General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobt Reich: Will the Democratic Nominee for 2016 Take on the Moneyed Interests?
Robert Reich
3/3/15
The big unknown is whether the Democratic nominee will also take on the moneyed interests ...
Part of this upward redistribution has involved excessive risk-taking on Wall Street. Such excesses padded the nests of executives and traders but required a tax-payer funded bailout when the bubble burst in 2008. It also has caused millions of working Americans to lose their jobs, savings, and homes.
Since then, the Street has been back to many of its old tricks. Its lobbyists are also busily rolling back the Dodd-Frank Act intended to prevent another crash.
The Democratic candidate could condemn this, and go further -- promising to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act, once separating investment from commercial banking (until the Clinton administration joined with Republicans in repealing it in 1999).
The candidate could also call for busting up Wall Street's biggest banks and thereafter limiting their size; imposing jail sentences on top executives who break the law; cracking down on insider trading; and, for good measure, enacting a small tax on all financial transactions in order to reduce speculation.
Another part of America's upward redistribution has come in the form of "corporate welfare" -- tax breaks and subsidies benefiting particular companies and industries (oil and gas, hedge-fund and private-equity, pharmaceuticals, big agriculture) for no other reason than they have the political clout to get them.
It's also come in the guise of patents and trademarks that extend far beyond what's necessary for adequate returns on corporate investment -- resulting, for example, in drug prices that are higher in America than any other advanced nation.
It's taken the form of monopoly power, generating outsize profits for certain companies (Monsanto, Pfizer, Comcast, for example) along with high prices for consumers.
And it's come in the form of trade agreements that have greased the way for outsourcing American jobs abroad -- thereby exerting downward pressure on American wages.
Not surprisingly, corporate profits now account for a larger percent of the total economy than they have in more than eight decades; and wages, the smallest percent in more than six.
The candidate could demand an end to corporate welfare and excessive intellectual property protection..
...The candidate could also propose true tax reform: higher corporate taxes, in order to finance investments in education and infrastructure; ...
She (or he) could likewise demand higher taxes on America's billionaires and multimillionaires ...
Not the least, taking on the moneyed interests would necessitate limiting their future political power. Here, the candidate could promise to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to reversing Citizens United, push for public financing of elections, and demand full disclosure of all private sources of campaign funding.
But will she (or he) do any of this? ...
is the right question.
it is. Our country needs someone to do this, now more than ever.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)President in 2016. So my guess is no.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)jeepers
(314 posts)Not in my lifetime.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)What her BFFs want her BFFs will get
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The nominee may pay lip service to populism during the campaign, but it will be insincere. Also I think that the experience with Obama will make people skeptical about populist sounding campaign rhetoric.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Highly skeptical.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)That was easy.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Anyone who would do such things will not be elected. As usual, the choice will be between Reaganite who is sane on social issues and Far right nutjob.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Sadly.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Anyone who would do such things will not be allowed to be a serious option for even a nomination and if they do they will be brought down or killed.
As usual, the choice will be between Reaganite who is sane as described as somewhere between benign neglect and will stop fighting for the bad guys once the public is in front on some social issues having to do with identity as long as they don't hurt ca$h flow for anybody and a NeoBircher nutjob.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)"congress had enough votes to override Clinton's veto" crowd.