Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina co-orchestrated the Biden big boost move on Super Tuesday, where Biden bypassed Sanders toward the "Democratic" Party's 2020 presidential nomination. To understand Clyburn, understand his campaign money trail. And then, an anti pharma price gouging bill sponsored by progressives has languished in the House where Clyburn holds a leadership role.

It is not rocket science. It is old-fashioned follow the money. Clyburn money to be followed, lately, and over his entire House career. Do you doubt where his legislative priorities fall on the question of disarming the insurance-medical-pharma-complex of its ill-gotten gouging-powers? You want an example? Sure you do, and recent is better.

First, things were better before the Clinton-Gingrich policy collaborations. Preliminary to fleshing-out that last assertion, for readers unaware of it, David Sirota has a new online "soap box" worth the time to check it out, since Sirota writes well and ferrets out stuff which, once he strings links and commentary together, makes sense and hangs together.

Titled, "Too Much Information," the home link is:

https://sirota.substack.com/

The work behind this post at Crabgrass was Sirota doing the heavy lifting, but with the Clyburn observation tied to Clyburn's NOT being a cosponsor of a consumer protection legislative effort sponsored by Bernie in the Senate and Ro Kohana in the House. The links show Clyburn's absence from the progressives in the House, and in the Senate Klobuchar was a late cosponsor.

The bill text is presented via the Kohana link.

All this is a prelude to again stating that Joe Biden will be an enemy of pharma, insurance, and care provider reforms, if elected, i.e., in that dimension equivalent to Trump more than an upgrade.

Now, the Clinton-Gingrich days, again Sirota,

That NIH rule, however, was rescinded by Bill Clinton’s administration -- a big win for “the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, which campaigned against the pricing clause,” according to a contemporaneous report from the New York Times (and just yesterday, Donna Shalala — the Clinton official who ran HHS when the pricing rule was rescinded — was appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the government panel charged with overseeing coronavirus stimulus funds).

And just a day ago, I believe, the Clintons endorsed Biden. Full circle; citizens suffer, super big business and lobbying forces prosper disproportionately.

Clyburn and Biden had best look to Abrams rather than Harris or other Pelosi-like women of color for the second spot on the ticket. It will either save or doom Biden, how he chooses, and then follows up the choice with a bit more.

Kohana and Jayapal more than AOC and Warren seem best to lead progressives as Bernie ages away from another try, but the four, on the same page and mutually respectful would be stronger together.

In fairness to AOC, so far she's not officially lined up behind the Biden bandwagon. Bernie has. Even before Biden has announced a VP choice. Perhaps Bernie and Biden discussed names.

Perhaps not.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

What is an "NPI" and should you care? HINT: The New York Fed cares.

In our research, we exploit variation in both the severity of the pandemic, as well as the speed and duration of NPIs implemented to fight disease transmission across U.S. states and cities. NPIs implemented in 1918 resemble many of the policies used to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including closures of schools, theaters, and churches, bans on public gatherings and funerals, quarantines of suspected cases, and restrictions on business hours.

Our paper yields two main insights. First, we find that areas that were more severely affected by the 1918 Flu Pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity. Second, we find that cities that implemented early and extensive NPIs suffered no adverse economic effects over the medium term. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experienced a relative increase in real economic activity after the pandemic subsided. Altogether, our findings suggest that pandemics can have substantial economic costs, and NPIs can lead to both better economic outcomes and lower mortality rates.

NY Fed link.

. . . You have nothing to lose but your chains?

Link.

Invasion of the killer leeches.

If Covid-19 coverage is getting too widespread in mainstream media for your liking, websearch = Biden Hawkfish

It shows Mike Bloomberg wanting more.

Or you can read the stuff differently.

As to what Biden may do, Clyburn and Perez have yet to make a decision.

Battling among leeches is news, of a kind, but not new news; not by any measure nor in any actually new dimension.

Same old shit, or not? Same old, but with a new twist related to an electorate wanting decency these days? You can read, you can decide. One thing for certain, a beach littered with dead Hawkfish would have its own strong odor. The smell of money amok? Or not, just business as usual in good ol' DC? Regular stink? Nothing novel?

Try it. You'll like it? But then Tom Perez is not for sale, is he?

As a thought experiment, how might Bloomberg's Hawkfish promote this idea if gaining control of the Biden experiment? Might that question be a good barometer of the Biden Gestalt - with or without a Hunter-Hawkfish board dimension?

Politico. The Intercept.

Friday, April 17, 2020

Things would look less ugly had Ihlen Omar hired the E Street Band; and not the E Street Group.


Every suggestion comes with a story. Just think, for Rep. O -- E Street Band would come with a pre-packaged political slogan. Rather than a question.

_____________UPDATE_____________
Troubadours are better than political consultants anyway.

They add value.

Uncle Sam? The old flim-flam.

from: https://web.archive.org/web/20031225032516/http://biden.senate.gov/~biden/press/release/98/03/2000A26318.html



As you read content, the press release is dated 1998. Meaning, that ultra-conservative chest beating thing was first posted during late twentieth century off-year election time. Newt's Contract Against America was getting press huzzahs, and votes, and Biden was with the flow. The Archive's banner notes 8 downloads, Christmas day 2003, into 2004; meaning that the same press release remained on Biden's Senate website for months, e.g., here. For that time frame, Bush's Iraq War was in full swing, Bush was ascendant in eyes of mainstream media; and Biden went with the flow. Like Huck Finn drifting down-river wherever the current led. As flexibly adaptable as urban coyotes.

Biden must have been shocked and awed into conservative attire. Or just doing polling.

If you see this press release/advertisement as congruent with the "Nothing will fundamentally change" promises Biden made the other day to money, that gets the silver star. If appalled by it all; Biden huckestering The War, the Right, the interests of banks over people; then it's a gold star. If you are unsure, Biden, lesser or greater evil compared to Trump; you win the new Lexus automobile. Top prize. Enjoy voting in November or staying home out of principle.

 Tired of the lesser evil gaming the two parties serve up every election; rain or shine; war or peace; good economy or bad? Wouldn't you rather, just once, to be able to choose the lesser good? Biden. Trump. That would be a difficult vote, the lesser good. You'd have to look for good, each side, before greater and lesser matter.

____________UPDATE___________
There is never a shortage of opinions on the web. Avoiding opinions that are wholly worthless, try instead, suggested links of two minds, yes, but where else is truth narrowed so effectively: Three links, shortest first: here, here and here.

The third item ends by embedding this YouTube item suggesting the DNC and allied money might not mind a Biden loss - second Trump term, as Andrew Cuomo's (and his hanger-on opportunists') opportunity to posture toward 2024 - (the election cycle after Trump's run his course and when Pence and Nikki Haley will be arm-wrestling) - Cuomo being able then to act as the DNC's raging bull during a second Trump term to gain national stature to fuel a presidential run.

Meanwhile milk the current consultancy cash cow dry after having crapped on Bernie and his grassroots strength.

Cynical as an outlook? Yes. Truthful? You decide.

FURTHER: It seems Biden could gain votes by saying, "Put me in the White House and you'd be able to avoid Cuomo incessantly going bitch, bitch, bitch." That, incessant Cuomo as mainstream media's voice of the loyal opposition,  is what likely will happen with a Trump second term and it's nowhere close to a brand I'd trust to buy. Not now, likely never, but the GOP could run Pence in which case Vlad Dracula could gain many votes if opposing Pence.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Bloomberg representative of all billionaires spent an ungodly amount of money on propaganda. What - he feared Bernie that much; him and other big swag wielders trepidacious about one Senator?

FACT TO REMEMBER: They did not fear Bernie. They feared US.

With mere torches and pitchforks, [a/k/a ballots/votes], can we hunt down the unholy beast? Not on Joe's watch. Not on Donald's watch. Not on Bloomberg's news show. What to do?

Third Party anyone? Or is there a better idea - like perpetual lesser evil? Their way. Or the highway?

Or the highway = third party?

Will the civil war go that far?

UPDATE: Politico. Skirting the issue. Yes, young voters turned out in 2008. Thinking CHANGE was more than a slogan. Lied to that day, that way. They now know two-party politics operates on money and instructions from outside career politician mixing.

Control the career politicians, from the outside, and prosper. A symbiotic attachment that must be broken; and do you see that happening with the two parties, each as we have it? Do you?

FURTHER: History loves paper [or Internet] trails. They catch so many lies and present bending of fact. Guess who, like Clinton in the late 1990's was playing ball with Newt when Newt was stirring up the Lewinsky pot at a time when Bubba was playing ball with Newt and both posed as face to face in opposition - diversionary theater and all? Who? Guess. The archive does not lie.

https://web.archive.org/web/20031225032516/http://biden.senate.gov/~biden/press/release/98/03/2000A26318.html

Hit the last paragraph of that hummer; look at the other names of shame. Biden is the survivor; so credit him with that level of barbarian cunning. And it does fit, "Nothing will fundamentally change."

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Bernie endorsed Biden, per Guardian reporting. So? Bernie, if anyone, should know: --- It is not about HIM. It is about US. HIM: Generous to a fault toward a man opposed to all Bernie stands for, (or spoke of, at least). US: Earn it Joe, or go fuck yourself. [UPDATED]

Oh. Worth a passing note, Guardian this morning also carried a report of another career politician who became a millionaire from doing the bidding of billionaires and insurance-industry bigwigs, now (officially) jumping onto Joe's bandwagon,. A mere formally, since his own cashflow-retirement plan differs little than Joe's. Both no different than Hunter's aims and understandings, or that is the opinion here. The opening image from that Guardian item shows a pair of suits headed arm-in-arm to find Bloomberg to kiss his billionaire ass. All to say on that score.

Bernie's endorsement of Biden, per Guardian, this link.

Enough of non-news reporting. Worth detailed consideration, again Guradian online, this morning under the heading "Opinion" -

Nathan Robinson wrote,

Joe Biden needs to do a lot more if he wants to win over Sanders voters subhead: His ‘concessions’ so far have only demonstrated that he isn’t serious about listening to leftwing voters

oe Biden has a problem: the young people who fueled Bernie Sanders’ second-place campaign are not very interested in Joe Biden. Biden has a well-known enthusiasm gap and even though he has dominated recent primary states, younger voters tended to prefer Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Progressive student groups around the country are declining to endorse Biden. A group of leftwing youth organizations sent an open letter to Biden demanding better policies if he wants their support.

On Monday, Sanders endorsed Biden, as he has long said he would. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has remained skeptical, saying that Biden needs to be made “uncomfortable” before there can be any kind of party unity. Many younger people share Ocasio-Cortez’s perspective; they are waiting to see what Biden can offer rather than reflexively supporting him because he is the Democrat.

Why is Biden struggling with young progressives? Well, one reason is that he has spent a lifetime opposing key progressive goals, and used to be proud of his reputation as one of the Senate’s “most conservative” Democrats. He was anti-abortion, pro-Iraq war and in the pocket of big banks. Even today, Biden says he has “no empathy” for young people who complain about indebtedness and precarity. He has told millennials who raise concerns about his environmental policies that they should “go vote for someone else”. Plenty have been willing to do just that. So while some commentators, such as Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, have suggested that activists and left media are responsible for Biden’s “unity problem”, the more blameworthy culprit is Biden himself.

In fact, it doesn’t seem as if Biden has much interest in solving his “unity problem”. In an ostensible effort to reach out to the left, Biden recently debuted new policies on healthcare and education. Did he adopt the policies recommended in the activists’ letter, namely Medicare for All and canceling all outstanding student debt? No, he did not. Instead, he merely proposed lowering the existing Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 and canceling tuition-related debt for students who attended public colleges who earn under a certain income.

The first of these policies almost seems like a deliberate insult. Biden’s response to those young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won’t help any of them for decades. And to understand just how pitifully stingy this “concession” is, remember that dozens of Democratic senators, including plenty of “moderates”, have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55. You can find an op-ed in Forbes (not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter) suggesting 50 would be a better age. Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998, and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016. So Biden’s big concession to the left is actually more conservative than a centrist Democratic proposal! It’s not nothing, but it’s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing, and it shows that Biden isn’t serious about courting the left.

[...]

[links in original omitted] As expected, that latter item as quoted drew an extensive reader commentary stream.

Opinions can differ; however, I cast my last lesser evil vote already, and have no more of them in me.

Biden earns it, or not.

But it is my vote and not the property of Tom Perez, nor Michael Bloomberg, nor Haim Saban spending and pontificating as they do.

What did happen in the ramp-up to Bernie's concession, here at least, was a loss of respect for Sen. Klobuchar over her doing on the eve of Super Tuesday exactly what the little mayor from South Bend did; while such treachery was expected of him all along but something of a wake-up call re Klobuchar. Yes, Klobuchar after all is a career politician like Obama, Biden, Tom Perez, the Clintons, little mayor, et al. Still, it was shabby.

She will run again.

A reform broom has to have a wide sweep. A Trump four-more might be the price of starting actual and substantial reform against machine politics entrenched in propagation of an intolerably sick status quo.

_____________UPDATE____________
Keeping an open mind, but a skeptical one, the view here is Joe Biden will not do one fucking thing about this shameful situation. (Hat tip to Dan Burns for highlighting that post.) It explains a problem, and if Joe Biden expects to be President he'd better face up to what is expected of a true DEMOCRAT. Fixing problems instead of blessing them while the campaign rolls in money from the perps would be a refreshing Biden CHANGE. I do not see Joe Biden having that strength of character. If he had, he'd have shown it by now.

Whistling past the Joe Biden graveyard might lead to a world of hurt for those doing that.

2016, Bernie would have won. 2020, Bernie would have won. Bernie's comparative character next to Joe Biden is something nobody should forget, nitpick against, or dissemble over. Biden stinks of compromise with the worse of the nation; the exploitative malefactors of great wealth. He either moves to better policy than his life to now suggests to be expected, or comes in second to Trump. TRUMP! DONALD FUCKING TRUMP! And the Tom Perez crowd will again shrug shoulders and blame progressives for not bending over to their will. To the will of unchecked wealth doing politically blessed evil.

Lesser evil from the Democratic Party gets really tiring when nothing but lesser evil is way too often on the table.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
David Sirota has begun a new website, bookmark it:

https://sirota.substack.com/

Where that link offers an email subscription, or a toggle from thee opening screen to content.

Recently on the site Sirota posted:

Which Joe Biden Are We Getting?

[,,,] Is this the Joe Biden who will be the Democratic nominee? Does he think he needs to shit on progressives to prove that he’s a “moderate”? Does he believe he can behave that way and get away with it by simply telling Democratic voters that if they don’t vote for him, they get the monster?

Are we getting a new and evolved Joe Biden?

But, then, another possibility is a new Biden — a Biden who finally realizes that the best way to unify and energize disaffected Democratic voters is to engage them, make real policy concessions and take them seriously. Is that even possible?

I wish I knew the answer, but the signs are mixed, at best.

Biden has made a few modest policy concessions in recent days -- but on the merits they were fairly weak. For example, his sudden support for reducing the Medicare eligibility age to 60 is actually less progressive than what many Senate Democrats proposed ten years ago.

Biden has said he wants to unify the party, but Biden has been periodically thumbing his nose at progressives -- in 2018, he basically told millenials to screw off; in May 2019, he promised only a “middle ground” climate policy during a climate emergency; in November 2019 he told a progressive critic that “you should vote for Trump”; and in March 2020 he went out of his way to continue denigrating Medicare for All, as a lethal pandemic was starting to spread across the country, causing mass layoffs and throwing millions off of their health insurance plans.

Biden has in recent days said some nice things about Bernie Sanders, but after the final debate, Biden’s top aide shat on Bernie and Bernie’s movement in really ugly terms (and, anyway, when it comes to a national election with implications for the country and the planet, we should care far less about whether he is personally nice to Bernie and far more about the actual policy).

Clearly, the politics of triangulation are reflexive for Biden and the Clinton-era dinosaurs who run his campaign. Triangulating and hippie-punching is what he and they have always done -- and that retrograde behavior is not just morally offensive, it is politically dangerous in what is likely to be a general election that will be all about motivating the base.

To defeat Trump, we need an energized Democratic Party.

Biden and the Democratic establishment sneering at disaffected progressive voters to prove to mythical Republican swing voters that they aren’t liberal -- that’s not going to cut it.

Telling young voters to fuck off and vote for Biden or you get Trump -- that’s not going to cut it either.

The best hope to defeat Trump is to positively and constructively motivate a large Democratic turnout. The best way to do that is to show progressive voters they are actually valued, rather than taken for granted. And the best way to show them that they are valued is to actually embrace an agenda that they want.

[much text and all of many links in the original are omitted, so read the item at Sirota's new site]

Sirota seems to suspend judgment in hope for a changed, evolved, more adult Biden. He does not mention Biden's overarching tendency to kneel to money. He should. As much or more skeptical, the view here. The old sayings resonate about a leopard and its spots, and not biting the hands that feeds his campaign and family members.

What Sirota implies is Joe Biden has to show something legitimate to progressives, real and substantial, not transparently dismissive and disingenuous. People who will swing the election are ones who can smell bullshit and avoid it - not the Dem. regulars wanting to protect public sector jobs and pensions and screw all else; not the Dem donors who are less contributors than investors when it comes to politics; but legitimate voters wanting a better deal from Washington than they've had over the balance of my lifetime (which is close in length to equaling Biden's). Put another way - we don't want any more GOP-lite Clintonism, which sucks. Joe has the choice, CHANGE -

OR LOSE.

--------------------------------

FURTHER: There are two schools of thought that seem available to progressives (voting Trump not being a realistic option): first, leave the presidential ballot line blank, vote Dem down-ticket; second, stay home.

Klobuchar is not up this cycle, but down-ticker were her seat up, she was an integral part of the Clyburn and inner party hack show running all around Bernie in Iowa and New Hampshire; then pulling the South Carolina shuffle, booggying out the door on the eve of Clyburn's show of Biden love, etc. As part of that circle jerk, Amy has burned bridges, at least here if not more widespread. She's been basically a dumpling over multiple Senate terms, and her being within this collective dump on Bernie is the cherry atop the sundae. She needs to be joined next time, into a primary, by a progressive. She's not a part of any solution; hence part of the problem, that problem being love of big money coupled with unresponsiveness to real needs of real people.

We do not need that. Not at all. She's a Tom Perez of the other gender. (Is there a greater insult?)