WHEN ONE WORLD LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS TALK ABOUT WEALTH EQUITY AROUND THE WORLD---THEY ARE SAYING THEY WANT AMERICANS WITH WAGES AND WEALTH EQUAL TO DEVELOPING NATIONS. WHEN IMMIGRANTS ARE BROUGHT TO THE US TO WORK IN US INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES BEING PAID FAR MORE THAN IN THEIR NATION----THESE ONE WORLD ORGANIZATIONS KNOW THOSE IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT TO US INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES WILL SOON BE WORKING IN THE US AS THEY DID IN THE THIRD WORLD---
So when a group like the Roosevelt Institute or the Aspen Institute----another Clinton neo-liberal think tank----pose progressive on wages and equity----they think equity is taking down US and European wages and wealth to wage equity with developing nation citizens.
THAT IS FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIANISM----THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO ACCUMULATE EXTREME WEALTH ANYWAY THEY CAN.
Below you see how Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals are milking this FDR New Deal connection after being involved in dismantling all of New Deal and War on Poverty programs. de Blasio was sold as that populist progressive in NYC mayoral race while we knew he climbed the political ladder working for the Clinton machine and is in fact that 1% Wall Street global pol. We would not expect anything else in the belly of the beast Wall Street's NYC.
Where were both of these people these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA dismantling all of New Deal? These several years under Obama super-sized that dismantling----
Bill de Blasio Endorses Hillary Clinton, to Little Fanfare From Campaign
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUMOCT. 30, 2015
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s slow, awkward march toward endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton — the woman who jump-started his political career — reached its widely predicted conclusion on Friday, as the mayor extended his presidential blessing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
'When Franklin Roosevelt created the New Deal, he relied upon many policies first developed in states and cities across America. His collaboration with my predecessor, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, defined that era’s commitment to solving the challenge of economic inequality at every level of government'.
Mayor de Blasio Delivers Remarks on Fighting Income Inequality at Roosevelt Institute
May 12, 2015
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery – Embargoed until Remarks Begin
Thank you to Felicia Wong for that very kind introduction, and for your tremendous leadership as CEO and President of the Roosevelt Institute.
I also want to thank Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, not only for producing this incredibly important, thought-provoking analysis for rewriting the rules of our modern economy, but also for his advice and support.
I also want to thank Senator Elizabeth Warren for her tireless advocacy on behalf of middle-class people – not just in her time as Senator, but for nearly four DECADES – as an academic, as a regulator, as a policy expert and advisor. Like many of you, I’m inspired by her brilliance, her passion, and her lifelong dedication to challenging the most powerful interests on behalf of those whose voices too often go unheard.
I also want to applaud the Roosevelt Institute for the invaluable contribution that they make to the public discourse, particularly on the matter that’s been discussed today – thinking big and bold about what it takes to fundamentally change the way our economy works…to ensure that we are creating a more just society…a place where EVERYONE gets a shot at a better life.
I’m so proud to serve 8.5 million people as mayor of the greatest city on Earth.
I ran for mayor in 2013 with a promise to tackle what I believed then – and still believe today – is the crisis of our times – and that is income inequality.
I often spoke of the Tale of Two Cities that New York had become, particularly since the Great Recession had ended. We’re home to Wall Street, which has come roaring back – breaking record after record. At the same time, 46 percent of our population was living at or near the poverty line.
I said that needed to change – not just become this vast inequality posed a threat to those who were struggling…not simply because those in the middle class felt more and more anxious about staying IN the middle class…but because living in a Gilded City was a threat to EVERY New Yorker…a threat to what made New York so great for so many generations prior.
So we set out to do something about it, and we achieved some real successes – universal, full-day Pre-K…for every single child who wants it. We more than DOUBLED the number of young people with access to after-school programs.
We secured paid sick leave for 500,000 additional New Yorkers. We extended the living wage to thousands more. More than 190,000 New Yorkers now have a municipal ID – and that number is rapidly growing.
And this year, we’re pushing the most ambitious municipal affordable housing plan in U.S. history – committing ourselves to building or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing, and requiring – for the first time ever – that developers include affordable housing as a CONDITION of building in New York.
AND we have pledged to end poverty for 800,000 New Yorkers over the next ten years. Nothing defines the fight against inequality more than lifting people out of poverty.
We’ve got a very long way to go, but we’re tackling inequality every way we know how – with every tool at our disposal.
I’m here today because the fight to lift up struggling New Yorkers, and to help rebuild New York’s middle class, doesn’t end at the borders of my city. What happens in Washington – or doesn’t happen – makes an enormous difference to my 8.5 million constituents back home.
When Franklin Roosevelt created the New Deal, he relied upon many policies first developed in states and cities across America. His collaboration with my predecessor, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, defined that era’s commitment to solving the challenge of economic inequality at every level of government.
Governors, mayors, city and state legislatures – we all have the opportunity to incubate ideas at the local level, and create momentum for real, progressive national change.
Today, the economic moment – and the political momentum – have converged. And NOW is the time for our country to enact bold structural changes to rebuild our middle class – like the steps that Dr. Stiglitz is proposing today.
In a word, we need an economy that rewards WORK and not just wealth.
That means lifting the floor for working people – raising the minimum wage, strengthening the rights of workers to organize, and cracking down on wage theft.
It means supporting working parents and their families – with paid sick and paid family leave; providing Pre-K and after-school programs and child care; and helping students graduate from college without a mountain of debt hanging over their heads.
And yes, it means REAL, BOLD efforts to make our tax system more fair – closing tax loopholes that big corporations and the wealthy use to take their massive profits and wealth…and simply pile up greater profits and wealth for themselves.
Just one example: the carried interest loophole that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay a lower overall tax rate than the hardworking men and women who clean their summer homes, or pilot their private jets. That loophole needs to be closed NOW.
Now you’ve heard why this sort of thing is possible. It’s because the system is rigged to benefit those at the top – and to leave everybody else behind.
We want to rewrite those rules – not to punish success, but to create more success stories.
We want every child to grow up in a society that says: “if you’re willing to work hard, you’ve got a chance to live your dreams.”
For generations, that was the promise of my city of New York. It was the definition of the American dream. But for too many, that promise…that dream…has steadily slipped away.
And that’s why we have to stand together. Progressive economists, activists, academics, elected officials, and everyday Americans in all fifty states.
And you know what? The American people are already there.
In 2014, four so-called “Red States” passed a minimum wage increase.
Just look at the Fight for 15 – a massive movement in 200 cities, with more than 60,000 people taking to the streets to fight for a minimum wage.
It’s time for those of us in elected office to hear THEIR voices…and to follow THEIR lead.
It was Franklin Roosevelt himself who said QUOTE: “Let us not be afraid to help each other. Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and Senators and Congressmen and government officials but the voters of this country. END QUOTE.
So as one government official – let me say this. The crisis of economic inequality is massive. But it is well within our power to take it head on, and a make a real difference.
And we won’t do it from the top-down. That never works.
We’ll do it as a progressive force…city by city, neighborhood by neighborhood…listening to the people who sent us to make the change for which they hunger.
Answering THEIR call…their DEMAND…that we create a more just nation, and an economy that works for EVERYONE again.
This statement may be true about the Democratic leadership embracing Wall Street neo-liberalism indeed in the 1980s. We elected Jimmy Carter who started the dismantling of our public utilities leading to the capture of energy and now water that was a FDR center-piece. The core of our Democratic Party remained social progressive FDR until the 1990s when the Clinton machine was able to take control of our state and local elections. This is when the Democratic National Committee started taking our state and local Democratic Committees to Wall Street global corporate neo-liberalism. Yes, since Clinton-----the DNC has dismantled all of FDR's New Deal and War on Poverty faster than Republicans BECAUSE neo-liberals are far-right REAGAN Republicans.
Obama ended this attack by privatizing Social Security and Medicare and imploding those Trusts with this coming bond market fraud----$20 trillion in national debt says GOODBYE FDR SOCIAL SECURITY---BYE BYE LBJ WAR ON POVERTY MEDICARE. Now, Obama is leading in this NEW NEW DEAL------this is the Roosevelt Institution/Aspen Institution POSING FDR in social equity. This is where social equity goes global ---not equity for Americans----and it sells the idea that global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberalism is about RAISING THE CONDITIONS OF THE WORLD'S CITIZENS TO WHAT AN FDR AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS LOOKS LIKE while they do the exact opposite.
Obama's Privatizing K-12 and privatizing our public health killed FDR's public education from K-university structure and FDR's public hospital and public clinic system. Obama said----I AM REAGAN---FAR-RIGHT AND WALL STREET---NOT FDR. Obama ran as an FDR social Democrat in 2008.
'Today’s Democratic Party is a completely different party, which coalesced between 1968 and 1980. And this half-century-old party has been anti-New Deal from the very beginning'.
Tuesday, Dec 9, 2014 06:59 AM EDT
Democrats vs. the New Deal: Who really runs the party — and why it might surprise youDems taking pride in FDR's historic legacy need to reckon with a basic truth: The party is now firmly anti-New Deal
In the aftermath of the shellacking they took in the midterm congressional and state elections, many Democrats are calling for their party to return to its New Deal roots.
This is inadvertently comical. The present-day Democratic Party has next to nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Today’s Democratic Party is a completely different party, which coalesced between 1968 and 1980. And this half-century-old party has been anti-New Deal from the very beginning.
Now that I have your attention, allow me to explain.
While there have been two parties called “the Democrats” and “the Republicans” since the mid-19th century, these enduring labels mask the fact that party coalitions change every generation or two. Franklin Roosevelt created a new party under the old name of “the Democrats” by welding ex-Republican Progressives in the North together with the old Jacksonian Farmer-Labor coalition. The contentious issue of civil rights nearly destroyed the Roosevelt Democrats in 1948 — and finally wrecked it in 1968, when George Wallace’s third party campaign proved to be a way-station for many working-class whites en route from the Democrats to the Republicans.
Today’s Democratic Party, in contrast, took shape between 1968 and 1980. Although George McGovern lost the 1972 presidential race to Richard Nixon in a landslide, the McGovernites of the “New Politics” movement wrested control of the Democratic Party from the old state politicians and urban bosses of the Roosevelt-to-Johnson New Deal coalition. Robert Kennedy’s aide Fred Dutton, one of the architects of the disempowerment of the old New Deal elite, called for a new coalition of young people, college-educated suburbanites and minorities in his 1971 book “Changing Sources of Power: Politics in the 1970s.” Sound familiar? That’s because, nearly half a century later, the same groups are the core constituents of today’s Democrats.
Jimmy Carter was the first New Politics president (or New Democrat or neoliberal, as they were later called). He was a center-right Southern governor who ran against big government and touted his credentials as a rich businessman. He did not get along with organized labor, one of the key constituencies of the Roosevelt Democrats. His major domestic policy achievement was dismantling New Deal regulation of transportation like trucking and air travel. He appointed a Federal Reserve chairman from Wall Street, Paul Volcker, who created an artificial recession, the worst between the Great Depression and the Great Recession, to cripple American unions, whose wage demands were blamed for inflation.
Even before Carter’s election, the Democratic “class of ’74” in Congress wrested power from the old largely Southern politicians of the New Deal era. The northern Irish Catholic-Southern alliance, symbolized by House Speakers Tip O’Neill and Jim Wright, gave way among congressional Democrats to a new Northeastern-West Coast domination, beginning with Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley, of the state of Washington. Many of these younger Democrats were deficit hawks, like Bill Bradley of New York and Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts. Democrats like these supported the 1983 Social Security “reform,” which cut Social Security benefits by raising the formal retirement age from 65 to 67. In his 1984 presidential campaign, Carter’s former vice-president, Fritz Mondale, made deficit reduction his central issue.
Bill Clinton had worked for McGovern’s campaign in 1972. A center-right Southern governor like Carter, he too combined moderate economic conservatism with social liberalism. Like Carter, Clinton attacked a major New Deal program, teaming up with the Republicans in Congress to abolish a New Deal entitlement, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and replacing it with what conservatives wanted: federal grants to state-based programs. Clinton made deficit reduction rather than public investment central to his presidency. Clinton also supported the dismantling of New Deal regulations of the financial sector, completing the dismantling of the New Deal in the economy that Carter had begun. In the 1994 midterms, many of the remaining Southern “blue dog” Democrats were replaced by Republicans, shifting the regional base of the party even more to the former liberal Republican states of the Northeast and West Coast.
Barack Obama is the third New Politics Democrat in the White House, following Carter and Clinton. His base is the Fred Dutton constituency — young people, some college-educated whites, and blacks and Latinos. Like Carter and Clinton, he went after a major New Deal program — the most iconic of them all, Social Security. Obama proposed cutting Social Security by means of inflation adjustments or “chained CPI” as part of a “grand bargain” with Republican conservatives. He backed off only after a rebellion from what remains of the Democratic left. Those who call him an “Eisenhower Democrat” recognize that he is closer in outlook to penny-pinching, dovish mid-20th century liberal Republicanism than to “guns and butter” Rooseveltian liberalism.
The New Politics Democrats, in class terms, are an “hourglass party,” uniting the disproportionately nonwhite working poor with affluent whites who are drawn to the Democrats by non-economic issues like environmentalism and feminism and gay rights, not the bread-and-butter issues of the older Rooseveltian New Dealers. While the New Dealers preferred universal jobs programs and universal social programs like Social Security and Medicare to means-tested “welfare,” all of the social insurance programs pushed by the New Politics Democrats since the 1970s — SCHIP, the earned income tax credit, Obamacare — have been means-tested welfare programs targeted at the working poor, not at the better-paid but still struggling working class or middle class.
The policies of the New Politics Democrats are frequently the exact opposite of those of the old New Deal Democrats. Here are a few examples:
Foreign policy. The New Deal Democrats were more hawkish than mid-century Republicans. New Politics Democrats, from McGovern to the present, have been more dovish than post-Reagan Republicans. Even the hawks in the Democratic Party in the 1980s and 1990s distanced themselves from the greatest New Deal presidents — FDR and his protégé LBJ. Instead, they tried to rehabilitate Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Because of Vietnam, the erasure of LBJ by embittered antiwar baby boomers is understandable. But didn’t FDR win World War II, while Truman’s Korean policy was a bloody debacle? It is bizarre that partisan Democrats created the Truman National Security Project instead of a Roosevelt National Security Project.
Civil rights. The liberal rather than radical proponents of desegregation in the mid-20th century, like Bayard Rustin and Hubert Humphrey, favored race-neutral remedies, instead of race-based affirmative action (Martin Luther King Jr. was ambiguous). Today any Democrat who questioned race-based affirmative action — including preferential policies for Latinos who arrived following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — would be ostracized.
Immigration. To protect the working class from wage-lowering immigrant competition, the New Deal Democrats abolished the Bracero program (a Mexican guest-worker program). The Hesburgh and Jordan commissions, appointed by President Carter and President Clinton, respectively, reflected this older pro-labor emphasis by calling for reductions in low-wage immigration. Today’s orthodox Democratic position favors not only an amnesty for undocumented immigrants already here, but also more legal immigration and fewer penalties for “illegal” immigration. This was, and still is, the position of Republican business elites, who want to use immigration policy to create a buyer’s market in labor.
The white working class. The loss of the white working class to the Democrats is hardly a new development. It goes back to George Wallace in 1968. Every decade since then there has been a debate in the New Politics party about whether to try to get the white working class back.
You get the point. Today’s Democrats have no more in common with Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson than today’s Republicans have in common with Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower. From its origins in the 1970s to the present, the contemporary Democratic Party has had deficit reduction, cutbacks of New Deal-era entitlements and regulations and identity politics in its DNA. This is a party that is not only post-New Deal but in many ways anti-New Deal. It was born that way.
If I am right, the New Politics party, as the most recent party to use the Democratic label, is between 40 and 50 years old. In the 1960s and 1970s, the steam had pretty much gone out of the New Deal Democrats, many of whose young idealists had aged into corrupt hacks. Today it is the New Politics Democrats who are running on fumes. The neoliberal combination of center-right economics, deficit reduction at the expense of middle-class entitlements, and means-tested small-bore welfare programs for the working poor is tired and uninspiring.
For their part, the Republicans can’t go on for much longer trying to revive the imagined glories of the Reagan presidency in the 1980s.
Real change may not come in 2016, or even in 2020. But no party system lasts forever. The Great Recession failed to shake up the New Politics-Movement Conservative dichotomy that has held since the 1980s. But maybe at some point sheer boredom will succeed.
This is when national media started using the term ----NEW NEW DEAL. To what it refers is what the New Deal would have looked like if FDR was not in charge. This is the ONE WORLD societal change needed as we move towards FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM....global corporate campus socialism is the NEW NEW DEAL.
Below you see who now has both parties----the LIBERTY LEAGUE back in FDR's time that had the notion of making the US an authoritarian fascist structure looking like MAO's China or Mussolini's Italy. This claim that the New Deal killed our economy is ABSOLUTELY FALSE-----it was humming throughout the several decades it was allowed to function as planned. It was the CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA era that killed our US economy ---it was their failure to rebuild our US city economies-----that created the conditions of extreme poverty. The NEW DEAL has decades of academic research showing it was a great success as an economic model-----if Republican states had not misappropriated all the Federal funding meant to lift people----if Clinton did not fill our US cities with these same frauds-----then our US cities would have had local, small business economies not able to be held captive economically by WALL STREET AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS. This is what killed our US economy.
OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS COINED THAT PHRASE----THE NEW NEW DEAL ----WHEN OBAMA CAME TO OFFICE AS TAKING THE STEP TOWARD BUILDING US CITIES AS INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES.
This is why Democrats hear Clinton/Obama neo-liberals talking all the time about FDR-----POSING FDR TO HEAD FOR LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. That is whom Stiglitz and the Roosevelt Institute are-----Robert Reich----Elizabeth Warren are all that far-right NEW NEW DEAL.
National media outlets like National Public Radio all through Obama's 2008 campaign called him an FDR social progressive---that was when I knew even our public media was captured. Democratic voters must understand that all social Democratic standards have been co-opted by Wall Street pols and not be drawn into terms---but keep embracing the political philosophy.
IT WAS THE BEST ECONOMIC MODEL FOR LIFTING CITIZENS AND ALLOWING THEM THEIR VOICE AS CITIZENS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
'Right-wing critics anxious about a revival of liberal reform have argued that the New Deal failed to stem the tide of unemployment and even made the Great Depression worse than it would have been under the leadership of FDR's conservative critics in the Liberty League'.
The Christian Century
The Liberal Agony: Why There Was No New New Deal
By Westbrook, Robert
SHORTLY AFTER the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, the cover of Time magazine featured a fabrication of an iconic photograph of Franklin Roosevelt, cigarette holder at a rakish tilt, sitting at the wheel of a convertible. FDR's face and hands had been displaced by those of Obama's above a headline speculating on the arrival of a "New New Deal." That same week, the New Yorker featured an article by George Packer advancing a similar speculation, which was illustrated with a drawing of much the same invention.
What this image in two major American magazines manifested was the hope on the left and the fear on the right that Obama would revitalize and extend the New Deal order that had been significantly dismantled by the conservative ascendancy since the mid-1970s (and that "new Democrat" Bill Clinton did little if anything to stem in his eight years in office).
In the Time cover story, young liberal intellectual Peter Beinart burbled that "the coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America's last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan." He predicted that "taking aggressive action to stimulate the economy, regulate the financial industry and shore up the American welfare state won't divide his political coalition; it will divide the other side." Packer saw the Obama victory as the promise that "for the first time since the Johnson Administration, the idea that government should take bold action to create equal opportunity for all citizens doesn't have to explain itself in a defensive mumble."
At the same time, the conservative Wall Street Journal lamented that the election promised "one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."
Few on the right or left contested the claim that the election of a candidate of African-American descent to the presidency was an event of historic proportions. Simply by winning the election Obama manifested a change of enormous significance in American politics. Fifty years before, African Americans were struggling to secure voting rights; now they had witnessed the election of a black man to the highest office in the land.
But the principal question in the air in November 2008 was whether, in addition, Obama's election would be ideologically and politically transformational--a term given wide currency at the time and since. There could be little doubt that his presidency would be a departure from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, but a transformation is more than a mere departure--and it was the prospect of a transformative presidency that elicited comparisons with FDR's victory in 1932.
Like FDR, Obama entered the Oval Office in the midst of a grave economic crisis, a crisis that presented enormous challenges but also perhaps afforded an exceptional opportunity for redirecting American politics and public policy. Liberals hoped that Obama--and the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress which the 2008 election also secured--would, in the face of the meltdown of the nation's economy in the last months of the Bush administration, revive, update and apply the principles of New Deal progressivism and egalitarian reform so badly battered in the Age of Reagan. And conservatives feared the same thing.
Not surprisingly, in this context, New Deal historiography has become a political battleground. Right-wing critics anxious about a revival of liberal reform have argued that the New Deal failed to stem the tide of unemployment and even made the Great Depression worse than it would have been under the leadership of FDR's conservative critics in the Liberty League. The most widely publicized of these revisionist accounts is Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man (2007). …
We do not want to think everyone involved in any political organization is tied to what is a bad goal of the leadership of these organizations---as usual people wanting change will gravitate towards groups using socially progressive terms. Now, I have not heard Roosevelt Institute say anything against the Obama agenda these several years---it only works within the framework of what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are installing as ONE WORLD US cities as International Economic Zones. Because it does not fight this structure---which is what a REAL social progressive FDR group would do because FDR was the source of STRONG, ANTI-TRUST/MONOPOLY LAWS.......it simply says OK since we are going ONE WORLD with global corporate campuses this is what we should do.
THIS IS WHY ALL GROUPS THAT ARE LABOR AND JUSTICE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EDUCATING AGAINST GLOBAL MONOPOLY AND GLOBAL MARKETS HAVE BEEN SILENT.
These people are very intelligent and they know there is no plan for an American middle-class as was created by the FDR social progressive policies. The only plan for middle-class comes with taking Americans to the ONE WORLD middle-class of $20-30 a day. Black Lives Matter would not be attached to a right-leaning Roosevelt Institution for social justice. So, we hear the same talking points for the family, for the poor, for race, for seniors even after silence during all the dismantling of programs that actually worked. There was not a sound about Obama's dismantling of all New Deal and War on Poverty---all of MLK's legacy in Baltimore these several years.
A LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION WOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THIS FAR-RIGHT ROOSEVELT AND ASPEN INSTITUTE THINK TANK-----ONE WORLD DOES NOT END WELL FOR ANYONE IN THE WORLD BUT THE 1% AND THEIR 2%.
New Rules for the New Deal | Roosevelt Institute
The rules that structure our economy have been skewed toward the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class and working families. And despite brief windows of progress, far too many rules have held back communities of color.
Our two reports, "Rewrite the Racial Rules: Building an Inclusive American Economy" and "Untamed: How to Check Corporate, Financial, and Monopoly Power," begin to bridge the policy conversations between economic and racial inequality, and we know this is just the beginning.
Remember, progressive has two meanings in politics---economic progressives are the progressively getting richer neo-liberals---socially progressive are economic equity. I had a FB friend tell me Roosevelt Institute chapters are opening universities across the south----know what? These southern Republican states would shoot FDR if he brought all that social progressive policy today. We are seeing the same far-right capture of what they are now calling the NEW NEW DEAL.
Roosevelt Institute at W&L
The Roosevelt Institute is a nonprofit organization devoted to carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt by developing progressive ideas and bold leadership in the service of restoring America's promise of opportunity for all.
Contact: Courtney Hauck '18 and Dash Dericks '18
I.) History of the Roosevelt InstituteCreated in 1987, the Roosevelt Institute started as a merger between the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Foundation. It was intended to combine the legacy values of the Roosevelt family, as well as aid in the development of progressive ideas and bold leadership. In 2007, another partner known as the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network merged with the Roosevelt Institute in order to provide youth a voice in political decisions. This directly led to the development of the Roosevelt Institute across colleges and universities in the nation.
II.) Mission Statement of Roosevelt@W<he Roosevelt Institute at W&L empowers Washington and Lee students to re-define the rules that guide social and economic realities in the W&L community and beyond, through the construction and implementation of progressive policy changes.
STIGLITZ AS ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE
What Democratic voters must say to themselves as national media allows people to pose progressive when they are not-----
Do we really think a leader of the WORLD BANK-----and someone connected to IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITIES INCLUDING A VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE YALE/STANFORD---- is really taking us back to FDR's social progressive NEW DEAL? Of course not, Stiglitz is being painted as a populist against the World Bank now on team 99%.
No one having the background and the connections giving him a place on the WORLD BANK suddenly becomes one of the 99%. I knew Stiglitz coined the term 99%----but he is working ONE WORLD 99%.
Nobel Memorial Prize Winner for Economic Sciences and Professor at Columbia University
Joseph E. Stiglitz received his Ph.D from MIT in 1967, became a full professor at Yale in 1970, and in 1979 was awarded the prestigious John Bates Clark Award. He has taught at Princeton, Stanford, and MIT and was the Drummond Professor and a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. He is now University Professor at Columbia University and Chair of Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought. He co-founded and directs the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his analyses of markets with asymmetric information, and he was a lead author of the 1995 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Stiglitz was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1993-95, during the Clinton administration, and served as CEA chairman from 1995–97. He then became Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 1997–2000.
In addition to writing widely used textbooks, Stiglitz founded The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
His latest book, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, was published by W,W, Norton & Company in June 2012.
The State of Economics, The State of the World 06/08/2016
The Great Divide: Unequal Societies And What We Can Do About Them 04/24/2015
Making Growth Happen: Implementing Policies for Competitive Industries 10/16/2013
Joseph Stiglitz on the Causes and Consequences of Growing Inequality – Webcast and Live Blog 04/15/2013
Joseph Stiglitz: The Price of Inequality - Liveblog & webcast 06/08/2012
THIS IS GREAT.......for folks not knowing Pete Peterson he is one of those most enriched by last decades massive subprime mortgage fraud---he had the hedge fund driving the creation of more and more and more toxic subprime mortgage loans getting super-rich doing it. He is also well known for wanting to END SOCIAL SECURITY and is for whom Obama and Clinton neo-liberals work in doing just that----
These Wall Street global players want to use the fact that it is the FDR Roosevelt Institute tied to these ONE WORLD FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM policies ----but as we see here----the Roosevelt Institute SOLD OUT----LITERALLY. It's just like a Wall Street neo-liberal owner buying MOTHER JONES-----our journal honoring the labor movement's leader from a century ago. BOUGHT AND SOLD TO NEO-LIBERALS.
If we know who the progressive posing think tanks are-----then we know the people allowing themselves to be tied to these think tanks are probably not left-leaning social progressives working for labor and justice. I caution all American young people wanting to really make left-leaning social change to know these organizations and I ask my friends overseas to know Clinton Wall Street neo-liberals are controlling what used to be REAL SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC institutions that brought real social and economic equity and justice for most citizens.
GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SOCIALISM NEVER ENDS WELL FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE.
'The Roosevelt Institute is far from the only example of left-wing institutions having their missions undermined and eventually controlled by conservative patrons'.
How the Roosevelt Institute Sold FDR’s Legacy to Pete
Peterson03 Jun 2011 Yves Smith
FDR Memorial, Washington DC
Bribes work. AT&T gave money to GLAAD, and now the gay rights organization is supporting the AT&T-T-Mobile merger. La Raza is mouthing the talking points of the Mortgage Bankers Association on down payments. The NAACP is fighting on debit card rules. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts back in December.
While it seems counter-intuitive that a left-leaning organization would support illiberal extensions of corporate power, in fact, that is the role of the DC pet liberal. This dynamic of rent-a-reputation is greased with corporate cash and/or political access. As the entitlement fight comes to a head, it’s worth looking under the hood of the DC think tank scene to see how the Obama administration and the GOP are working to lock down their cuts to social programs.
And so it is that the arch-enemy of Social Security, Pete Peterson, rented out the good name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the reputation of the Center for American Progress, and EPI. All three groups submitted budget proposals to close the deficit and had their teams share the stage with Republican con artist du jour Paul Ryan. The goal of Peterson’s conference was to legitimize the fiscal crisis narrative, and to make sure that “all sides” were represented.
Now this tidy fact is not obvious if you check the Peterson Foundation publicity for its “Fiscal Summit:”
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, senior Administration officials, policy experts and Democratic and Republican elected leaders will come together in Washington to discuss solutions to the nation’s fiscal challenges at the 2011 Fiscal Summit: Solutions for America’s Future, convened by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation…..The American Enterprise Institute, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, Heritage Foundation and Roosevelt Institute Campus Network will present and discuss their own proposed packages of solutions for achieving long-term fiscal sustainability at the Summit. These leading policy organizations, representing diverse perspectives, received grants from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to develop comprehensive plans to address the nation’s projected long-term debt and deficits.
Why, after spending considerable resources, such as a website called New Deal 2.0, with virtually daily posts by Roosevelt fellows debunking deficit terrorism, and more formal work, such as a well-researched and argued paper by Tom Ferguson and Rob Johnson debunking deficit cutting in general and assaults on entitlements in particular, has the Roosevelt Institute cast its lot with a sworn enemy? Make no mistake, not only did the Institute undermine its raison d’etre by attaching its name to the Peterson anti-entitlements campaign, but as we’ll discuss later, the end product, as would be expected, bolstered particular initiatives that are contrary to FDR’s legacy, the Institute’s more general “progressive” objectives, and sound economics.
As the sorry history of drug funded research shows and this example confirms, sponsored research has this funny way of delivering findings flattering to its funders. At best, whoever championed this unholy alliance at Roosevelt is guilty of a spectacular lapse of judgment. At worst, this is naked careerism, selling out one’s sponsor to curry favor with more powerful backers. One way to assure one’s influence and job security in the foundation realm is access to big donors. Who better to cultivate than one of the freest spenders in the economics policy space?
The Roosevelt Institute is far from the only example of left-wing institutions having their missions undermined and eventually controlled by conservative patrons. We’ve complained before about the cluelessness of left-leaning organizations in the US. One of the big reasons that what is now the center of the political spectrum here is extreme right pretty much everywhere else is that there has been an orchestrated, forty-year campaign to make American values consistent with the needs and interests of large corporations.
Doubt me? Dial the clock back to the Eisenhower era. The highest marginal income tax rate was 91%. Ike, a Republican, was firmly of the view that New Deal programs were a permanent feature of the political landscape. From a 1954 letter to his brother Ed:
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental function….But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Because the notion of having government policies promote the welfare of the middle class was so widely shared, it seemed inconceivable that these values could ever come under assault. Yet anyone who saw that the Commie-bashing of the 1950s was followed by the radicalism of the later 1960s would conclude that the American psyche was capable of large shifts, and there was no reason to leave this process to chance.
We’ll skip over how the process of moving America to the right was launched; we cover that ground in short form in ECONNED; readers can also check Bill Black’s discussion of its founding document, a memo by top corporate lawyer and later Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell staking out its objectives and many of its key tactics.
At the risk of oversimplifying such a complex, multifaceted campaign, several elements appear to be critical to its success. First was the sheer amount of resources devoted to it: an imperial armada of think tanks, advertising dollars, political donations, polling and focus group road testing. Second and related was the creation of viable, lucrative career paths for those who signed up for the cause. Third was the utter denial, followed by deer-in-the-headlights paralysis, within the left as to the effectiveness and relentlessness of this effort. Too many assumed that ordinary people would never sign up for policies that were detrimental to their well being. They failed to understand that people vote based on identity much more than interests, and a concerted effort at rebranding could make conservative economic policies sound attractive by linking them to success. Only losers could possibly be in support of redistribution and social safety nets (and they have been increasingly portrayed as parasites). Fairness went out the window; plutocracy was in.
The success of this effort has been so complete that its organizers are now engaged in what in military terms would be depicted as a mopping-up operation, that of cleaning out the last pockets of isolated resistance. One of the key steps is the conversion of what were once left-leaning organizations and think tanks into message-carriers for the right. Mind you, while the end result is very much like that of parasitic fungus turning ants into zombies and killing them so they can become a food source (eeew), the process requires a tad more finesse.
Just as the Democrats pretend to offer an alternative to Mussolini-style corpocracy when they are loyal servants of big businesses donors, so to does the image of diversity of opinion in the foundation/think tank world serve as useful cover for control that the right wing has achieved over messaging on economic issues.
We’ve discussed some examples of conservative parasites gaining control of once-liberal hosts in earlier posts. In the UK, the formerly solidly leftie think tank Demos has now been successfully colonized by the right via its increased, and now near total dependence on conservative funders. Yet it continues to play on its historical brand, using its “Open Left” logo on papers that promote bald faced bank friendly twattle, thus misleading the public into thinking that there is right-left consensus on what to do about banks, which they urge should be somewhere between nothing and helping them even more.
In the US, the brass-knuckle leader of the effort to convert the tattered remnants of the left to the conservative cause is the long standing entitlement foe, billionaire Blackstone Group co-founder Pete Peterson. His Peterson Foundation provides funding for a large array of organizations, including initiatives at his think tank, the Peterson Institute. We’ve discussed various Peterson efforts on this blog: the Peterson Foundation’s “America Speaks” program, which used a series of faux town hall meetings with openly manipulative facilitators to try to deliver focus group type results depicting broad-based willingness to cut entitlements to reduce the budget deficit. That plan backfired, not only failing to deliver the desired Potemkin consensus, but also generating bad press for its ham-handedness.
Another scheme was Peterson’s use of the highly-respected Columbia Teachers College to develop a program to carry a deficit scare message to high school students in the form of “fiscal responsibility” education.
As Dean Baker wrote:
No one has done more than the billionaire private-equity investor Peter G. Peterson to stir America’s anxiety over deficits, debt, and what Peterson (among others) considers out-of-control entitlement-program spending. Those same concerns now lie at the heart of a “fiscal responsibility” curriculum being developed for America’s high schools. The curriculum bears the stamp of Columbia University’s prestigious Teachers College, but reflects the focus suggested by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which provided $2.4 million in funding for the project.
Teachers College gave Remapping Debate access to a set of 24 lessons set to be test-taught in four states this spring prior to a wider roll-out in 2011-12. Heavily weighted toward the themes and arguments of Peterson and other deficit hawks, the trial lessons could be seen as part of an effort by one of the country’s wealthiest men, now 82, to spread his gospel to coming generations…
Note this unholy alliance began when the Teachers College approached the Peterson Foundation for a mere $50,000 grant to devise a course to teach high school students about personal finance. Peterson dangled much more money before the college and imposed its own agenda.
It isn’t clear how much the Roosevelt Institute got beyond thirty pieces of silver for selling out its brand, but the Peterson campaign got plenty of value for its money. The Roosevelt contribution came form a network of college students it had established in 2004 to promote “progressive activism”. Yet their paper was presented as a “Millenials” “citizen-produced deficit reduction plan” product, it was allegedly stood for the views of an entire generation. On par with the “America Speaks” approach of any outreach hopefully being mistaken as representative or thorough, the report’s authors “engaged” 1000 people “in person” and 2000 online. With no methodological rigor (neutral questions and consistent survey methods, for starters) this is a garbage in, garbage out process. But it’s pretty clear from the apocalyptic tone that this was a “sentence first, verdict afterwards” process:
Young people across the country recognize that those in power have made choices over the last 15 years that led us down the path to fiscal turmoil….Any solution to our fiscal trouble must not only resolve the gap between spending and revenue but also address the underlying causes.
Let’s consider whether this scaremongering is well founded. This is one small piece of a much larger argument in the Ferguson/Johnson article:
Now just ask the obvious question that a citizen or politician who had any choice would before embarking on the austerity route to budgetary consolidation: What are the chances that the policy will work? That is, actually reduce the deficit while also stimulating growth?
The striking fact that emerges from their [Alberto Alesina’s and Silvia Ardagna’s] tables is the meager number of successes. They indentify 107 separate cases of major fiscal contraction in the OECD between 1970 and 2007. Only 26 of these 107 qualify by even their Rube Goldberg definition as leading to “growth.” Now also set aside all qualms about definitions and whether countries were booming or in recession when they started cu#ing the budget. Just focus on the overarching pa#ern: Only nine of those “growth” cases actually achieved major reductions in debt to GDP ratios. That shouts out a demoralizing result: that 92% of the time countries tried fiscal contraction, it did not lead to growth with big reductions in debt to GDP ratios. We are not surprised that even a recent IMF study has now repudiated Alesina and Ardagna’s core argument. As Ireland is now discovering, the royal road to reducing debt to GDP ratios runs elsewhere. Arguments that current levels of debt to GDP profoundly threaten future U.S. economic growth are mere assertions crying out for empirical evidence. They should carry no weight in national policy debates.
This article also has a long section discussing the considerable shortcomings of the CBO projections on which the student paper relies, in particular its failure to calculate net rather than gross debt. The famed Carmen Reinhart/Kenneth Rogoff warnings about Bad Things Happening when government debt exceeds 90% of GDP is based on net debt levels; making that adjustment alone takes even the dire version of the long-term forecasts out of the danger zone. Other dubious assumptions are its oddly low productivity growth projections.
Gee, if these students had done their homework, they’d understand the blowout in debt levels was due to the global financial crisis, so if they want to “address underlying causes” they should first and foremost urge ruthless action to curb risk-taking at the TBTF banks. Had they merely bothered to read the Roosevelt paper by Ferguson and Johnson, or consult pretty much any account of why government debt levels have risen they would know that:
The “explosion” story can be immediately dismissed. The simple fact is that the deficit did not swell tidally until the financial crisis hit. While George W. Bush’s tax cuts destroyed the Clinton budget surpluses, tax revenues poked along at a rate that kept the deficit from blowing out until the economic equivalent of Hurricane Katrina hit. It was the one-two punch of the bank bailouts and the Great Recession that led to today’s giant gap between general revenues and expenditures.
Yes, the plan has a “Too Big to Fail” tax (described only at the wishful thinking level), but as we’ve discussed, following the Bank of England’s director of stability Andrew Haldane, taxes will never work to curb bankster adventurism; a high enough levy would wipe out the industry, so prohibition, meaning tough regulations, is the only viable remedy. Moreover, the paper touts a faddish, noxious idea for further financializing the economy from the faux liberal group, the Center for American Progress:
Folks, what will the net effect of this be? To introduce a ton more intermediaries and complexity into the provision of public services, which will give all the participants the opportunity to rip out more fees. And who will invest in projects with such uncertain returns? Investors will demand super high expected returns, which means even less goes into the provision of the actual services. And you’ll also need an a new cohort of assessors to determine if and how much the projects should pay out, leading to higher annual charges. The “lower costs” is the Big Lie cubed.
There’s also more sneaky pro banking industry policies included in the very skeletal discussion of corporate tax reform. It urges lowering tax rates and eliminating “tax expenditures”. While the corporate tax code could use a scrub, some of its complexity is due to the difference in various types of companies (the most obvious being the depreciation tax shield). The “lower tax rate” idea is usually bundled with a proposal to end the US policy of taxing corporations on their worldwide income. If this plan also envisages going to territorial taxation, that’s another boondoggle to big international companies, since it will be even easier for them to dodge paying taxes in the US.
The paper also appears to cherry-pick the recommendations made in another Roosevelt Institute paper, one by Joe Stiglitz. He advocates looking at the asset as well as the liability side of the government balance sheet, and in particular, investing in infrastructure, since it can generate very high returns. But this sort of idea is underplayed in the Peterson paper, and ideas like a bonus tax to correct incentives are completely absent.
It also stunningly enshrines the canard that tort reform will have a meaningful impact on health care costs and therefore (you have to love the Orwellian language) proposes to reform “the way Americans seek redress for medical malpractice.” Trial lawyers are big Democrat donors; they are a perennial target of the right, and the inclusion of this idea is a sign of conservative influence on the document.
The president of the Roosevelt Institute just announced that he is stepping down. I can only hope the board looks seriously into what led to this embarrassing dance with the devil and takes measures to assure this type of compromise of the Institute’s fundamental purpose can never happen again. It would also serve them well to conduct a broad-based search to find a leader who is truly dedicated to carrying on the proud legacy of FDR. There are so many fauxgressives in the marketplace that this will take more effort and scrutiny than they might imagine.
Yves Smith blogs at NakedCapitalism