection for voting rights.
Overall approval of the Supreme Court has been falling since its 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, according to Gallup. ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/supreme-court-poll_n_5279535.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
Wide Majorities Losing Faith In John Roberts' Supreme Court, Want Term Limits
An overwhelming majority of voters would support sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court, as trust and confidence in the institution has eroded in recent years, according to a new survey by the Democratic-aligned firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.
Wide majorities disagree with the recent 5-4 party-line rulings that have upended a century of campaign finance law and tilted the rules in favor of the extremely wealthy and major corporations. The landmark Citizens United ruling was opposed by a whopping 80-18 margin. The more recent McCutcheon decision, which lifted caps on total giving, was said by a 51 percent majority to be likely to create more corruption, while 8 percent suggested it would lead to less.
By a 60-36 spread, those surveyed said that Supreme Court justices were more likely to be carrying out a personal or political agenda than working to render a fair and impartial judgment, an opinion that cut across party lines. John Roberts swore before Congress during his confirmation hearings that he had great respect for precedent. But once confirmed as chief justice, he embarked on a remarkable run of conservative judicial activism that has favored the wealthy while undermining affirmative action and protection for voting rights.
Overall approval of the Supreme Court has been falling since its 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, according to Gallup. ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/supreme-court-poll_n_5279535.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,080