Here we go again. When Bill Clinton suffered an electoral reversal after his first two years in office, he abruptly embraced the corporate money guys who had financed his congressional opposition in an effort to purchase a second term. On Tuesday in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece, Barack Obama veered sharply down that same course, trumpeting his executive order: "to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. ..."
He employed the same "creating a 21st-century regulatory system" rationalization used by Clinton when he signed off on the sweeping deregulation legislation that unleashed the Wall Street greed that ended up being the biggest job-killer since the Great Depression. "Over the (past) seven years, we have tried to modernize the economy," Clinton enthused as he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed key New Deal legislation, adding, "And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority." Modernizing was the propaganda constant, as in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that Clinton signed, thus shielding financial derivatives from any government regulation.
That deregulation, as Obama concedes in his WSJ column, led to "a lack of proper oversight and transparency (that) nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale depression." But Obama now promises that his deregulation efforts will be more sensibly targeted and will "bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislatures of both parties and influence of special interests in Washington over decades."
When he wrote that he intends to accomplish this revamp "with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens," did he have in mind his two new key White House advisers who were the most effective advocates for those special interests? Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, was the Washington lobbyist for the housing behemoth Fannie Mae, which will cost taxpayers $700 billion because of its marketing of toxic derivatives. Obama's new Chief of Staff William Daley was the lead Washington representative for a similarly afflicted JPMorgan Chase. These are the folks, along with many other Wall Street alums in this administration, who will oversee the latest update of already weakened regulations.
The first target will be the administration's puny efforts to protect consumers: "The move is the latest effort by the White House to repair relations with corporate America," the Wall Street Journal's report on Obama's column stated, "Business leaders say an explosion in new regulations stemming from the president's health-care and financial regulatory overhauls has, along with the sluggish economy, made them reluctant to spend on expansion and hiring. Companies are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash and liquid assets, the most since World War II."
This is a case of corporate blackmail pure and simple. The economy is sluggish because of a housing crisis that shows no sign of improvement. It stands history on its head to blame government financial regulations that had worked splendidly for six decades for the meltdown or the failure to fix a housing market that is the key to improved consumer spending.
Fixing housing would require efforts to keep the 50 million Americans whose mortgages are underwater in their homes. But the government bailouts under both George W. Bush and Obama have not required any significant cramp-down or reappraisal of mortgages by banks to enable people to stay in their homes. Instead the Fed and Treasury have flooded the banks and top corporations with cheap money and bailouts but, in the classic problem of pushing on a string, the corporate ingrates are hoarding that money.
Obama, and the party he heads, failed to provide a progressive narrative during November's election holding the financial elite that created this mess responsible. The key issue is not big government or onerous regulation but rather transparency and fraud prevention. When you are evicted it is a government agent, a marshal or sheriff, who will force you out, so shouldn't the government also be involved in assuring that the consumer is protected by a properly vetted contract? Instead the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spearheaded the marketing of an alternative narrative, as successful as it was devious, by Republican candidates that held regulation -- rather than deregulation -- responsible for the mess. Now Obama seems poised to join their ranks. As the WSJ reported:
On Feb. 7, Mr. Obama will visit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- a chief opponent to his administration's regulatory approach -- for a discussion on how the White House can work with the group to create jobs. The efforts are designed to give companies more confidence in the president's stewardship of the economy, and bolster his re-election prospects among a wealthy constituency not traditionally allied with Democrats.
A constituency that Daley, Obama's new chief of staff, can faithfully represent, having received $5 million a year from JPMorgan Chase. And so ends the season of hope for the less wealthy constituency traditionally allied with Democrats.
For example: have you ever heard of Republicans voting for a Republican President who turned out to be a Progressive? Name me a Republican President that turned Democrat? Yet Obama joins Bill in behaving, acting and promoting Republican core principles: why? Reagan did not become a Democrat when the Dems took over The Hill. Why since Carter do our Democrat Presidents turn Republican?
We have many Democrat House and Senators who vote with Republicans. How many Republican Senators vote like Democrats? Well only when Democrats act and vote like Republicans.
We need a 3rd party of the center left or left: to counter the 2 party system of Total War and eternal Republican Tax Cuts.
Obama didn't just start doing this. He has been making deals with the Right for his entire term.
What is sad is I think when next election rolls around, you and most the progressives will back Obama fully. Even though the guy is ordering drone bombing, that the State department admits is killing 98% civilians and 2% "bad" guys.
The peace movement was largely ruined by the progressive writers and progressive sites, because they are hypocrits to the 10th power. I no longer support any democrats or "progressives" for what they have pulled over these last few years.
After over 9 years, the peace movement has done absolutely no good (everything has continually spiraled downward). The U.S. continues, under a "democratic" president, to bomb human beings, including thousands of children, the middle east and elsewhere.
"The length of the speech and the constant reminder to the audience that an innocent was horribly lost. Her family, who were seated in the audience, were constantly reminded by the president that they had suffered the most horrible tragedy in life. A respectful short reference would have been appropriatÂe, if this was indeed a memorial to the injured and fallen.
The hand-clappÂing of the audience at most inappropriÂate times was repugnant, indicating that more was being attempted here of an opportunisÂtic nature than was easily discernible.
I think that the president should arrange a memorial for all of the innocents that are being killed and injured by his drone aircraft in AfghanistaÂn."
Obama knows what the right thing to do it--he just won't do it.
It's been a long time comin.'
See, that was easy
Obama is a corporate lacky, and I/we got sold a bill of goods.
But if he goes down the deregulation path that Clinton took, it could be the end of us all.
Imagine that!
No luck necessary, btw.
Riiiight.... that's why George Dubai Bush came in and spent and spent and spent and spent. Same Gooptards in Congress, different results... that's why the spending trends ALWAYS follow the POTUS, not the congress. Which you'd know, if your opinion were fact-based, which it isn't.
Clinton's tax increases and other common sense policies were responsible for the Clinton Boom, not the failed and fraud-based ideology of conservatives, which produced failure and fraud both before and after Clinton... just by amazing coincidence, you're claiming.
Republicans in charge produces failure and fraud every time. But the POTUS still writes the budget and sets the spending priorities, no matter how desperately you claim otherwise. The facts just aren't on your side, which is why conservatives hate facts so much.
The weird thing is that its a transparent con game, seen by anyone simply willing to pay the slightest bit of attention. Unless we insist on the break up of the two party monopoly, our country will always be sold down the river to the highest bidder.
Every president has to deal with political reality. Even Bush did. His last two years he tried to pass immigration reform and in reality laid the foundation to end the Iraq war because Dems took Congress.
Independents swung towards Republicans, and Republicans turned out in exceptionally high numbers.
So there is no reason Obama would ever move farther left.
No shifting, "triangulation", flip-flopping or whatever else need take place to win the voters back. The only thing the Democrats should do is what's right so that this country moves forward. And let's face it, the same old same old Republican policies are not what is right and will not help improve things. No, only solid efforts to push "core" Democratic policies will do the trick. As conditions improve people will stop voting for the other guys just because they are upset (because they won't be upset).
I suspect that the overeager desire to see another Clinton is clouding the ability of some pundits to understand what's really going on. It's time to stop living in the past and come to terms with the new political realities.
Obama directly refuted Clinton style deregulation in the Op-Ed. Concluding that he plans to do exactly what he denounced is nonsensical. Unless you think the government is an omnipotent force with nothing but perfect regulatory functions, then this sort of review makes sense and it could result in new regulation progressives will like. I guess there's still an online audience for the kind of speculation and conjecture in this piece, but I've crowd tired of it. Obama did provide a progressive narrative during the last election, but the netroots ignored it because putting a magnifying glass on every sign that he might move to the right is apparently more fun.