Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Behind the Bailout
Chomsky, whose recent books include Interventions and The Essential Chomsky, stated:
"Markets have inherent and well-known inefficiencies. One factor is
failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in
transactions. These 'externalities' can be huge. That is particularly
true for financial institutions. Their task is to take risks,
calculating potential costs for themselves. But they do not take into
account the consequences of their losses for the economy as a whole.
Hence the financial market 'underprices risk' and is 'systematically
inefficient,' as John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago,
warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalization and
reviewing the substantial costs already incurred -- and also proposing
solutions, which have been ignored.
"The threat became more severe when the Clinton administration repealed
the Glass-Steagall act of 1933, thus freeing financial institutions 'to
innovate in the new economy,' in ClintonaEURTMs words -- and also 'to
self-destruct, taking down with them the general economy and
international confidence in the U.S. banking system,' financial analyst
Nomi Prins adds. The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be
justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the
profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions,
designed in large measure to socialize cost and risk and privatize
profit, without a public voice. That is, of course, not limited to
financial markets. The advanced economy as a whole relies heavily on
the dynamic state sector, with much the same consequences with regard
to risk, cost, profit, and decisions, crucial features of the economy
and political system."
More Information
NOMI PRINS, via Celeste Balducci
Prins is a former investment banker turned journalist. She used to run
the European analytics group at Bear Stearns and has also worked at
Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. She said today: "With another Sunday
night surprise announcement, this time that Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley have been transformed into Bank Holding Companies, the
dissolution of Glass-Steagall transcends its 1999 repeal. Rather than
risk more pain while scrounging for capital, Goldman (with former CEO
turned Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's help) has positioned itself to
take capital directly from citizens, with all the benefits and federal
safeguards of a commercial bank. Somewhere Senator, and former
Treasurer, Carter Glass, is turning in his grave."
More Information
MAX FRAAD WOLFF
An economist, Wolff just wrote the piece "Cowardly New World," which
states: "Secretary Paulson has attempted to declare himself the most
equal of pigs in our animal house economy. The Treasury seeks more than
$700 billion for itself under the sole auspices of the Secretary whose
management helped bring us right over the brink. I say more because
unlike so many commentators, I read the proposal. It only limits
Treasury to $700 billion in balances at any one time (Section 6). If
they buy $700B and lose 20 percent of the principle ($140B), Treasury
will just buy another $140B. That restores market confidence?"
Wolff is an instructor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs
at the New School University. He is a frequent contributor to
Huffington Post, Asia Times and The Indypendent.
More Information
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
JD Vance Supports Tracking Abortion Seekers
"Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have a dark and dystopian vision for America's future, in which women are hunted across state lines for accessing basic healthcare," said one Democratic lawmaker.
As Republicans feted U.S. Sen. JD Vance Tuesday night at the GOP's national convention, welcoming the author and venture capitalist as presidential nominee Donald Trump's running mate, one of Vance's proposals for the future of abortion rights in the U.S. made national news.
Citing reporting from The Lever, MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow warned viewers about Vance's endorsement of a request by at least 19 Republican attorneys general who asked the Biden administration to allow them access to the medical records of people who travel across state lines, including to states that allow abortion care.
"They want the right to follow women from their states all over the country to see if they might be getting an abortion somewhere. or might be getting any other kind of reproductive care anywhere that they want to bring criminal charges about, so they can use those records for prosecutions," said Maddow.
Last year, she added, Vance joined other GOP lawmakers in pressuring the Biden administration to withdraw a rule it introduced after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The rule prevents state and local police in states that ban abortion from using medical records to prosecute people who have obtained abortion care elsewhere.
"If Donald Trump and JD Vance are elected in November, they will have the power to withdraw the Biden administration's privacy rule on this issue," said Maddow.
Maddow's warning is "not overstated," said David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever.
As Common Dreamsreported Tuesday, despite recent attempts by the Republican Party and Trump to suggest their ultimate goal is not to prohibit abortion care nationwide, Trump's selection of Vance as his vice presidential nominee elevated a lawmaker who has endorsed a 15-week nationwide ban and has opposed any exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
Vance's support for rescinding President Joe Biden's medical privacy rule exemplifies the "dark and dystopian vision for America's future" that the senator and former president have, said New York state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-28).
"This aspect of the post-Dobbs world is often treated as hyperbole in mainstream news coverage, something that might be theoretically possible but not something that's actually going to happen," wrote Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo of the attack on medical privacy. "But Vance was one of only eight senators who thought [the Biden rule]... endangered 'valid state laws protecting life' and would 'limit cooperation with law enforcement.'"
"He's for real about this stuff," wrote Marshall, denouncing Vance as a "menstrual surveillance hawk."
Why Bernie Sanders Is Thanking Elon Musk
The Vermont senator said Musk has done "an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years—and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday took the unusual step of applauding Elon Musk—but not for reasons that the Tesla CEO and world's richest man would likely find flattering.
In the wake of
reports indicating that Musk plans to inject $45 million per month into a new super PAC supporting former President Donald Trump's bid for another four years in the White House, Sanders (I-Vt.) thanked Musk for doing "an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years—and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society in which billionaires dominate not only our economic life and the information we consume, but our politics as well."
"And let me be clear. While the size of Musk's financial contribution is particularly egregious, he is not alone in attempting to buy this election to further his own needs," Sanders continued. "Other billionaires are also playing a significant role—in both political parties. Oh, I know... here goes Bernie Sanders again about Citizens United and the role of money in politics. I have no shortage of critics who accuse me of being boring and of hammering away at the same themes year after year after year."
"They're probably right. I am repetitious, but that’s because the problems we care about are only getting worse," he added. "Let's be clear. It has never made sense to me, then or now, that a tiny clique of people should have incredible wealth and power while most people have none."
"While people like Elon Musk try to buy elections for Donald Trump, people who work for low wages, have no health insurance, can't afford prescription drugs, and can't find affordable housing are giving up on politics."
Citing unnamed sources, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg reported earlier this week that Musk has pledged to donate $45 million per month to America PAC, whose founding donors include ultra-rich tech investors who are part of Musk's social circle. The New York Timesseparately reported that "one leader of America PAC told a friend that the group expected to have a major donor who would make donations in four batches, adding up to as much as $160 million over the course of the campaign."
The Journal and Bloomberg stories—which Musk denied with a meme that included the words "fake gnus"—followed reports that Musk had already given the super PAC a substantial sum of money despite his March declaration that he is "not donating money to either candidate for U.S. president."
Musk formally endorsed Trump on X—the social media platform Musk owns—following an assassination attempt against the former president this past weekend in Pennsylvania. Conspiracy theories about the attempt on Trump's life proliferated rapidly on X, with the help of Musk himself.
The Tesla CEO's name
did not appear on America PAC's disclosure filings for June, which could mean that he donated to the PAC earlier this month.
Musk, who is worth over $250 billion, is one of more than a dozen billionaires supporting Trump and his newly chosen running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio). Axios and the Times reported Tuesday that Musk personally lobbied Trump to make Vance his vice presidential pick.
Musk and other U.S. billionaires got $1 trillion richer during Trump's first four years in office, gains fueled by massive tax cuts he signed into law in 2017.
Why are billionaires like Peter Thiel, Rupert Murdoch, Stephen Schwartzman, and the owner of this website rallying behind Trump?
Yes, the tax cuts. But there's more.
The more Trump tears down democracy, the safer the oligarchy becomes.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) July 16, 2024
Sanders wrote in his email Tuesday that Musk's influence on the 2024 election could be particularly pronounced given his ownership of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
Musk, Sanders wrote, has used the platform "to amplify the voices of conspiracy theorists who deny the results of the last election and spread the dangerous idea that Democrats want to allow mass, undocumented migration to the country to replace, electorally, the votes of white people."
"The reality is that while people like Elon Musk try to buy elections for Donald Trump, people who work for low wages, have no health insurance, can't afford prescription drugs, and can't find affordable housing are giving up on politics," the senator continued. "They see the rich getting richer as they use their wealth to buy influence, and wonder whether anyone in Washington even knows what is going on in their lives."
Sanders argued that to end the pernicious political influence of Musk and other billionaires, it is essential to elect candidates who support overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that spawned the super PACs now playing a massive role in the nation's elections.
"It is an issue that should concern all Americans—regardless of their political point of view—who wish to live under a government that represents all of the people and not just a handful of powerful special interests," Sanders wrote. "Taking action is not just good politics, it is also good policy. Because the truth is, campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing us today, because it impacts all the others."
Biden Belatedly Embraces Supreme Court Reforms as Right-Wing Justices Wreak Havoc
The president is reportedly planning to endorse term limits for Supreme Court justices—but not adding seats to the bench.
In the wake of rulings that have significantly weakened the regulatory authority of federal agencies, backed the criminalization of homelessness, and granted U.S. presidents sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing to endorse reforms that would establish term limits and a binding code of ethics for the nation's Supreme Court justices—changes that progressive advocates and many Democratic lawmakers have backed for years.
The Washington Postreported late Tuesday that Biden is "finalizing plans" to embrace the proposals "in the coming weeks" as the November presidential election against GOP nominee Donald Trump looms. Trump appointed half of the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority during his first four years in the White House, paving the way for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and other hugely consequential decisions.
Biden told members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—some of the most vocal advocates of substantial court reforms—during a call this past weekend that he was "about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court," according to a transcript obtained by the Post.
But Biden has been facing and resisting pressure to back transformative changes to the high court for years, and it's far from clear that the reforms he's planning to put forth—which would require congressional approval—will satisfy campaigners or members of his party who are calling for high court expansion and other bold changes.
The president, who is facing calls to drop his reelection campaign, has consistently opposed Supreme Court expansion, which is backed by 75% of Democratic voters. The New York Timesreported Tuesday that Biden's forthcoming proposal will likely not back high court expansion.
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement late Tuesday that "elected officials are catching up to the growing consensus among the American people that it is time for court reform."
Term limits for Supreme Court justices are broadly popular with the U.S. public, according to new polling from Data for Progress. Nearly 75% of voters across party lines support ending lifetime terms on the high court, the group found.
The specifics of Biden's plan are unclear. Legislation introduced by House Democrats would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices.
"The Supreme Court should be the gold standard for judicial ethics, but right now, nothing could be further from the truth," Eldridge said Tuesday. "That's why a supermajority of Americans support legislation to enact Supreme Court term limits and a binding code of ethics. It is time for our leaders to listen to the American people and take action to address the growing crisis on our nation's highest court."
"We urge President Biden to support the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act and the TERM Act, which would establish term limits for current and future justices," he added.
Even in the aftermath of rulings that have directly undercut his agenda—such as the high court's decision last year to block his student debt cancellation plan—Biden has dismissed more ambitious proposals to overhaul the Supreme Court, including adding more justices to the bench.
"If we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy, that you can't get back," Biden said last June, ignoring the reality that the high court has already been packed by Republicans.
Elie Mystal, The Nation's justice correspondent, argued Tuesday that term limits and other proposed court reforms are doomed to fail "if you don't expand the court."
"The only way to get term limits is to appoint a majority of justices who think term limits are constitutional," Mystal wrote. "And right now, I don't even know if there are three justices who think they're constitutional, much less the necessary five."
"So, again, the constitutional way to bring the Supreme Court to heel," he added, "is to expand it, then pass your ethics bills and term limit bills, which will then be upheld by the newly expanded court."