ANARCHY IN AMERICA - RACIST DIVISIONIST BARACK OBAMA AND THE BLACK LIVES MURDER, LOOT AND SPREAD HATE MOVEMENT
LIKE RACIST BARACK OBAMA AND MICHELLE OBAMA THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT IS NOTHING BUT A HOAX TO ESTABLISH POWER AND SUCK OFF CORPORATE BRIBES.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2021/06/anarchy-in-america-racist-divisionist.html
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump.
Obama Joins Democrats Spreading Lies About Georgia Voting Law
Source: AP Photo/Larry Downing, Pool
Former President Barack Obama joined the chorus of Democrats who are spreading falsehoods about the newly-signed voting reform law in Georgia. The overhaul legislation signed by Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) expands access to the ballot box via extended hours and early voting days, while also implementing voter identification requirements to crack down on potential for fraud.
Democrat lawmakers and activists, including President Joe Biden, have flooded the airwaves with false claims about the law. Biden even earned 4-pinocchios from The Washington Post for his lies about the voting reforms. Obama said that the common-sense law is Republicans’ way of “rigging the game.”
He also encouraged corporations to “call out” such voting reforms, which has thus far costed Georgia over $1 million in lost revenue on account of corporate boycotts.
"I think the corporate community has a responsibility to at least call folks out on that. Because that transcends policy," the former president said. "This really has to do with the basic rules by which we have all agreed to keep this diverse and multiracial democracy functioning."
Kemp set the record straight, reminding the former president that the law he signed makes voting easier and cheating more difficult.
“Add former President Obama to the list of Democrats who are lying about our voting laws,” Kemp wrote on Twitter. “While they continue to push a false narrative that cost hardworking Georgians millions, I’m fighting for the truth: in GA, it’s easy to vote and hard to cheat.”
A majority of Georgia voters also supports the voting reform law, while voter identification requirements also remain popular.
Why Obama's So Defensive of Critical Race Theory
In an interview with Anderson Cooper that aired Monday on CNN, Barack Obama showed once again how well he has mastered the art of sanctimony.
"You would think with all the public policy debates that are taking place right now that the Republican Party would be engaged in a significant debate about how are we going to deal with the economy and what are we going to do about climate change?" Obama said to Cooper.
He added, "Lo and behold, the single most important issue to them apparently right now is Critical Race Theory. Who knew that that was the threat to our republic?"
In researching my forthcoming book, Barack Obama's Promised Land: Deplorables Need Not Apply, I found myself continually amazed at the price America has had to pay for Obama's spectacular failure to know who he is and to acknowledge how he got where he got.
I had a new insight into Obama's self-delusion from reading a 1995 article in his neighborhood newspaper, The Hyde Park Herald, unearthed by Los Angeles filmmaker Joel Gilbert.
Interviewed soon after the release of his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama tries to explain how he ended up becoming "black."
He attributed his revelation, wrote reporter Monice Mitchell, "to an eye opening experience with affirmative action [AA] while attending Punahou Academy, a prestigious prep school in Honolulu."
"He had no choice about his racial identity," wrote Mitchell. "To be half-white was to be black all the way." Without being too specific, Obama acknowledged that even fifty years ago, being "black" paid dividends.
Having accepted his blackness, Obama led Mitchell to believe that "he started hanging out with a group of similarly young angry black men and dabbled with drugs and trouble." This claim would have amused his best friend from high school, Keith Kakugawa, or "Ray" as Obama called him in Dreams from My Father. No one had a better perspective on Obama's racial shape-shifting than Kakugawa.
The friendship, Obama writes in Dreams, was "due in no small part to the fact that together we made up almost half of Punahou's black high school population." Obama is famously half-black. Kakugawa is one eighth black. The pair did not exactly make prime recruiting material for the Crips' Hawaiian franchise.
Speaking of Crips, says Kakugawa about Obama in his own self-published book, "He was cripplingly self-conscious about [race]." Obama was not too self-conscious to play the AA card when it came to getting ahead. Although admittedly an indifferent student, he found himself after high school at Occidental, one of the priciest colleges on the West Coast.
"You know, it just so happens my first car was a '76 Fiat," Obama reports telling his colleagues in his newest memoir, A Promised Land. "Bought it used, my freshman year of college. Red, five-speed stick." It wasn't that used. Obama started college in 1979. As the purchase suggests, Obama lived a privileged life. I cannot imagine too many other black eighteen-year-olds in L.A. buying Fiats, even used ones.
After a middling two years at Occidental, Obama rode his AA card to the Ivy League — Columbia, to be precise. He graduated in 1983 but without honors. That did not stop Obama from dreaming big. He tells the reader in Dreams that he settled on three possibilities: "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." Obama was not deluding himself. Harvard, he knew, was keener on his DNA than his GPA, let alone his LSAT.
In a rare honest moment at Harvard, he shared the secret that his followers refuse to acknowledge. Yes, as he explained in a letter to the Harvard Law Record, he was "someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy." May have?
For fifty years Obama and people like him have been scamming the system. Critical Race Theory is a codification of that scam. To justify the unearned benefits that come with being black or half-black, the "theorists" have to pretend that the continuing risks of being black justify the rewards.
This results in an increased demand for evidence of racism amid a dwindling supply. In the absence of real racism, the theorists have had to imagine it or to re-create it à la Jussie Smollett and a thousand other hoaxers across the fruited plain.
With mandatory CRT imposed in schools and other institutions, the CRT "trainers" are able to demand that whites imagine a racist America along with them. Those who refuse this nonsense, who refuse to live their lives in the requisite shame and guilt, further justify CRT by their seeming embrace of white supremacy, the new and even more ludicrous label now applied even to unyielding African-Americans.
Sorry, Barry, but CRT is a threat to our Republic. Anderson Cooper may believe your blather about "right-wing media venues" monetizing and capitalizing "on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America." But it is all on you.
In 2008, even Republicans hoped Obama would succeed at pulling the races together. He had a unique historic opportunity. But instead, to justify his failures in office, he and Michelle encouraged their followers to read "race" into every slight, every disparity, every grievance. Deception was Obama's strategy. Division is his legacy, and CRT is his tool for widening the divide. He should own it!
Jack Cashill's latest book, Barack Obama's Promised Land: Deplorables Need Not Apply, is now on pre-sale. See www.cashill.com for more information.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
A new book savagely attacks Obama from the left
Something has changed lately on the left. Democrats should be riding high now because they control the federal government: they've got the White House; the House; the Senate (sort of, with the filibuster the fragile thread keeping them from total control); and a Supreme Court that, while ostensibly conservative, has a closet leftist chief justice and two remarkably cowed new "conservative" justices. Nevertheless, they are an angry, fractious party. Last week, the knives came out for Kamala Harris. This coming week, a new book launches a scathing attack on that former secular saint, Barack Obama.
Since 2008, Barack Obama has been the Democrat party. He was the president who could do no wrong. Every political attack against him was discounted as "racism." He was more charming, more intelligent, more emotionally attuned, more effective, and more just everything good than any man who had ever occupied the White House, including Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln combined. (All of them were racists.)
When Trump came along, the Democrats and their media shills weren't merely offended by his politics. In many ways, the gravest offense was that this loud, combative, conservative-governing orange man dared to step into a White House made hallowed by the presence of a man once hailed as a "magic negro" or another crucified Jesus.
Both Biden and Kamala got reverential treatment, but it was nothing like Obama. Biden was grandfatherly, experienced, kind, and stable, and he'd learned his White House politics under Obama's aegis. Kamala was brilliant, multi-racial and multi-cultural, female, and compassionate. Kamala was sold especially hard because everyone understood that Biden, no matter what he said, wasn't in it for the long haul. She was obviously going to be the real president, even before Biden inevitably withdrew and she got sworn in.
But as noted, something's been happening with the Democrats. They should be a jubilant party joyously imposing Marxism on the land, but, instead, they're angry, and they're starting to turn on each other. Just last week, Edward-Isaac Dovere, a longstanding author at The Atlantic, published a nasty attack on Kamala, although one phrased in polite terms.
Through anecdotes and quotes, Dovere reveals that Kamala is anti-social, socially awkward, bland, ineffective, unfocused, platitudinous, uninteresting, hostile to reporters, paranoid (she has an enemies list), and unable to hold onto her employees. None of this surprises me. My decades living and working in the Bay Area meant I'd heard rumors for years saying everything that Kamala offered politically came through her relationship with Willie Brown, a brilliant California politician. Without Brown, she's nothing.
For The Atlantic, one of the most politically loyal outlets in America, to publish such this attack on someone who should be a Democrat darling was surprising. More surprises arrived on Friday when the Daily Mail revealed that Edward-Isaac Dovere is back, this time with a new book describing Obama as a "parasite" sucking the Democrat party dry and leaving it with nothing. Although the book is ostensibly about the 2020 campaign, it's Obama who springs into focus:
Barack Obama was a 'parasite' on the Democrat party who sucked it dry for his reelection and left it saddled with debt, a new book claims.
The former President used the party structure as a 'host' for his 2012 campaign for a second term then treated it like a 'husk' to be discarded with $2.4million in debt.
Obama's aloof demeanor and professorial detachment masked the reality that he was full of 'self-assured self-regard.'
He oversaw the 'pilfering of talent, money, resources, and purpose' away from the Democratic National Committee to his own reelection team.
[snip]
In a scathing portrait, Dovere, a journalist with The Atlantic, claims that Obama was so arrogant he believed that if he could have run in 2016 for a third term he could have beaten Trump.
Obama's ego was on full display on the golf course and he bragged that his Tweet sent after the Charlottesville far right rally in 2017 was liked more than anything Tweeted by Donald Trump.
[snip]
He writes that Obama's hubris peaked in 2015 when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, his signature healthcare law, and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages.
[snip]
In actual fact, despite his 'beatification among Democrats', Obama 'inadvertently helped usher in what followed him', meaning Trump.
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the damage he did to the Democrat brand is yet more evidence that America supported Trump, not Biden, in 2020.
The book is Battle for the Soul: Inside the Democrats' Campaigns to Defeat Trump, and it may end forever the Democrats' Obama worship.
Image: Arrogant Obama. YouTube screen grab.
Barack Obama: Joe Biden ‘Finishing the Job’ with My Former Staff’
President Barack Obama said in an interview published Tuesday his former Vice President Joe Biden was finishing the work he began to redistribute wealth through programs like Obamacare.
“I think that what we’re seeing now, is Joe and the administration are essentially finishing the job,” he said in an interview with New York Times columnist Ezra Klein. “And I think it’ll be an interesting test. Ninety percent of the folks who were there in my administration, they are continuing and building on the policies we talked about…”
Obama expressed his frustration that former President Donald Trump’s administration interrupted his ability to get credit for the strength of the economy.
“That clouds what I think would have been a more impactful shift in political views towards Democrats as a result of my presidency,” he said.
But Obama said he hoped Biden’s success would shift the next generation of Americans toward more leftist policies.
“If they’re successful over the next four years, as I think they will be, I think that will have an impact,” he said.
Obama said the political environment of the coronavirus pandemic was different, as Republicans had teamed up with Democrats to spend $2 trillion in economic stimulus and Americans were more willing to accept help from the government.
“I think we’re now in an environment where if we just get some big pieces in place, building on what we did before, people will notice,” Obama said. “And it will have a political impact.”
DO A SEARCH FOR BARAK OBAMA AND HIS PAYMASTERS JP MORGAN! AFTER PROTECTING THE BIGGEST BANKSTERS CRIMINALS IN U.S. HISTORY THE OBOMB WAS RICHLY REWARDED WITH VAST WEALTH PAID OUT AS 'SPEECH FEE' BRIBES.
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
Sanders called JPMorgan’s CEO America’s "biggest corporate socialist" — here’s why he has a point
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the “biggest corporate socialist in America today” in recent ad
During that hearing, Warren asked Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, about overdraft fees the bank charged its customers during the pandemic, which she estimated at nearly $1.5 billion.
THESE FUCKING BANKSTERS LOVE THE BANKSTERS' RENT BOYS, OBAMA, BIDEN, ERIC HOLDER AND CHUCK SCHUMER!!!
As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on Wall Street, according to CNN analysis, and Wall Street executives and employees have donated more than $74 million to elect the former vice president.
JPMorgan Halts Donations to Republicans Who Objected to 2020 Election Certification
JPMorgan Chase & Co says it will restart making political contributions to lawmakers except to congressional Republicans who objected to the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, reads a memo obtained by Reuters.
Reuters reports:
Following a review, the country’s largest lender will this month resume giving through its Political Action Committee (PAC) but will continue its freeze on donations to a “handful” of the 147 lawmakers whom it had previously supported, the bank said. The pause will last through the 2021-2022 election cycle, which includes November’s midterm elections, after which JPMorgan will review whether to resume contributions to the lawmakers concerned on an individual basis, it said.
“This was a unique and historic moment when we believe the country needed our elected officials to put aside strongly held differences and demonstrate unity,” the memo said. “Democracy, by its nature, requires active participation, compromise, and engaging with people with opposing views. That is why government and business must work together.”
Records from the Center for Responsive Politics show that JP Morgan’s PAC donated approximately to federal candidates and organizations supporting candidates between 2019 and 2020, including $10,000 House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY).
Either Republican lawmaker has responded to the Reuters report.
JP Morgan Chase isn’t the only corporation to freeze donations to Republicans. The financial giant was joined by American Airlines, Boston Scientific,Blue Cross Blue Shield BP, Coca Cola, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, Hallmark, Hilton Hotels, Kroger, Marriott International Microsoft and Visa.
Some Republican lawmakers, namely Sen. Josh Hawley, have seen their grassroots fundraising numbers surge in the wake of Corporate America’s decision to halt donations. Hawley raked in over $3 million during the first three months of 2021, according to Politico.
Hawley has repeatedly explained that he never sought to overturn’s the 2020 election, but rather wanted a robust investigation into allegations of voter fraud.
“I never said that the goal was to overturn the election,” the senator previously stated. “That was never the point and it was never possible. What we need to have are elections that are fair, free and open, and I think Congress needs to do its job and look into election irregularities.”
As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign
is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on
Wall Street, according to CNN analysis, and
Wall Street executives and employees have
donated more than $74 million to elect the
former vice president.
THIS IS LAUGHABLE!
Why Democrats Are Angry At Wall Street
THE CORPORATIST DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THEIR BANKSTERS. TALKING POPULIST SHIT OUT OF THE SIDES OF THEIR CORRUPT, BRIBES SUCKING MOUTHS WHILE PROTECTING, ENABLING AND NURTURING THE BANKSTER CLASS.
WE ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE RECORDS OF THE BANKSTER REGIME OF LAWYER BARACK OBAMA, LAWYER JOE BIDEN AND BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER ERIC HOLDER TO SEE THE STAGGERING DEGREE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS UP THE BANKSTERS’ ASSES.
JUDICIAL WATCH ON FAT
MOUTH BRIBES SUCKING
MAXINE WATERS
Should this ethically and morally challenged individual, who has repeatedly displayed behavior unbecoming of a federal lawmaker, be at the helm of an influential congressional committee that oversees the financial sector
Why Democrats Are Angry At Wall Street
DAVID GURA
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, hasn't forgotten the Great Recession.
In the first half of 2007, Brown recalls, there were more foreclosures in his hometown than anywhere else in the country. It was a period that led to the Global Financial Crisis: Millions of Americans lost their homes, while banks and other corporate sectors were rescued by billions of dollars in bailouts.
More than a decade later, Democrats control the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and Brown and fellow populists like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., are in powerful perches to oversee the big banks.
And Brown, like many of these top Democrats, believes that too many Americans are still getting the short end of the stick.
"They never get bailed out," Brown says in an interview with NPR. "They never get a second chance. They're just not in a position in an economy like this, where Wall Street writes the rules, where they can get ahead."
That anger has been magnified at a time when banks have seen their profits soar during the pandemic, in part, thanks to strong actions by the Federal Reserve to support markets.
And top Democrats believe they are justified in pushing for change at big banks.
They want to push the country's largest financial institutions to be agents of social change. And they have specific goals, like expanding access to loans and impose fewer fees for average Americans, or more outreach to unbanked and underserved communities.
"They did very well during the pandemic," Brown notes about the banks. "We've seen stratospheric compensation levels. We see stock buybacks and dividend distribution. Yet, wages throughout our economy are essentially flat."
Brown is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which also includes Warren, another Democrat with a reputation for being tough on Wall Street.
The Massachusetts senator played a key role in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis.
"You know, most people think of Congress in terms of passing legislation, and yeah, that's part of the job," she tells NPR. "But the other part of the job is oversight."
That was in evidence when Brown's committee this past week brought in the chief executives of the country's top six banks for questioning as part of an annual oversight.
During that hearing, Warren asked Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, about overdraft fees the bank charged its customers during the pandemic, which she estimated at nearly $1.5 billion.
The heated exchange ended when Warren asked Dimon if he would volunteer to refund that money. He declined.
Warren is unapologetic about pushing banks to do more given their roles as critical institutions in society.
Bank executives, Warren says, "have a responsibility to execute on making their banks part of the solution to our economic and racial problems across this nation."
But Republican lawmakers disagree with that very premise. They criticize executives for comments they have made — about voting rights, in particular, and they are critical of companies making business decisions based on environmental considerations.
"That ought to be left to elected lawmakers," says Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
Bankers aren't naïve to the politics at play. Democrats have a small majority in the House of Representatives and a razor-thin majority in the Senate. And the midterm elections are less than two years away.
But even with a change in power in Congress, analysts warn banks are likely to face continued pressure from Democrats — and society — on key aspects of their operations, from whom they lend money to where they invest.
"Banks have no choice but to address these issues, because it impacts their communities, their customers and their employees," says Mike Mayo, a banking analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. "You have to live in the real world, and the real world has these issues as part of the banks' businesses."
That message was made clear by Waters, a California lawmaker in a powerful position to influence banks as chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
"You know, what I have discovered about the banking community is that they have had a way of operating traditionally, historically, and they don't change easily," Waters tells NPR.
But Waters adds she will still demand changes on Wall Street.
"I think that many of them have come to understand that I can be dealt with, but I cannot be tricked. I cannot be fooled," she says. "And I don't accept being undermined."
JUDICIAL WATCH
Maxine Waters Unfit to Chair House Financial Services Committee
Considering her record and documented history of poor ethical
and moral fitness, it’s outrageous that Maxine Waters is up for
chair of the ultra-powerful House Financial Services Committee,
which has jurisdiction over the country’s banking system,
economy, housing, and insurance.
With Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives, come January the 14-term California congresswoman is expected to head the committee, which also has jurisdiction over monetary policy, international finance, and efforts to combat terrorist financing.
Throughout her storied political career, Waters has been embroiled in numerous controversies, including abusing her power to enrich family members, getting a communist dictator to harbor a cop-murdering Black Panther fugitive still wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and accusing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of selling crack cocaine in black neighborhoods.
A few months ago, the 80-year-old Democrat from Los Angeles encouraged violence against Trump administration cabinet members. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters said at a summer rally in Los Angeles. Judicial Watch filed a House ethics complaint against Waters for encouraging violence against Trump Cabinet members.
Among her most corrupt acts as a federal legislator is steering millions of federal bailout dollars to her husband’s failing bank, OneUnited. Waters allocated $12 million to the Massachusetts bank in which she and her board member husband held shares. OneUnited subsequently got shut down by the government and American taxpayers got stiffed for the millions.
Judicial Watch investigated the scandal and obtained documents from the U.S. Treasury related to the controversial bailout. The famously remiss House Ethics Committee, which is charged with investigating and punishing corrupt lawmakers like Waters, found that she committed no wrongdoing. The panel bought Waters’ absurd story that she allocated the money as part of her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities even though her husband’s bank was located thousands of miles away from the south Los Angeles neighborhoods she represents in Congress.
The reality is that without intervention by Waters OneUnited was an extremely unlikely candidate for a government bailout through the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Treasury Department warned that it would only provide bailout funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending and OneUnited clearly didn’t meet that criteria.
Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch detail the deplorable financial condition of OneUnited at the time of the government cash infusion. The records also show that, prior to the bailout, the bank received a “less than satisfactory rating.” Incredibly, after that scandal Waters was chosen by her colleagues to hold a ranking position on the House Financial Services Committee she will soon chair. The only consequence for blowing $12 million on her husband’s failing bank was a slap on the hand to Waters’ chief of staff (her grandson) for violating House standards of conduct to help OneUnited.
Waters, who represents some of Los Angeles’ poorest inner-city neighborhoods, has also helped family members make more than $1 million through business ventures with companies and causes that she has helped, according to her hometown newspaper. While she and her relatives get richer (she lives in a $4.5 million Los Angeles mansion), her constituents get poorer.
The congresswoman was also embroiled in a fundraising scandal for skirting federal election rules with a shady gimmick that allows unlimited donations from certain contributors. Instead of raising most of her campaign funds from individuals or political action committees, Waters sells her endorsement to other politicians and political causes for as much as $45,000 a pop.
It wouldn’t be right to part without also noting some of Waters’ international accolades. She has made worldwide headlines for her frequent trips to communist Cuba to visit her convicted cop-assassin friend, Joanne Chesimard, who appears on the FBI’s most wanted list and is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur.
Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of the 1979 murder of a New Jersey State Trooper. With the help of fellow cult members, she escaped from jail and fled to Cuba. Outraged U.S. lawmakers insisted she be extradited but Waters always stood by her side, likening the cop-assassin to civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
In fact, Waters wrote Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro a letter to assure him that she was not part of the group of U.S. legislators who voted for a resolution to extradite the cop murderer. Waters told Castro that she opposed extradition because Chesimard was “politically persecuted” in the U.S. and simply seeking political asylum in Havana, where she still lives.
In the 1980s Waters accused the CIA of selling crack cocaine to blacks in her south-central Los Angeles district to raise millions of dollars to support clandestine operations in Latin America, including a guerrilla army. During the infamous 1992 Los Angeles riots the congresswoman repeatedly excused the violent behavior that ironically destroyed the areas she represents in the House. She dismissed the severe beating of a white truck driver by saying the anger in her district was righteous. She also excused looters who stole from stores by saying they were simply mothers capitalizing on an opportunity to take some milk, bread, and shoes.
Should this ethically and morally challenged individual, who has repeatedly displayed behavior unbecoming of a federal lawmaker, be at the helm of an influential congressional committee that oversees the financial sector
REALITY:
Joe Biden’s Donor List Includes More than 30
Executives Tied to Wall Street
Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has more than 30 business executives on his donor list that have connections to Wall Street.
Analysis of Biden’s more than 800 big donors, those who have bundled contributions for his presidential bid against President Trump, found that more than 30 of the executives listed have ties to Wall Street.
CNBC reports:
CNBC reviewed a new list of more than 800
Biden bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for
the campaign, and found that several of them
had links to financial firms. A few had been mentioned on the initial list of Biden fundraisers that was released in 2019 during the Democratic primary contests. [Emphasis added]
…
Beyond those from Wall Street, Biden’s campaign saw fundraising help from leaders in Silicon Valley, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Ron Conway. [Emphasis added]
Those executives with ties to Wall Street funding Biden’s campaign include:
Frank Baker, Brett Barth, Jim Chanos, Mark Chorazak, David Clunie, William Derrough, Roger Altman, Blair Effron, Jon Feigelson, Mark Gallogly, John Rogers, Jon Gray, Tony James, Jon Henes, Sonny Kalsi, Orin Kramer, Brad Krap, Brian Kreiter, Marc Lasry, Nate Loewenthall, Eric Mindich, Kara Moore, Charles Myers, Alan Patricof, Deven Parekh, Robert Rubin, Evan Roth, Faiza Saeed, Rajen Shah, Jay Snyder, Rob Stavis, and Jeff Zients.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign
is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on
Wall Street, according to CNN analysis, and
Wall Street executives and employees have
donated more than $74 million to elect the
former vice president.
Trump, on the other hand, has accepted far less money from Wall Street — taking just a little over $18 million dollars from financial firms. This is a whopping $56 million less than what Biden has accepted from Wall Street.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and
billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to
portray himself as a small-town fighter from
Scranton, Pennsylvania.
In a post on Sunday, Biden wrote that “Donald Trump sees the world from Park Avenue,” whereas he sees the world “from where I came from: Scranton, Pennsylvania.” In fact, Biden has raised over $1 million from wealthy Park Avenue donors, more than eight times the less than $130,000 that Trump has taken from Park Avenue residents.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter
Big Tech and Big Law dominate Biden
transition teams, tempering progressive hopes
Alexander Nazaryan administration takes office in January.
WASHINGTON — For six years, Brandon Belford worked as an economic policy adviser to President Barack Obama in the White House and federal agencies. He moved to the Bay Area when Donald Trump became president, part of a massive flight of Obama officials from Washington to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Hollywood. He took high-ranking positions with Apple and then Lyft, where he is currently the ride-sharing company’s chief of staff.
Now Belford is back, as part of one of the “transition teams” named by President-elect Joe Biden to restock a federal government that has been battered after four years of Trump by hiring new officials and advising the incoming administration on what its first governing steps should be.
Those steps could be timid, judging by the composition of those teams, where Obama-era centrism prevails. That has some progressives worried that Biden represents nothing more than a return to normal, at a time when many of them believe the nation is ready to embrace policy ideas well to the left of center.
“The status quo is killing us,” says former Bernie Sanders press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, who now hosts a podcast called “Bad Faith.”
Belford is joined by dozens of other Democratic operatives who have spent the past four years working at prestigious law firms and think tanks. On these “agency review teams” are high-ranking executives from Amazon, partners at white-shoe law firms like Covington & Burling and enough experts from D.C. center-left think tanks — including six from the Brookings Institution alone — to fill a center-left think tank.
Progressives knew this was coming. “I am very concerned about the role Uber executives would play in this administration,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y., told Yahoo News. Even though she also effusively praised the appointment of Ron Klain as the incoming White House chief of staff, Ocasio-Cortez vowed that corporate America would not “pull the wool over our eyes” when it came to crafting the Biden presidency.
Some have put it less bluntly. “Biden’s transition team is full of wealthy corporate executives who are completely disconnected from the struggles of the working class,” complains left-leaning activist Ryan Knight, whose Twitter handle is @ProudSocialist.
App-based drivers from Uber and Lyft protest in a caravan in front of City Hall in Los Angeles on October 22, 2020 where elected leaders hold a conference urging voters to reject on the November 3 election, Proposition 22, that would classify app-based drivers as independent contractors and not employees or agents. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)More
He was presumably referring to the two dozen agency review team officials who come from law firms like Arnold & Porter. Or to the 40 or so members of the Biden transition who are current or recent lobbyists.
The agency review teams are not exactly settling into their cubicles just yet. For one, President Trump has not yet conceded the election, and the transition has been hindered in part by Republican operatives at the General Services Administration. And agency review is an enormously complex process, one that actually began months ago. The transition teams are supposed to ensure a “smooth transfer of power,” in large part by making sure that capable officials are ready to get to work in their respective agencies the moment Biden lifts his hand from the Lincoln Bible.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one member of the Biden campaign working on agency-related matters says teams were primarily tasked with surveying the landscape of the federal bureaucracy. She says that the transition teams would make some hiring recommendations, but only as a secondary function.
With a single exception, the agency review team members mentioned in this article did not respond to requests for comment.
One with a typically impressive biography is that of Aneesh Chopra, who served as the U.S. chief technology officer for Obama before starting his own medical data logistics company, CareJourney. Now he is on the transition team for the U.S. Postal Service, where he will presumably work to undo the alleged damage by another logistics maven: Trump appointee Louis DeJoy.
Of course, most progressives are glad that there’s a Biden transition to speak of, instead of a second Trump term. But they also recognize their own role in the Democratic candidate’s victory.
“Everyone fell into line and did everything they could to get Joe Biden elected,” says Max Berger, a progressive activist who worked for Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign and Justice Democrats, the group that helped elect Ocasio-Cortez to the House in 2018.
Berger recognizes that progressives will be a “junior partner” to the establishment Democrats with whom Biden has been ideologically and temperamentally aligned for a good half-century. They want to be partners all the same, not just the loyal opposition.
Many are cheered by some of the agency review teams. For one, they are notably more diverse, a stark contrast to Trump’s reliance on white males for so much of his advice. On the transition team for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is Jedidah Isler, the Dartmouth professor who in 2014 became the first Black woman to earn a doctorate in astrophysics from Yale. The transition team for the Small Business Administration includes Jorge Silva Puras, a political leader in Puerto Rico who also teaches entrepreneurship at a community college in the Bronx.
“The presence of labor officials throughout many of the groups is notable,” says David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect. In the Department of Education team, for example, are several executives from the American Federation of Teachers.
He called the Federal Reserve and Treasury teams “all-stars,” a sentiment shared by other progressives interviewed for this article. On the Treasury team is Mehrsa Baradaran, a progressive economist who has written on the racial wealth gap. She is also on the Federal Reserve team, along with Reena Aggarwal, a corporate governance expert.
Progressive strategist Elizabeth Spiers says the finance-related teams are not “not quite Elizabeth Warren levels of aggressiveness but also not stuffed with finance people.” Biden’s advisers appear to have learned the lessons of his former boss. During Obama’s first year, he relied on banking executives to help quell the financial crisis. They did so in ways that steered the new president away from progressive proposals, such as nationalizing those very same banks.
There is not a single current executive from Citibank or Goldman Sachs on any of the transition teams. Bank of America has also been shut out. JPMorgan can boast a single toehold in the agency review process: Lisa Sawyer of the Pentagon team. A spokesman for JPMorgan told Yahoo News that the bank was “following the appropriate election laws” and that Sawyer was “not on an agency review team that will touch any banking issues.”
“I think the Biden administration is going to be surprising to progressives in some ways and disappointing in others, and the agency review teams reflect that,” Dayen says. During the summer, the American Prospect published a lengthy exposé about Biden’s foreign policy advisers’ lucrative foray into corporate America. Many are set to return to the highest echelons of official Washington.
“I have to be cautiously optimistic,” says Waleed Shahid, communications director for the Justice Democrats.
Relatively young progressives like Shahid are less likely to wax romantic about the way things were in Washington. They are less interested in experience than conviction. But for many in Biden’s camp, a lack of experience was among the several fatal flaws of the Trump years.
“Everyone — right or left — has made the mistaken assumption for years that governing is easy,” says “The Death of Expertise” author Tom Nichols, who teaches at the Naval War College and is an ardently anti-Trump Republican.
“After having a bunch of nitwits and cronies loose in the government,” Nichols wrote in an email, “I think a lot of people on the left are really giving in to the assumption that as long as you’re not Trump, or not a complete idiot, anyone can do it.”
Given the title and theme of his book, Nicholas cautioned against that approach. “It’s a childish and silly approach to government, but it’s a bipartisan problem,” he told Yahoo News.
While progressive may not see their stars like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren occupying the Treasury Department, they do very much hope that a Biden presidency amounts to more than a third Obama term. It was unaddressed economic inequality, they believe, that bred the populist resentment that gave Trump an opening in 2016. The coronavirus has only made that inequality worse. That will only increase populist resentment, they worry, to be exploited by a Trump acolyte — or perhaps Trump himself, again — in 2024.
Addressing that inequality, for now, falls to transition team officials like Mark Schwartz of Amazon and Ted Dean of Dropbox, as well as Arun Venkataraman of Visa and David Holmes of defense contractor Rebellion Defense, in which Eric Schmidt of Google is an investor. Many of these officials are veterans of the Obama administration or Democratic offices on the Hill.
“There is a lot of corporate influence there,” says Maurice Weeks, co-founder of the Action Center on Race and the Economy. “And that is troubling.” But he is encouraged by the presence of “hard-core progressives” like Sarah Miller, a former Treasury deputy who is both an anti-Facebook activist and the executive of the American Economic Liberties Project, which seeks to curb corporate power. She is now on the Treasury transition team.
In some ways, the difference is between former Obama officials who, like Miller, went on to become activists and those who moved on to become rich. The latter did only what many government officials had done before them. But at a time of mass unemployment, a stint at the corporate law firm Latham & Watkins (three transition team members) may not seem as impressive as it may have when Obama was president.
“We don’t just want to rewind the clock by four years,” Weeks says.
For many progressives, Trump was a singular threat to important institutions of the federal government, but rebuilding those institutions is simply not as important as rebuilding entire communities shattered by economic, social and racial inequalities.
Sanders called JPMorgan’s CEO America’s "biggest corporate socialist" — here’s why he has a point
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the “biggest corporate socialist in America today” in recent ad
PAUL ADLER
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 9:59AM (UTC)
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Sen. Bernie Sanders called JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon the "biggest corporate socialist in America today" in a recent ad.
He may have a point — beyond what he intended.
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
In reality, most big U.S. companies operate internally in ways Karl Marx would applaud as remarkably close to socialist-style central planning. Not only that, corporate America has arguably become a laboratory of innovation in socialist governance, as I show in my own research.
Closet socialists
In public, CEOs like Dimon attack socialist planning while defending free markets.
But inside JPMorgan and most other big corporations, market competition is subordinated to planning. These big companies often contain dozens of business units and sometimes thousands. Instead of letting these units compete among themselves, CEOs typically direct a strategic planning process to ensure they cooperate to achieve the best outcomes for the corporation as a whole.
This is just how a socialist economy is intended to operate. The government would conduct economy-wide planning and set goals for each industry and enterprise, aiming to achieve the best outcome for society as a whole.
And just as companies rely internally on planned cooperation to meet goals and overcome challenges, the U.S. economy could use this harmony to overcome the existential crisis of our age — climate change. It's a challenge so massive and urgent that it will require every part of the economy to work together with government in order to address it.
Overcoming socialism's past problems
But, of course, socialism doesn't have a good track record.
One of the reasons socialist planning failed in the old Soviet Union, for example, was that it was so top-down that it lacked the kind of popular legitimacy that democracy grants a government. As a result, bureaucrats overseeing the planning process could not get reliable information about the real opportunities and challenges experienced by enterprises or citizens.
Moreover, enterprises had little incentive to strive to meet their assigned objectives, especially when they had so little involvement in formulating them.
A second reason the USSR didn't survive was that its authoritarian system failed to motivate either workers or entrepreneurs. As a result, even though the government funded basic science generously, Soviet industry was a laggard in innovation.
Ironically, corporations — those singular products of capitalism — are showing how these and other problems of socialist planning can be surmounted.
Take the problem of democratic legitimacy. Some companies, such as General Electric, Kaiser Permanente and General Motors, have developed innovative ways to avoid the dysfunctions of autocratic planning by using techniques that enable lower-level personnel to participate actively in the strategy process.
Although profit pressures often force top managers to short-circuit the promised participation, when successfully integrated it not only provides top management with more reliable bottom-up input for strategic planning but also makes all employees more reliable partners in carrying it out.
So here we have centralization — not in the more familiar, autocratic model, but rather in a form I call "participative centralization." In a socialist system, this approach could be adopted, adapted and scaled up to support economy-wide planning, ensuring that it was both democratic and effective.
As for motivating innovation, America's big businesses face a challenge similar to that of socialism. They need employees to be collectivist, so they willingly comply with policies and procedures. But they need them to be simultaneously individualistic, to fuel divergent thinking and creativity.
One common solution in much of corporate America, as in the old Soviet Union, is to specialize those roles, with most people relegated to routine tasks while the privileged few work on innovation tasks. That approach, however, overlooks the creative capacities of the vast majority and leads to widespread employee disengagement and sub-par business performance.
Smarter businesses have found ways to overcome this dilemma by creating cultures and reward systems that support a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that I call "interdependent individualism." In my research, I have found this kind of motivation in settings as diverse as Kaiser Permanent physicians, assembly-line workers at Toyota's NUMMI plant and software developers at Computer Sciences Corp. These companies do this, in part, by rewarding both individual contributions to the organization's goals as well as collaboration in achieving them.
While socialists have often recoiled against the idea individual performance-based rewards, these more sophisticated policies could be scaled up to the entire economy to help meet socialism's innovation and motivation challenge.
Big problems require big government
The idea of such a socialist transformation in the U.S. may seem remote today.
But this can change, particularly as more Americans, especially young ones, embrace socialism. One reason they are doing so is because the current capitalist system has so manifestly failed to deal with climate change.
Looking inside these companies suggests a better way forward — and hope for society's ability to avert catastrophe.
Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental Studies, University of Southern California
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
· Jamie Dimon: socialism leads to ‘corruption and favouritism’
· America’s top banker, paid $31m last year, defends capitalism
Dominic Rushe in New York
Jamie Dimon said capitalism was ‘the most successful economic system the world has ever seen’. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
The world’s most powerful banker has attacked socialism, saying it produces “stagnation, corruption and often worse”.
Jamie Dimon, spare us your crocodile tears about inequality
Robert Reich
Read more
JP Morgan’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, took aim at socialism in his annual letter to shareholders, and warned it would be “a disaster for our country”.
Dimon, who was paid $31m last year as the head of America’s largest bank and who is estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.3bn, took his swipe as a new wave of left politics has emerged in the US.
Democratic socialism has been embraced by a new generation of politicians, including New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and supporters of Bernie Sanders, a longtime socialist now making a second bid for the presidency.
Dimon’s attack also comes as many leftwing Democrats, including Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, have called for the breakup of big businesses and greater regulation of banking in particular.
In his letter, Dimon wrote: “When governments control companies, economic assets (companies, lenders and so on) over time are used to further political interests – leading to inefficient companies and markets, enormous favoritism and corruption.”
He went on: “Socialism inevitably produces stagnation, corruption and often worse – such as authoritarian government officials who often have an increasing ability to interfere with both the economy and individual lives – which they frequently do to maintain power. This would be as much a disaster for our country as it has been in the other places it’s been tried.”
Socialism is set to be one of the key issues of the 2020 election cycle. Donald Trump has already begun campaigning against socialism and used his State of the Union address to declare that “America will never be a socialist country.”
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more
Dimon has previously warned income inequality is dividing America.
“It is absolutely obvious that a big chunk of [people] have been left behind,” Dimon said last month. “Forty percent of Americans make less than $15 an hour. Forty percent of Americans can’t afford a $400 bill, whether it’s medical or fixing their car. Fifteen percent of Americans make minimum wages, 70,000 die from opioids [annually].”
In his letter, Dimon acknowledged capitalism’s “flaws” but praised it as “the most successful economic system the world has ever seen”.
He wrote: “This is not to say that capitalism does not have flaws, that it isn’t leaving people behind and that it shouldn’t be improved. It’s essential to have a strong social safety net – and all countries should be striving for continuous improvement in regulations as well as social and welfare conditions.”
PUBLISHED WED, JAN 22 20207:58 AM ESTUPDATED WED, JAN 22 20208:57 AM EST
Jeff Cox@JEFF.COX.7528@JEFFCOXCNBCCOM
KEY POINTS
· J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon criticized socialism, saying it leads to an “eroding society.”
· Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Dimon told CNBC that capitalism is not perfect but is capable of fixing the problems of today.
WATCH NOW
VIDEO01:59
Jamie Dimon: ‘I don’t think people understand what socialism is’
Socialism has failed where it’s been tried and ultimately leads to an “eroding society,” J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Wednesday.
With democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders among the leaders in the Democratic presidential race and other candidates espousing similar-sounding ideas, the head of the nation’s biggest bank by assets said the idea of socialist control of the means of production would be detrimental to the U.S.
“I honestly don’t think they understand what socialism is,” Dimon told CNBC during a “Squawk Box” interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, referring to a question about millennials.
WATCH NOW
VIDEO19:31
Watch CNBC’s full Davos interview with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon
“Most state-owned enterprises don’t do a particularly good job,” he added. “You look around the world and they become corrupt over time. That doesn’t mean that capitalism is perfect. That doesn’t mean that every public company is perfect. No, there are flaws.”
Sanders has been the most out front of the candidates in backing socialism, though many of his opponents in the Democratic race also back universal health care, increased business taxes and greater government control over private enterprise.
Dimon said he did not want to address any specific candidates. But he said that socialist governments traditionally have done a poor job allocating capital and end up backing politically popular endeavors and “bridge to nowhere” projects.
“Once you do that, you will have an eroding society,” he said.
“They do need to fix inner-city schools, infrastructure, health care,” Dimon added. “We can fix all of those in a capitalist society.”
Bernie Sanders Slams Jamie Dimon On Socialism – They’re Both Wrong
Bernie Sanders has hit back against Jamie Dimon's comments about socialism, but they're both missing the point on Wall Street greed.
https://www.ccn.com/bernie-sanders-slams-jamie-dimon-on-socialism-theyre-both-wrong/
Author: Francois Aure @bullishtulips
Bernie Sanders is looking to school Wall Street giant Jamie Dimon on socialism but does the Senator really know better? | Source: Getty Images /AFP/REUTERS/Edited by CCN
· Bernie Sanders went after Jamie Dimon on Twitter calling him a hypocrite for his comments on socialism.
· Senator Sanders is not telling the whole truth when it comes to Wall Street bailouts.
· Jamie Dimon is also wrong as corporate welfare is rampant, and creating a dangerous imbalance in U.S. society.
What is the saying about people in glass houses? Jamie Dimon has been getting a lot of press for his comments on several economic topics at the billionaire ski-meet, otherwise known as the World Economic Forum in Davos. Of particular interest were his comments regarding socialism, of which the JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman were very critical. The United States’ most famous socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, is not having it, and reminded Dimon of a very inconvenient truth.
Source-Twitter
Bernie Sanders Stretches The Truth To Slam Jamie Dimon
While the above tweet will no doubt get Bernie Bros feeling the Bern and pumping their fists, a note of caution. JPMorgan Chase did pay back their bailout money, and Bernie Sanders must be referring to Wall Street as a whole, not specifically Jamie Dimon’s bank, which only received $25 billion.
Source-PROPUBLICA-Bailout Tracker
Dimon can state that his bank was a profitable investment, as President Obama’s decision to trust the bank’s ability getting back on its feet resulted in a profit for the government.
The JPMorgan Chase CEO Owes A Lot Of His Considerable Wealth To Socialism
So Sanders is not telling it precisely as it is here. The point he is really making paraphrases as “don’t insult the concept of receiving aid from the government when your corporation went broke and used Wall Street food stamps.” The senator has a point.
What truly irks the everyday American is not that some people rise to the top of the corporate ladder on Wall Street and earn billions. What annoys them is when those CEO’s mess up, get everything wrong, screw over the working man and crash the housing market, and still walk away with their vast compensation packages.
Yes, the taxpayer technically got most of it back, but a large contingent of those people didn’t get the jobs or houses back that they lost in the recession.
Fed Interventions Are Enabling Wall Street Recklessness, Again
The same economic mistakes that required the Federal Reserve to put the U.S. economy on life support have, in turn, stagnated wage growth and disproportionately benefited the financial class that got so greedy in the first place.
Now that Jamie Dimon has shown that JPMorgan paid back their bailout money, what’s to stop them from taking excessive risks and blowing everything up again? Rinse and repeat, as Wall Street relies on government handouts to catch it when it falls.
Long considered somewhat of a conspiracy theory, more and more market voices are speaking up against the Fed’s interventions in financial markets. Scott Minerd, the CIO of Guggenheim Partners, is about as mainstream a figure as you can get in the hedge fund world, and he called the stock market a “Ponzi scheme” in Davos.
You Can’t Cherry-Pick What Is Socialism & What’s “Necessary”
So Bernie Sanders is absolutely right. Taxpayer funds were used to make the rich richer but looks to be wrong that these were not a good investment from perspective of taxpayer funds.
Source-AZ Quotes
Jamie Dimon is wrong because he doesn’t understand that he is himself, a billionaire product of corporate socialism. CEOs love to talk about how corporations should legally be treated as individuals, so we can probably just call it socialism.
A person who is down and out in society is no different from a bankrupt Wall Street firm when it comes to needing a handout. Whatever the result, or the amount in question, they are all part of the same system.
Bernie Sanders is right to tell you not to listen to people like Jamie Dimon, who criticize socialism when they don’t need it, yet are first in line and full of excuses when they do. Secondly, please don’t believe word for word everything Bernie Sanders says about Wall Street, because he is often exaggerating to make his point.
Finally, it’s impossible to have an article about socialism and not give former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the last word.
This article was edited by Samburaj Das.
Last modified: January 23, 2020 9:29 AM UTC
Financial speculator & author living in the hills in Los Angeles. J.D. but very much not a lawyer. Favorite trading books are anything written by Jack Schwager. Email: bullishtulips@gmail.com,
MORE OF:
Hostile Takeover: Wall Street Assumes Command of Joe Biden Transition Team
Wall Street and the biggest U.S. banks, after spending a fortune to unseat President Trump, are getting key spots in Democrat Joe Biden’s transition team that he has devised before the presidential election is certified.
Detailed by the New York Times, Biden’s list of transition team members includes former Wall Street employees and those with close ties to Wall Street. Many of the big banks with links to Biden transition team members were major donors to the former vice president.
The Times reports:
Commerce Department: The review team is led by Geovette Washington of the University of Pittsburgh, who previously served as general counsel and senior policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget. Other members include Anna Gomez, a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein; Arun Venkataraman, who works in government relations at Visa (and was director of policy at the Commerce Department under Mr. Obama); and Ellen Hughes-Cromwick of the think tank Third Way, who served as chief economist at Mr. Obama’s Commerce Department and held a similar role at Ford. [Emphasis added]
Treasury Department: The team is led by Don Graves, who heads corporate responsibility at KeyBank and previously worked as director of domestic and economic policy for Mr. Biden. Others include Nicole Isaac of LinkedIn and Marisa Lago, who works at the New York City Department of City Planning and previously oversaw global compliance at Citigroup. [Emphasis added]
Federal Reserve, Banking and Securities Regulators: The team is led by Gary Gensler, a top Wall Street regulator in the Obama administration who is now a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. The team also includes Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, long a proponent of tougher rules for banks. [Emphasis added]
Gensler previously worked at Goldman Sachs and for failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. As Breitbart News reported, giant tech conglomerates are also getting representation on Biden’s transition team.
Likewise, the Wall Street Journal noted a number of Wall Street-types who are seriously being considered for cabinet positions in a potential Biden administration:
Roger Ferguson, chief executive of retirement manager TIAA-CREF, is in the mix for a cabinet post, according to people familiar with the matter. And financial executives like Morgan Stanley executive Tom Nides and former hedge-fund manager and presidential candidate Tom Steyer publicly backed Mr. Biden and could emerge with influence, or jobs, in his administration. [Emphasis added]
Some who are active in the party or who held positions in past Democratic administrations— such as finance veteran Jeffrey Zients, co-chairman of Mr. Biden’s transition team, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Jake Siewert, who served as press secretary in the Clinton White House and in the Treasury Department under President Obama — could join the new administration, Democratic fundraisers say. [Emphasis added]
Another Goldman executive who could head to Washington is Margaret Anadu, the 39-year-old head of Goldman Sachs’s urban-investment initiatives, whose name is said to have been floated for an economic policy position.
[Emphasis added]
On the campaign trail, President Trump warned that Biden was “the one that takes all the money from Wall Street” while his donors tended to be police officers, business owners, homemakers, truckers, construction workers, and drivers.
The progressive wing of the Democrat Party has attempted to push back against Biden’s potential for stacking an administration with Wall Street executives and those with deep ties to multinational corporations.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
No comments:
Post a Comment