Political Pyramid

Warning: A whole lot of politics! Move on to the jokes if you’re not in the mood. I mean it!

Remember the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines? He transitioned from a legally-elected President to a pretentious democratic president when he declared Martial Law at 7:15 p.m. on September 23, 1972. Prior to this, he orchestrated a crime wave that justified this declaration to place himself as the gatekeeper of freedom. Smart move, Mr. Ferdinand.

Not many know this, but in his first years, the Philippines actually made progress. Gone were the bickering among the power-grabbing political low-lifes. Illegal firearms were confiscated and there was less crime for a while. If you bickered too much without “the big guy’s” blessing, you would simply “disappear.” So what caused his downfall? Greed among his cronies.

Marcos was a golfer and his golfing buddies eventually became his cronies. He gave them power — positions in high places. Competence was trumped by loyalty. Among them was Imelda, his idiotic wife of a thousand shoes and a million sob stories. Even a comparatively untrained soldier who came from the same province became the head of his army.

Like a pyramid scheme, only the people at the top of the pyramid benefited. The lower you were in that structure, the less influence you had. At the lower levels, you had wanna-bes who abandoned decency and common sense for power and money and followed orders without question; trusting that they would be recognized and pulled up higher in the pyramid. They were notoriously called loyalists.

TV, radio and printed media were afraid to report the honest news. Comedians, musicians, and even a Marcos impersonator, would make occasional jabs at the administration but there was always the fear of stepping out of line. An imaginary dagger hung precariously above everyone who lived in that country.

When the dictatorship crumbled in 1986, it was no longer fashionable to be a loyalist. A new term was given to them. They were now called balimbings (carambola or star fruit) — because this Philippine fruit has many sides. And these human balimbings had many “faces” — they changed political sides when convenient … they had no backbone. They were disgusting. Many wealthy balimbings left the country in shame. Know any super wealthy Filipinos? Ask if they were loyalists. (However, not all loyalists are guilty. Wanna Ver, General Ver’s innocent daughter, grew up unaware of her father’s behavior and has since tried to reconcile with her past.)

Of course I am simplifying the events of the Marcos regime. As in many history books, this is just my personal assessment. I lived through it.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.” — John 15:18-19

I am sharing this now because I was reading the book of John. And it sent up chills as I am seeing history being repeated. It now makes sense why the peaceful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are ridiculed and treated disproportionately from the 10 million new illegal refugees (many in New York and Southern California are housed in hotels while American citizens and veterans are homeless in the streets). I can see why the media, the comedians, and other influencers espouse blatant lies … why the judicial system allows crime to flourish. No, they’re not that stupid. They’re afraid. The loyalists in New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and other so-called sanctuary cities are the mid-level cronies who hope to be pulled up the pyramid. Let’s not get played by these shouting “Karens.” We’re better than that.

“Speak softly but carry a big stick!” — Theodore Roosevelt

Loyalty to a party, should never be above loyalty to country. If your party falters … if your party changes direction … if your party forgets your rights, that party will crumble and there won’t be a pyramid to hold on to.

But this is just me.

TGIF people!

Raoul

” If you don’t have integrity, you have nothing. You can’t buy it. You can have all the money in the world, but if you are not a moral and ethical person, you really have nothing. “ — Henry Kravis

JOKE OF THE WEEK

Thanks to Art of Pasadena. CA

Parting Shots

Thanks to Tyrel of Chicago

Thanks to Ted of Philadelphia

Thanks to Bob of Placentia, CA

Thanks to Tom of Pasadena, CA

Thanks to Larry of La Habra, CA

I found these:

My good friend (and jokester) Terry and I came up with this.

SUBSCRIBE

The post Tax Loophole appeared first on Traveling Archive.

The morning of April 5th, 2010, I attended the Wikileaks news conference at the National Press Club. Afterwards, my stomach felt like a lead ball. Assange presented the July 12, 2007 attack by two US Apache helicopters, firing 30mm cannon on civilians in an Iraqi suburb, most clearly unarmed and exhibiting no hostilities. Dead included two Reuter’s journalists. One clearly carried a camera. Unarmed men were killed trying to rescue a seriously wounded Reuter’s employee. A slain rescuer’s two children in their destroyed van were grievously wounded. The cavalier comments of the pilots as they filmed are terrifying. How many they killed is unclear because families lived in a building targeted when unarmed men entered it. Estimates range from 12 to over 18. The Army’s story to Reuters was less than candid. Reality descended when Chelsea Manning provided Wikileaks with the tape.

Millions viewed the “Collateral Murder Tape“as well as interviews with one of the soldiers who rescued the children – Ethan McCord recounts how it impacted him, and the wider PTSD forever wars inflict on our soldiers. In our fog of war reliable count of the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan remains elusive. Those who prefer such dark reveals remain buried see Assange as someone to destroy.

US military budgets remain on crescendo. The world’s top five arms dealers, and twelve of the top twenty-five, are American. Assange is bad for business.

“Someone’s not going to like this” was predictable. Assange stepped into the crosshairs of fame, targeted by powerful disinformation systems. Politicians and media pundits, some of the latter still joined at the hip with America’s military/intelligence/industrial complex, chimed in. Some called Assange a traitor – never mind he’s Australian – and high-tech terrorist, even calling for his assassination. So dark was the picture painted that even sympathetic writers feel obliged to begin with “Whatever you think of Assange…”

When Wikileaks revealed the DNC gamed the 2016 Democratic Party primaries, the punditry judged democratic derailments not newsworthy when the higher good was resistance to Trump.

Distortions linger. How many know Assange sought Pentagon and State Department help in redacting sensitive information, and was refused? That he worked diligently with newspapers to determine information that should be held back, until a newspaper editor published an access password that let everyone pull everything? Or that Robert Mueller found no evidence connecting Assange and Russia? That Paul Manafort never met with Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London? Or that no harm was caused to anyone in other countries who was working with the US government? Media ran faster with narratives ripping Assange than questioning or correcting them.

Claiming Assange is outside publishing boundaries is a conceit that who, what, when, where, why and how requires formal training, or an official imprimatur. Never mind the international journalism awards Wikileaks quickly garnered, the uncovered bedrock for important stories that enabled accolades to news organizations building on Wikileaks revelations.

A decade ago Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed government lies about the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers, told me government’s objective going after him was a UK-styled Official Secrets Act that undermines First Amendment protections. Beyond criminalizing leaking classified materials, it would criminalize seeking and publishing them.

I recently asked James C. Goodale, who defended the NY Times in that case, if that’s still the aim. “Yes,” Goodale says, “closing the circle, prosecuting those who receive and publish leaks. The wild over-classification of documents systematically confuses confidentiality with national security, deterring finding out and revealing what government does. It’s already put a chill on journalists covering the military establishment, and leaks are drying up. Assange engaged in journalistic endeavors.” Goodale is alarmed that despite overwhelming recognition of this by international journalist and human rights organizations, American media remains mostly comatose regarding the peril.

It remains illegal to classify information “to conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.” Presumably that includes war crimes. Yet the secretive among us are classifying tens of millions of items a year, a perpetual fog machine.

Despite the Obama Administration’s unprecedented pillorying of whistleblowers who revealed government wrongdoing, including CIA torture, it chose not to pursue Assange because of challenges disentangling him from papers like the NY Times that used his revelations. The Trump Administration jumped that line. The Biden Administration follows.

Relevance is constantly refreshed, such as by all the noble pronouncements on protecting journalism and freedom of expression, including from the Biden Administration, on World Press Freedom Day, ignoring applicability to Assange. And now there is the bellwether of government secretly obtaining reporters’ cell phone records, presumably to determine sources. Another, in May drone whistleblower Daniel Hale was jailed months ahead of his July sentencing. Grind the sources down.

The importance of Assange’s effort to inform the public of what the powerful in government and commerce choose to keep hidden from them is underscored by trends in media ownership. With the purchase of Tribune Publishing by Alden Global Capital, hedge funds now control half of American daily local newspaper circulation. The vultures among them shrivel staff and investigative resources.

When media companies throw down partisan preferences, they ignore, minimize or spin stories that don’t support their narratives. They avoid ruffling the stove-piped consumers they cultivate. They are bipartisan in one regard, being ever mindful of the industries that advertise heavily with them, or in which they have financial interests.

Corporate investors and board members often have multiple interests beyond enlightening the public. Take BlackRock, one of the Wall Street outfits that own large swaths of the NY Times. It’s heavily invested in defense companies, and has increasing interests abroad, including China and Saudi Arabia. Many owners certainly have reasons not to antagonize government. Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, has been seeking Pentagon contracts for Amazon worth billions. He now seeks a $10 billion dollar bailout for his Blue Origin space company.

Not that journalists laboring in a wobbling, insecure industry pay close attention to the interests of those buttering their bread when deciding what ink to spill. Just that Assange is handy for bringing important stories to media that might get them the attention that should be paid.

Pursuing Assange demonstrates collapsing ideals of justice. There is the specter of government attorneys claiming the First Amendment doesn’t apply to foreign journalists and non-US citizens. Authoritarian regimes oppressing journalists applaud when America dissipates protection of speech.

London’s long extradition hearing gave Assange the Hannibal Lecter treatment. He was in a glass cage, often incommunicado with his lawyers. Assange is on the autism spectrum. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, says what Assange endures is psychological torture.

“Violations of due process revealed by hearing testimony, including spying on Assange’s meetings with his lawyers and journalists by a security firm working with US intelligence officials, even discussing kidnapping or poisoning Assange, should shock any judicial conscience,” says Goodale. It is inescapable that some prefer Assange dead. “Why?” ought to occupy the minds of investigative journalists.

The hearing’s January outcome echoes nightmares of Orwell and Kafka. The British judge said nothing protecting press freedom. Instead, she refused extradition because Assange might commit suicide in draconian US prisons. Then she put him not in house arrest but back in isolation in Prison Belmarsh, notorious for brutality and suicide. There Assange sits, as he has for two years, as the U.S appeals.

President Biden seeks to end decades of war in Afghanistan. Chances of success there were dashed by the horrid aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Though Biden’s been mercurial describing his support of that invasion, it’s hard to imagine regret doesn’t weigh heavy. Consider that had Wikileaks been operable prior to the invasion, lies about WMD’s and Al-Qaeda alliances might have been exposed, preventing that tragic opening of Pandora’s Box.

If America truly values an informed public, the persecution of Julian Assange must end.

Note:

The essay above is an expanded version of one in the (hyperlink ‘LA Progressive‘. That publication belongs to a ‘Assange defense coalition‘ which with the ‘Courage Foundation‘ is supportive of Julian Assange and of the current month-long US tour by Assange’s father and brother, John and Gabriel Shipton. Related panel discussions, with an impressive diversity of knowledgeable participants across eighteen cities, can be followed here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd_E8AUuP7bYlYt6gkVgkraCjqH99o2kc and also at ‘Consortium News‘. Those wishing to understand the issues surrounding the Assange case, unfiltered by often conflicted media organizations, should indulge in at least one of the tour offerings.

I attended one of the informative June 13th ‘panels in Washington, DC‘, ably moderated by Marianne Williamson, (tech problems end about 18 minutes in). Despite the relevance to all things Washington, local media like the Washington Post managed to avert their gaze.

A quick hit, a letter to President Biden’s Dept. of Justice from two dozen international journalism and human rights organizations can be seen (hyperlink: “freedom press“. Let me also recommend this recent interview of the always agile Daniel Ellsberg on (hyperlink: “Democracy Now“, one of three intriguing segments, including a great refresher on the Pentagon Papers case. That’s a saga that much of media appears to have tossed into a memory hole, next to a recognition of the danger the Assange prosecution poses for journalism and our democracy.

END

The post The man who knew too much Julian Assange appeared first on Traveling Archive.

King of the Hill

Disclosure alone won’t topple campaign money as the ruler of Congress.

From Barron’s Other Voices, Jan. 13, 1997

Not Long ago the Clinton Administration crowed about agreements with a number of countries to curb bribery in business abroad. Wide implementation of measures such as tax-deductibility of bribes is still a long march away. Still, the laudable effort reflects the belief in U.S. charges that corrupt practices such as bribery in foreign procurement produce inefficiency, surprise derailments and social instability. The stock retort from parties resisting reform: There isn’t a dimes difference between bribery abroad and the U.S. campaign-finance system.

Plenty have professed to be shocked – shocked! – when the White House was caught Huanging it. Alas, many commentators conclude that stricter limits on donations and spending won’t work and that the only real solution is “absolute disclosure.”

Improvements in disclosure are needed, but by itself disclosure is woefully inadequate. Lip service for disclosure as the only route for reform is the fallback position of those in the lobbying world – givers, incumbent receivers and the growth industry between them. They’ll mumble anything to head off public anger at the low art of the thinly disguised bribe.

Reform is a tricky puzzle. Before accepting disclosure not as a tool but as a panacea, consider this: Most voters lack either the ability or the time to adequately decipher the true meaning of campaign contributions. Who figures the National Wetland Coalition for oil and land-development interests? Witness past parades of donors calling themselves housewives, large contributors’ most frequently listed occupation.

Some contributors, like the tobacco industry, have readily identified goals. But others aren’t so easy to figure. How many voters will sort out the quid pro quo of folks like Dwayne Andreas, who gives piles of money to everyone and has a long list of diverse objectives? How many will plumb the desires of a patent-law firm whose favored clients are foreign companies? What of domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies? Try tracking “soft money,” wonderfully malleable stuff that is laundered by the political parties themselves, often comes from equal-opportunity givers and goes wherever the parties want to put it.

Organizations and competitors already rush to filter the info for voters, but much of their messages turn to mush in the flood of interpretations. Voters must also decipher the political spin and agenda of groups offering to do the voters’ homework. Let the press do its job? Presumably it already tries in the limited space it’s allotted, but shining a light on all the shell games is a daunting task and anyway, would lead to information overload.

I once asked a top staffer for former U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, the California Democrat, how the senator coped with the flood of cash. He deadpanned: “People think if they give you a lot of money, they’re buying influence. But all they really buy is access.” Charles Keating must have thought the fictional wall between influence and access a hoot.

Just as corruption abroad results in inefficiencies that harm American companies, many U.S. government inefficiencies, including bloat and waste, are traceable to our system of campaign finance. Political action committees and trade associations are dominated by members who are the most active because they seek the most. They are bidders in a political bazaar focused on the short term. A legislator’s response, “We’re looking closely at this,” is often code for, “It’s on the block, open your wallets.” Because so many politicians are unable to move for fear of alienating contributors, matters are often not taken up until a crisis arrives.

One example of legislative paralysis is in the arena of finance. According to the Center of Responsive Politics, interested parties seeking to influence the House and Senate banking committees spent nearly $60 million in campaign contributions in the first 18 months of the 1995-96 election cycle, exceeding all other industry and labor groupings, and totals are expected to rocket when the final five months are compiled. Did this advance a rational, comprehensive modernization of the financial-services world? No. Competing interests fought to a standstill. Finally, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig, whose patience had run out, issued regulations that will accelerate modernization of the industry. Pros like William Seidman, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., praise Ludwig’s action as strengthening safety and soundness but Republican Alfonse D’Amato of New York, says he is “deeply troubled” by the comptroller’s action, and Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the House Banking Committee, says the regulations’ impact on bank safety “is far too serious to be left to the discretion of regulators (in other words, open your wallets and we’ll get up another game). (Note: before you jump on me for this example’s naive appraisal of modernization, see the “in the oops category” paragraph in the post intro above).

As for rifle-shot legislation that succeeds, take a peek at our tax code. And from airwaves to sugar beets, gasohol to guns, the correlation between votes and contributions is startling.

One often hears that, in our $6 trillion economy, soft-drink advertising eclipses what is spent on campaigns. But it isn’t the amount, it’s where it goes, who gives it and how many on Capitol Hill spend most of their time seeking it. Senators raise an average of 15 grand or so a week, every week. Leon Panetta, the departing White House chief of staff recently estimated that legislators spend 60%-80% of their time with their palms out. He figures the madness continues because politicians are too insecure to tackle the system they know and which got them into office. Do we really want the chief criterion for the performance of our leaders – and often their staffs – to be their ability to raise money?

Even more repugnant to democratic ideals is the flip side of politicians’ money-raising – the threat, not at all thinly veiled, of retaliation against companies that give money to the opposition.

Oddly, one proposed solution to this state of affairs is to simply take off all limits and let politicians glide with a few fat-cat backers, restrained only by full disclosure. Including soft money, the top 1% of income earners already provide the vast bulk of campaign cash, exceeding PACs. Politicians needn’t be rocket scientists to know the majority of people in the top 1% view many issues – such as uncapped interest deductions on loans for high-priced homes – pretty much the same way. Again, disclosure falls short of revelation.

If you think we have funny races now, turn all our candidates into horses owned by the biggest bettors. As they won’t differ much on real issues, we will be treated to demagoguery. Their strategies will center not on better ideas but on engineering the failure of the opposition.

Applaud any tightening of disclosure, but the only way to curb undue influence, from both international and domestic sources, is to curb undue influence. That means curbing money. Banning soft money and giving teeth to the Federal Election Commission would be a big start. Voluntary participation in a system with spending limits, meaningful media access and citizen financing – which would also free politicians – with tough limits on contributions from every source would be even better. The public cost would be a pittance compared with the savings from more government decisions based on the merits; consider just the cost of delayed oversight of the thrift industry.

Those who would limit reforms to disclosure cite the difficulty, both judicial and legislative, in keeping both foreign and domestic money from finding indirect routes. But that difficulty also applies to the proper disclosure of the routes money takes into one pocket and out the other. That’s why real contribution limits are necessary.

Until the Supreme Court wises up and admits that unlimited money isn’t unlimited speech, participation in a public financing system will have to be voluntary. But polling shows strong, consistent support for public financing. Access to meaningful media formats at reduced cost must be a component. As voters rebel against the cynicism expressed by turn-of-the-century writer Elbert Hubbard, “Government is a kind of legalized pillage,” big spenders who scoff at a serious reform system are likely to suffer backlash.

The confused message our system sends abroad, and perhaps at home, was made clear recently when the bureau chief of a South American TV network asked me: What is wrong with influence from foreign contributions? After all, we live in a global economy.” I answered that if nothing were wrong with it, folks like Lincoln couldn’t pen phrases like “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but I don’t think I was persuasive.

Conventional wisdom on the last campaign is that a wary public balanced a Democratic White House with a Republican Congress. But a nationwide agreement between voters to neutralize parties was less a factor then the money-raising power of incumbency.

That power is the enemy of reform. Vice President Gore, Rep. Dick Gephardt and others seeking the White House are already pulling levers on the fund-raising machinery, as are congressional incumbents. The desire for another day, another dollar won’t abate unless the public insists that this is a matter of national shame. Then real reforms may become an irresistible avenue for a White House mea culpa and political absolution. Restoring credibility to government will enhance elected officials ability to carry a tough sell, such as entitlement reform, to the public, without being handed their hands.

If the fallout from John Huang brings about real campaign-finance reforms – perhaps the greatest accomplishment the President and Congress might achieve – we should all take Mr. Huang to lunch. Campaign money, like rainwater, will always seek the leaks in our democratic roof, but that’s no reason not to keep plugging the holes. People who wait only for fixes that are absolutes will be waiting for Godot. Voters know our system of campaign finance attacks the concept of one person, one vote, and their sense of disenfranchisement just provided the lowest Election Day turnout since 1924.

The post Articles on Politics appeared first on Traveling Archive.

Attending the National Press Club for Senator Elizabeth Warren’s impassioned speech on corruption, my mind drifted to a tequila-inspired phone call I made to Chris Matthews.

It was during the Mondale/Reagan campaign, when Matthews was chief of staff to House Speaker Tip “All politics is local” O’Neill.  Matthews was phenomenally gracious, given that he didn’t know me from Adam, I woke him at midnight and my lubricated exasperation fell short of diplomatic grace. “Sorry to disturb you, Mr. Matthews, but WHY the hell aren’t the Democrats hammering Reagan on corruption, all the scandals floating about his administration?” Matthews sighed and politely accepted my frustration. He explained that while corruption abounded, voters just didn’t care that much about the issue. There’s only so much time, so the Democrats focused elsewhere. I protested that if the arguments on corruption were properly articulated the public might care. Voter response might surprise. And what did the campaign have to lose? Matthews continued to patiently wrangle his unknown assailant, explaining it just wasn’t in the cards. It had been considered but it had been decided it wouldn’t bear fruit.

In addition to this belated apology for that marauding phone call, I will forever award Matthews a point for restraint for not telling me to go to hell and slamming down the phone, one of the vanishing pleasures of now-endangered land lines. We don’t need no stink’n emojis. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I’ve never had a cell phone. It can’t properly communicate stellar indignation. Indignation of the type we should all feel at the culture of corruption Warren ably describes.

Perhaps part of the 1984 reticence on calling the Reagan Administration out for corruption was worry over the kettle calling the pot black. Plenty of corruption to go around, as Senator Warren acknowledged when asked to name offending Democrats. Mary Jo White, President Obama’s head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, quickly came to Warren’s mind. As might have Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, one of the most grievous of the Obama Administration’s many denizens of the revolving door. I’m stunned Holder’s making noises about running for President. More likely he’ll be running from pitchforks and torches with the rest of the Wall Street horde after the next financial sector debacle that White, Holder and the other enablers methodically set the world up for as they profitably whittle away bank accountability.

For the not-so-guilty pleasure of hearing Warren rattle off the public servant disgrace that is Mary Jo White, you can watch the video of the Q.&A. and the rest of the preceding speech here.

Do a search on Mary Jo White at one of my favorite sites, Wall Street on Parade. Do the same for Eric Holder. The essays are short and succinct. It won’t take many to get the gist on how both put the fix in for banks and why it’s squarely in line with the corrupt culture Warren is calling out. While there, glance about the site for insights on how the next financial debacle is coming together. For Congressional duplicity and complicity, catch David Dayen’s piece in The Intercept on bipartisan bank deregulation. His most recent takes measure of Tom Carper’s forty years as a bank-captured Delaware Congressman, Governor and now Senator, and what that has wrought, including his major contributions to the 2008 financial debacle, and the dangers his actions as a bank operative continue to expose us to. Dayen makes the excellent point that although the credit card industry is big in Delaware, the economic gains to the state fall quite short of the serious damage deregulation and sweetheart bills for the credit card companies have inflicted on many Delaware citizens, as well as the rest of the country. His Senate primary is coming down the pike. Carper is proof we have the best Congress money can buy.

And not just Congress. It would be a terrible injustice to the many public servants serious about serving the public’s best interests to imply they are all looking for an opportune moment to sell out. But the reality behind Warren’s proposals is that Washington has become a magnet for people who will say and do anything for money. There are people who entered government, even run for Congress, with the main motive of drifting to more lucrative work in the private sector. They are easily manipulated by those who can purchase the levers of influence. A sort of appendage has been spliced off the military/industrial complex. A fundraising/lobbying/legal/public relations complex has evolved. Throw in some think tanks. This complex is not interested in backing candidates who aren’t about the business of feeding it.

Warren is correct when she speaks of corruption as a culture. It’s become so normalized that for some the revolving door is now regarded as a top drawer entitlement. Their sellout begins while they are supposedly serving the public, as pleasing those for whom they really wish to work is their ticket to ride. No matter how educated or clever they are, their main skill set is devoted to tilting the playing field for the upper crust.

And what is it the upper crust want when they fuel campaigns and spin the revolving door?

They want more. Here’s a snapshot of some hearts’ desires during the 2012 campaign for President.

Nothing fuels America’s wealth gap faster than the purchase of government at all levels. Warren is right to include the Judiciary in government’s vulnerability to what she refers to as a creeping cancer. As Warren’s focus is Federal, she doesn’t include state judiciaries, but in many of them, the big players are able to put the fix in. State courts are often the farm teams for the Federal judiciary. Read about it here, and consider what it means when the little guy loses confidence in our legal system.

Whether or not Matthews was right (probably) in 1984 about corruption not being a big issue for Americans, it is now. Indignation at corruption percolates like the witches’ cauldron in Macbeth. Alas, a con artist successfully presented himself as indignation’s purest expression. After he persuaded enough people to use him as their middle finger to Washington, he pays the country back riding roughshod over it with galloping venality. I bet more people would have preferred Bernie, an authentic reformer, as their middle finger to Washington. Despite Republican roadblocks in Congress, he would have shaken things up but spared us all the time bombs El Presidente continues to set ticking.

To my mind, corruption’s gold standard is Neil Gorsuch. When Senator Sheldon Whitehouse grilled him over who was behind the seven million in dark money keeping Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court and the same crowd spending ten million more pushing to land Gorsuch on it, and what it was these masked titans of influence wanted for such a big ticket item, Gorsuch played coy. “You’d have to ask them,” replied Gorsuch, under oath, adding that if Congress wanted such transparency, they should pass a law requiring it. We’re expected to put up with the fiction that a savvy pol like Gorsuch didn’t know who his covert benefactors were or what they seek. In a sane world, bipartisan Senate outrage would have bounced Gorsuch out the window. Instead, the normalization of corruption carried the day for him. Videos of Whitehouse’s questioning can be accessed here. The mantra for every Senator questioning Gorsuch should have been, “Judge Gorsuch, are you stating under oath that you have absolutely no idea of who is giving any of the dark money backing you. Do you understand the consequences if we find out that isn’t true?”

Naysayers are dismissing Warren’s proposals. Paul Miller of the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics, a trade group for lobbyists, told Politico “We are now entering election crazy time…most of this is going to be unconstitutional.”

So prepare to watch Washington insiders distort the constitutional right to petition the government into the right to purchase elected officials and their staffs.

I think much of Warren’s bill would pass legal muster. Meanwhile there is nothing unconstitutional about candidates for President pledging to abide by such reforms in their administrations and voters voting them in, and out if they don’t follow through. There’s nothing unconstitutional about candidates for Congress pledging likewise.

At the least, Warren’s proposals should prompt an overdue examination of what it means to be a public servant. Something short of a new priesthood or a vow of poverty. But Warren points out we could sweeten the pie for those toiling for the public. One thing is certain, it would be much cheaper than the price we pay for government actions and expenditures that happen not because they make sense but because the fix is in. Clean up government and government will better attract quality people.

There is no end of talented and ethical people in this country, from academia or wherever, we don’t need to run to the usual power players to staff top government positions. Arguments for bringing big shots from Wall Street and industry through the revolving door to run government and then allow them to return are second cousins to the argument for taxpayers needing to pay bonuses to Wall Street masters of the universe so the big banks can retain the geniuses who brought us the 2008 financial meltdown.

Cynicism is easy to come by. Almost 25 years ago I wrote an essay for the Christian Science Monitor, The Low Art of the Thinly Disguised Bribe. It was a pitch for public financing for campaigns, but most of the points I made could fit as the shadow to Senator Warren’s pitch for her bill. In Washington, the more things change the more they stay the same. Unless they get worse.

But before throwing Warren’s effort into the bin labeled Screaming Snowballs Running Through Hell, remember it took Bernie a while to knock off the rough edges and hit his stride. Bernie’s now changed the whole conversation over national priorities and what is doable. Voters who tune in are better able to voice their angst over the direction of the country, not just flail about in frustration. Bernie’s loosened the establishment death grip on the Democratic party enough that there’s real hope the most realistic shot at reform is not starting a party from scratch, but retooling the Democratic Party.

View Warren’s effort the same way. She is ably articulating the damage to the country and seeding serious discussion on solutions once dismissed by know-it-all insiders as pie in the sky. Not so much now, at least outside the vested Beltway crowd. Much of the country now understands we are up against it, from climate to health care to financial calamities to quagmires in the far flung, all to benefit those able pull levers of power the rest of us can’t until the rules change. It took time, but the NRA’s lethal tomfoolery beat the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment into nonsense. So why can’t Warren put a drumbeat to legitimate ideas that might rescue democracy from plutocracy? Thoughtful people understand that success for most measures won’t fly in with the morning sun. Choice reforms can still be taken up by progressive candidates and amplified so that the public comes to demand the most doable changes, dumping elected officials who only give lip service to reform.

The most important and biggest challenge in Warren’s proposals is dismantling the revolving door.

Warren’s common sense measures include a lifetime ban on lobbying by Presidents, Vice Presidents, Members of Congress, federal judges, and cabinet secretaries. It would impose multi-year bans on other federal employees from lobbying their former office, prohibit current  lobbyists from taking government jobs for two years after lobbying, six years for corporate lobbyists. Public waivers in the national interest are allowed for non-corporate lobbyists only. The bill would ban hiring of corporate leaders whose companies broke federal law in the prior six years. It blocks federal contractor employees from working at the agency that awarded them contracts or licenses for four years.

The bill would ban golden parachutes that provide corporate bonuses to executives for federal service. Warren points out that Goldman Sachs gave Gary Cohn over a quarter of a billion as he slid into the Trump administration, after which he engineered the time bomb of the massive tax cut mostly enjoyed by the rich. Such parachutes always beg the question of which comes first, the quid or the quo.

Congressional votes on banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists will rapidly sort which members are keepers.

However, perhaps an adjustment is in order, maybe relaxing the life-time ban to just include corporate clients or groups representing corporations, with a several year cool-off before representing non-profits. I know, slippery slope. As Warren points out, salaries and benefits for members of Congress can be increased. And one hopes we send people to Congress capable of returning to other gainful employment than lobbying.

If you get to know some whistleblowers, that revolving door often comes up. Let’s go back to the SEC. After an admirable legal career Gary Aguirre determined to become a public servant at the SEC. He was the lead investigator on an insider trading case and sought to subpoena John Mack, a Wall Street giant. The agency told him Mack, a major contributor to George W. Bush, had too much political clout. Aguirre tried to pursue it. Aguirre was canned. Eventually vindicated and years later awarded a settlement from the SEC, Aguirre now specializes in representing SEC whistleblowers.

I used to write letters from Washington explaining our dysfunction to an international legal crowd. Attempting a column on the SEC, I asked Aguirre what might be done with the agency. He wrote me the following:

Skip:

In a nutshell, the SEC as one overarching flaw that prevents it from achieving its mission: “The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.”

That flaw is the revolving door between the SEC’s leadership and Wall Street. It is the reason the SEC created the environment that delivered the financial crisis. It is the reason the SEC failed to prosecute those responsible for the financial crisis. It is the reason that the SEC has created a phony crackdown on Wall Street (the insider trading crackdown) rather than an authentic crackdown on the Wall Street elite responsible for the crisis.

After Ferdinand Pecora conducted an investigation of the causes of the 1929 crash and its aftermath, Congress enacted the Securities Exchange Act, which created the SEC. Pecora intended for the SEC to be the cop on the corner of Wall Street. That cop has been compromised for some time. It has been compromised by its leadership which look forward to the day when they leave their $200,000 year jobs with the SEC for their 5 million a year jobs with Wall Street banks or the law firms that represent them, e.g., former Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami.

The other issues with the SEC are minutiae.

Regards,

It’s worth another search at Wall Street on Parade, on Robert Khuzami, a master of the revolving door. A Deutsche Bank whistleblower I spoke with is something less than a fan and his story is quite an intrigue, but time grows short. You can read an account of Eric Ben-Artzi’s adventure with Khuzami here. In addition to being a partner in a law firm servicing Wall Street, Khuzami directed enforcement for the SEC, and became general counsel of Deutsche Bank AG. Spin and spin again, he’s now Deputy US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Wall Street). Cue the Church Lady: How convenient!

My hat’s off to Senator Warren for any effort she makes taking on the infernal revolving door before it brings down the country. Again.

Howie’s earlier synopsis of and comment on Warren’s proposals

Prepared text of Senator Warren’s speech at the National Press Club

Text of the proposed Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act

One page version

Bill Summary

Endorsements

A bit more on the revolving door, with a Manafort angle

The post Will Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Tilt at Windmills Evolve to a Direct Hit? appeared first on Traveling Archive.