"Vampires Of Finance" And Their Bought Republican Congress

(click on image to enlarge)

(Tom Toles, once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle)

The banks, hedge funds and other Wall Street "creators of wealth" -- largely for themselves -- have a right-wing Republican Congress in their pocket, ready to do their bidding, whether it's on tax cuts for the wealthy or deregulation of their industry. Here's Paul Krugman today on what keeps the "vampires of finance" at bay:

Last year the vampires of finance bought themselves a Congress. I know it’s not nice to call them that, but I have my reasons, which I’ll explain in a bit. For now, however, let’s just note that these days Wall Street, which used to split its support between the parties, overwhelmingly favors the G.O.P. And the Republicans who came to power this year are returning the favor by trying to kill Dodd-Frank, the financial reform enacted in 2010.

And why must Dodd-Frank die? Because it’s working.

This statement may surprise progressives who believe that nothing significant has been done to rein in runaway bankers. And it’s true both that reform fell well short of what we really should have done and that it hasn’t yielded obvious, measurable triumphs like the gains in insurance thanks to Obamacare.

But Wall Street hates reform for a reason, and a closer look shows why.

Be sure to read Krugman's op/ed, in which he lists the reforms "the vampires of finance" (and Republicans) hate, that are working thanks to Dodd-Frank, like regulation of derivatives and abusive lending practices.  And the "vampire" analogy?  It's all about the "sunlight:"

... [A]lmost nobody wants to be seen as a bought and paid-for servant of the financial industry, least of all those who really are exactly that.

And this in turn means that so far, at least, the vampires are getting a lot less than they expected for their money. Republicans would love to undo Dodd-Frank, but they are, rightly, afraid of the glare of publicity that defenders of reform like Senator Warren — who inspires a remarkable amount of fear in the unrighteous — would shine on their efforts.

It's yet another issue that defines the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party as working assiduously for the interests of the wealthy 1 per cent against the interests of the middle- and working classes.  It's only progressive fighters like Sen. Warren, who can get the attention-deficit "mainstream media" to take notice, that are keeping them at bay.

Baltimore And The Choices We've Made

(click on image to enlarge)

(Matt Wuerker, Politico, via gocomics.com)

In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof tells us that "inequality is a choice":

THE eruptions in Baltimore have been tied, in complex ways, to frustrations at American inequality, and a new measure of the economic gaps arrived earlier this year:

It turns out that the Wall Street bonus pool in 2014 was roughly twice the total annual earnings of all Americans working full time at the federal minimum wage.

You read that right: Just the annual bonuses for just the sliver of Americans who work just in finance just in New York City dwarfed the combined year-round earnings of all Americans earning the federal minimum wage.  (our emphasis)

And why is that, you say?

We as a nation have chosen to prioritize tax shelters over minimum wages, subsidies for private jets over robust services for children to break the cycle of poverty. And the political conversation is often not about free rides by corporations, but about free rides by the impoverished.

Kristof cites an upcoming book by British economist Anthony Atkinson that offers policy recommendations should we, as a nation, ever want to get serious about addressing the issues of poverty, inequality and the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a wealthy elite.  Here are a few of Atkinson's recommendations, as summarized by Kristof:

o Trade unions should be bolstered to represent workers’ interests.

o Government should provide public-sector jobs at minimum wage to those who want them, in areas such as meals-on-wheels, elderly care, child care and so on.

o In addition to a minimum wage, there should be a framework to restrain pay at the highest levels. Atkinson cites companies that have voluntarily decreed that executive pay should be capped at 65 or 75 times the average pay in the firm.

o Every child should get a “child benefit” payment, to help keep kids out of poverty.

2016 could be a defining election in this regard, because the contrast couldn't be greater between the Republican Party's interest in protecting the wealthy few at the expense of the middle and working classes, and the Democratic Party's interest in promoting economic and social equality.  But, as Kristof concludes: "The problem isn’t inequality; the problem is us. We’re paralyzed."

There's one way to begin to end the paralysis, and that starts in November 2016.

BONUS:  Robert Reich has a good read on economic inequality and what we need to do to address it.

"Clueless"

After reading Paul Krugman's blog item on Obama's statement that he "doesn't begrudge" the millions in bonuses to JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon ($17mil) and Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein ($9mil) are hauling in, we must say in accord with Krugman: Oh. My. God.

We can't lay the blame this time on Geithner, or Summers, or Rahmbo. No, unfortunately this case of catastrophic tin ear is all Obama.