Elizabeth Warren tells her Bloomberg Television audience this weekend that,
"It isn't meaningful to talk about profits and a growing economy until American families are stabilized," as she discusses ongoing, obscene Wall Street bonuses amidst the greatest economic disparity ever measured between our country's social classes in: "
Wall Street Bonuses Show `We Still Have a Problem,' Obama Aide Warren Says."
The corrupt practices, lies and deceptions of eight years of Bush laissez-faire mismanagement are the same corrupt practices, lies and deceptions we're confronting almost two years after he left office. (Assuming those in power will even attempt to deal with these matters effectively--and that's a big assumption--it will take many more years just to rectify this, too.)
When it comes to Main Street's economic "collapse" -- as even the President and former President Clinton referred to it late last week -- at least as far as most voters are concerned, matters are getting worse, flatlining (and/or some call this "stabilizing"), or improving at such a snail's pace, that the use of the word, "recovery," is politically off-putting.
We were warned. Vociferously. Repeatedly. It's "
The Quiet Coup" and the "
Two-Track Economy" that it has wrought.
As BrooklyBadBoy so eloquently explains it today, in "Barack Obama, tax cuts and the role of Mediator in Chief," reliance upon process over substance within an inherently corrupt system, where "the banks (still) run the place," is not a politically nor socially effective solution.
Wall Street Bonuses Show `We Still Have a Problem,' Obama Aide Warren Says
Carter Dougherty
Bloomberg
Fri Dec 10 15:26:52 GMT 2010
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Elizabeth Warren, the White House adviser in charge of setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, talks with Judy Woodruff about Wall Street profits and executive bonus payouts amid an unstable economy. (This is an excerpt of the full interview to air this weekend on "Conversations With Judy Woodruff." Source: Bloomberg)
Wall Street banks reaping profits and paying bonuses while the rest of the country struggles shows "we still have a problem" with economic disparity, said Elizabeth Warren, the Obama administration adviser responsible for setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
"This just staggers me; I mean, I just don't have words to describe what this means," she said in an interview for Bloomberg Television's "Conversations With Judy Woodruff" that will be broadcast this weekend. "For me, what an economic recovery is about is about what happens to American families. It's what happens in the real economy. It's whether or not families are building up wealth in their homes or whether or not their homes are dragging them over an economic cliff."
"It isn't meaningful to talk about profits and a growing economy until American families are stabilized," she said...
CLASS DISPARITY METRICS HAVE NEVER BEEN GREATER THAN THEY ARE TODAY
Even Zero Hedge reminded us on Friday of "...what is gradually becoming accepted as the most troubling social, economic and political development in America - record social, income and wealth inequality... and its very disturbing consequences, which at last check have resulted in some form of social upheaval in almost every situation. "
WE ARE CREATING "A POTENTIAL LOST GENERATION OF YOUNG AMERICANS"
Charles Blow had a very brief column in Saturday's NY Times, "America's Most Vulnerable," which, aside from a mention in the DKos "Pundit Roundup," generated nary a word in the community.
America's Most Vulnerable
By CHARLES M. BLOW
New York Times
December 11, 2010
As we begin inevitably wrangling over budget cuts and other austerity measures, we must not lose sight of the plight of the most vulnerable among us -- the ones who have little say and few choices: the nation's poorest children.
The gap between those children and the rest of our children is already unacceptably wide, and it can't afford to get wider. In fact, a report entitled "The Children Left Behind," released by Unicef last Friday, examined inequality in well-being on a wide range of measures among children in 24 of the world's richest countries. America's rankings were among the worst.
Parents play a large role in this inequality, but so do policies. As the report wisely asks, "Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?"
Economist and Netroots Nation discussion leader Mike Konzcal put up some stats on Friday concerning the, "Employment-Population Ratio, Young People: A Potential Lost Generation Of Young Americans."
(I have a niece majoring in journalism in her senior year at a major university who's looking around for an internship, and she found out about an opportunity at the Philadelphia Inquirer. After further investigation, she discovered that the paper's policy was that interns have to pay the paper $600 to participate in the program! There's more about this in Konzcal's post, below, in the link: "Interns Built the Pyramids.")
Employment-Population Ratio, Young People: A Potential Lost Generation Of Young Americans.
Mike Konczal
Rortybomb.com
December 10, 2010
Ed Burmila walks through the horror of trend stories about happy, young, unpaid interns on-the-go in Interns Built the Pyramids. Anyone who works with young people is aware of the lack of jobs and opportunities, from the most disadvantaged through those who leave college with fresh skills. The lucky end up in non-paying internships, a nice little inequality generating machine for the 21st century.
If you wonder why people are so worried about the current unemployment crisis, look at these two statistics of the employment-population ratio rate of young people in the United States:
CHART: Employment-Population Ratio, Young People (Seasonally Adjusted)
A 10% drop in the amount of young people working as a result of this recession. That's 10% more people detached from the labor market and with decades of lost wages. That's 10% more people with fewer opportunities to develop their capabilities and build the American economy over the 21st century. And that is a generational crisis unless we get a serious attempt to fix this economy and put people to work.
While our supposed "representatives" in government pass brutally-flawed, Bush tax cut extension legislation which all but insures an even greater economic crisis at the state and municipal level, in coming months, others speak of "our generational crisis," and our need for "a serious attempt to fix this economy and put people to work."
So, let's talk about what's really needed, not what misguided faux pragmatists tell us the corrupt "process" will "allow," at this point in time. Because, basic logic tells us...
MANAGERS OF A CORRUPT "PROCESS" WILL ONLY SUPPORT A CORRUPT "SOLUTION" (And, that is what we, in effect, have today.)
So, let's talk about making all the RIGHT moves, and not settling for less.
This year, it's about about the basics: the ongoing and projected suffering of our children, and those in our society "too poor to make the news."
Since when does being "pragmatic" mean we that we should ignore this? Or, this?
IMHO, that means standing up and fighting for what you believe in; not arguing about why you can't. It means reminding yourself--and everyone with whom you communicate--about what we should be doing, instead of bickering about the finer points of grossly-flawed initiatives; especially when those results wreak of fail from jump street (right through to the point where "the fail"--due to the corrupt process--becomes "the law").
It means pointing to the latest words from Nobel Prize-winner Joe Stiglitz (I'll say it once again, and I've stated this in my diaries a dozen or more times before: Stiglitz gets my vote for being the most important thinker on the planet right now). Unfortunately, as University of Oregon Economics Professor Mark Thoma reminds us, Gary, Indiana-born Stiglitz' thoughts--widely revered virtually everywhere around the globe except here, at home--have: "...little chance of being enacted because it goes [they go] against 'corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate America's policymaking.'"
In tandem with that pragmatic truth, Stiglitz' progressive suggestions fly in the face of all the corporate kleptocracy and "pragmatist" bullshit being shovelled up by the status quo and their obedient MSM.
Meanwhile, us "unpragmatic" progressives, along with the rest of the voting public, are observing our respective daily realities where we're constantly reminded of:
--record breaking class inequality that is getting worse;
--joblessness going nowhere fast, and certainly not improving, appreciably;
--a housing situation already in a double-dip recession;
--and poverty growing by leaps and bounds
So, here's Stiglitz reminding us of where the goalposts are as he notes that--contrary to government spin--a punt is not a field goal kick.
From Mark Thoma: "Stiglitz: Alternatives to Austerity."
Stiglitz: Alternatives to Austerity
Mark Thoma, University of Oregon Economics Professor
Economist's View Blog
December 6th, 2010
Joseph Stiglitz proposes a deficit reduction package that "boosts efficiency, bolsters growth, and reduces inequality," but it has little chance of being enacted because it goes against "corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate America's policymaking."
Stiglitz....
Alternatives to Austerity, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, Project Syndicate: In the aftermath of the Great Recession, countries have been left with unprecedented peacetime deficits and increasing anxieties about their growing national debts. In many countries, this is leading to a new round of austerity...
Technically, reducing a deficit is a straightforward matter: one must either cut expenditures or raise taxes. It is already clear, however, that the deficit-reduction agenda, at least in the US, goes further: it is an attempt to weaken social protections, reduce the progressivity of the tax system, and shrink the role and size of government - all while leaving established interests, like the military-industrial complex, as little affected as possible.
The Nobel laureate tells us that any deficit-reduction effort must be viewed in the context of what has occurred over the past decade:
--massive increase in our defense budget(s);
--increased class inequality;
--insufficient investment in the public sector;
--growth in corporate welfare (encompassing everything from Wall Street bailouts to ethanol subsidies, and then onto continued agricultural subsidies)
To get a progressive deficit-reduction back on track, Stiglitz tells us it must be comprised of "five core ingredients:"
-- spending on high-return public investments should be increased;
-- military expenditures must be cut;
-- we must eliminate corporate welfare;
-- create a fairer and more efficient tax system, which would include eliminating the special treatment of capital gains and dividends;
-- and, "...finally, with more than 20% of all income going to the top 1%, a slight increase, say 5%, in taxes actually paid would bring in more than $1 trillion over the course of a decade"
...A deficit-reduction package crafted along these lines would more than meet even the most ardent deficit hawk's demands. It would increase efficiency, promote growth, improve the environment, and benefit workers and the middle class.
There's only one problem: it wouldn't benefit those at the top, or the corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate America's policymaking. Its compelling logic is precisely why there is little chance that such a reasonable proposal would ever be adopted.
And, back to Thoma...
The successful objections to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for upper end taxpayers reinforces the claim that the deficit reduction agenda has been captured by powerful interests. Similarly with calls to increase the retirement age for Social Security, which is regressive, rather than the progressive solution of lifting the income cap on Social Security taxes. I'd be more confident about the deficit reduction process if I thought the White House would take strong stands to defend core Democratic interests. But it's clear that the administration folds as soon as the negotiations gets tough, and that it cannot be trusted to do this.
# # #
At the moment, it's the holiday season, but as a Democrat I will say that there is NEVER a day in the 365 on the calendar where it's politically expedient to throw our children, the poor and the middle class under the bus. And, IMHO, it's one thing to kick the proverbial can down the road; it's another matter, altogether, to banish future generations and those most in need in our society to a lifetime of hell.
But, that is what's happened and what is STILL happening as I write this.
Don't take my word for it. But, please (if you are not now) make an effort to hear and understand what people such as Elizabeth Warren and Joseph Stiglitz are telling us now.