“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Dean Baker: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and the Money
Bernie Sanders has made the corrupting role of money in politics a centerpiece of his campaign. He has argued that because campaign contributions by the rich pay for political campaigns, they are able to control the political process. This gives us a political system that is very effective at serving Wall Street and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It is much less effective at serving the needs of ordinary people.
This has created an interesting dynamic in the race for the Democratic nomination. Secretary Clinton has flipped Sanders’ claim around and challenged him to show where she has reversed a position to serve the moneyed interests. This might be a useful campaign tactic, but it misrepresents the way in which money affects campaigns.
Undoubtedly there are cases where an individual or industry group promises a large campaign contribution in exchange for a politician’s support on a particular issue, but this is almost certainly rare. More typically the support of politicians for moneyed interests is part of a much longer process. It’s not just that the politician wants to act to curry the favor of the rich and powerful, more typically they identify with the interests of the rich and powerful so that they don’t even see themselves as compromising a principle.
William K. Black: President Obama Sides With U.S. Corporate Tax Cheats
I have been planning to respond to a January 26, 2016 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Washington’s Corporate Purge” that begins with the claim that “Bernie and Hillary compete to drive more U.S. companies overseas.” My title was going to be: “WSJ Shills for Tax Cheats and Cheers Race to the Bottom.”
The context was a typical WSJ claim that it was “moral” to do a tax inversion deal with Ireland to cut a U.S. company’s corporate tax rate dramatically. Murdoch’s minions’ explanation of this “moral” concept is as follows: “A CEO obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders cannot ignore this competitive reality.” [..]
But as I was preparing to write that article I read with shock (OK, I admit that I was naïve to be shocked at this late date) that the Obama administration is siding with the massive corporate tax cheats. Instead of cooperating with other governments to end the suicidal race to the bottom or imposing other taxes and penalties on the tax evaders, the administration is demanding that the EU cease cracking down on tax evasion scams by U.S. corporations. The same Wall Street Journal reported on February 11, 2016 that “U.S. Treasury’s Lew Challenges EU on Corporate Tax Investigations.”
And yes, I understand money. But I also understand that engaging in a race to the bottom distorts commerce and produces a Gresham’s dynamic in which the most unethical CEOs will drive the most ethical CEOs from the C-suites and produce serious job losses.
Robert Reich: The Death of the Republican Party
I’m writing to you today to announce the death of the Republican Party. It is no longer a living, vital, animate organization.
It died in 2016. RIP.
It has been replaced by warring tribes:
Evangelicals opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and science.
Libertarians opposed to any government constraint on private behavior.
Market fundamentalists convinced the “free market” can do no wrong.
Corporate and Wall Street titans seeking bailouts, subsidies, special tax loopholes, and other forms of crony capitalism.
Billionaires craving even more of the nation’s wealth than they already own.
And white working-class Trumpoids who love Donald. and are becoming convinced the greatest threats to their wellbeing are Muslims, blacks, and Mexicans.
Each of these tribes has its own separate political organization, its own distinct sources of campaign funding, its own unique ideology – and its own candidate.
Thomas Frank: The issue is not Hillary Clinton’s Wall St links but Democrats’ core dogmas
Stunned by the rise of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has been at pains to assure the Democratic rank and file that she too understands their concerns; that just like her rival, she is capable of denouncing wealthy interests, of promising to break up big banks and even of hinting that she might prosecute powerful financiers.
After her landslide defeat in New Hampshire last week, she conceded that “the way too many things were going just wasn’t right”. There was a difference between her and the senator from Vermont, however: she was the candidate who would get things done, who could “actually make the changes that make your lives better”.
These are noble sentiments. Unfortunately, what voters are rejecting is not Hillary the Capable; it is the party whose leadership faction she represents as well as the direction in which our modern Democrats have been travelling for decades.
Owen Jones: George W Bush’s support for Jeb is a reminder of his disastrous legacy
As a fan of the zombie genre, perhaps I should welcome the resurrection of George W Bush. The former president has been largely discreet and absent since his calamitous reign ended more than seven years ago: perhaps hoping that, if temporarily forgotten, we would all forget his misdeeds, and history would eventually look at his presidency more kindly. But as he takes to the stump in an effort to re-energise his brother’s flagging presidential campaign, there is little doubt that Jeb Bush is a victim of the political polarisation his elder sibling helped unleash.
Not that it’s as simple as to say we live in the world Dubya built. A US foreign policy that, all too often, engaged in disastrous wars and backed dictatorships and terror groups predates his reign: so does the stagnation of living standards for millions of Americans. US power – after its temporary post-Soviet boost – was already in relative decline. And faced with the ranting demagoguery of Donald Trump, a certain nostalgia for Bush’s refutation of anti-Muslim bigotry is almost understandable.
But if history ever does one of those “Ah, was he really all that bad?” revisions, the answer has to be: “Yes, he was.”
Senator Chris Coons: Iran deal signatories: it’s a nuclear agreement, not a business opportunity
In a testament to the power of multilateral diplomacy and the enduring strength of the transatlantic alliance, the international community came together last summer to craft a complex agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
As the Iran deal moves forward, I recognize that European companies will pursue business opportunities there. But I urge these companies to keep in mind three important points.
First, US and UN sanctions against Iran for its human rights abuses, ballistic missile program and support for terrorism remain on the books, and the United States continues to enforce them.
Second, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon must remain a higher priority than pursuing commercial opportunities. The United States will continue to rely on the stated shared commitments from our European partners to deal with Iran in the same way.
This brings me to my third point: Iran remains a revolutionary regime, and companies eager to do business with Iran and its state-owned enterprises must proceed with the utmost caution.
Recent Comments