The group just launched in mid-June and so far has only three staffers, including Booth. But they’re raising money and project a $5 million budget. Booth says she’s been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and energy people have shown for the project. In a month they’ve relied on progressive economists and wonks to pull together a policy task force, which has issued a series of white papers sketching out a vision of progressive regulatory reform. They’re now developing a communications and grassroots field strategy.
Great. Glad to hear it. Another group that will redouble every mistake made by every such liberal group since the 1970s. They’ll put together a bunch of experts, issue some "white papers," nobody will care but they’ll raise a lot of money.
They’ll make no attempt to figure out why this doesn’t work, or why the model has been such a colossal failure in the past. Because for them, it’s not a failure — big donors love big names. Congress doesn’t give a flying fuck, you say? Well, you have a point. But failing to have even a remote hope of success is not necessary to keep the funding stream flowing.
Of course Obama is meeting with them. They’re utterly and completely useless, and pose absolutely no threat. As long as they soak up money that should go to organizations like CEPR already in existence that actually do something valuable, they’ll be treated as Very Serious People and get invited to the cocktail parties, the conferences and the self-congratulatory dinners that are the alpha and the omega of these endeavors.
Because why, New Deal 2.0 didn’t suck badly enough?




9 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Hi Jane
Like the Third Way.. folks seem to be lining up in attempt to confuse (or outright belittle) the meaning of the word progressive.
Thanks Jane.
But but but they are experts! They can get rich people to give them money! Money talks!
Thanks for this Jane. What pisses me off is that they are Not willing to hire some fighters with a proven track record. People who are ready to take on these people and not worry about going to the same cocktail parties and looking for their next job.
Imagine doing like that PR exec for the healthcare industry and actively testifing against the industry. Following the lobbyists around and busting their lies. Meeting with the representatives after the lobbyists and saying, “how much did they promise you? What did they say? Really!? Let me tell you why it isn’t true. “
But nobody wants to fight like that.
Chris Hayes piece put liberals in a Darth & Wayne “not worthy” mode in their relationship to the Serious Ones such as Summers etc.
0% loans to the wealthy with no collateral for a year.
I dunno, if Liz Warren gets involved, I could see legitimacy . . . any group to oppose status quo is a better group than NO group or effort. IMHO.
After all, there are NO guns on board collectively at this time for finan reform (Krugman and the others are solo agents) and I think our present reality pretty well sums THAT shit up.
Oh, and THANKS President Obama.
Mz Hamsher, I can appreciate yer vexed point of view on this but hey, who knows, right? What’s to lose?
Gotta love the name, though. That makes the other 310 million Americans not for Financial Reform. Want some simple measures that would clean up a lot of the mess? 1) a unitary credit card processor. Individuals would have an aggregate credit line no matter how many cards they hold and balances would have to be settled within 60 days. 2) a national interest reference rate, with limits of say, no more than 10% above that rate (a de facto usury rate). Above that courts would not enforce without specific contract language. 3) adoption of a VAT system and simplification of tax rules. As VAT is a pass through system, companies have less incentive to hide wealth. Lithuania, for example, has a modern tax code. 4) a national health care system. That would cut out half of the person bankruptcies. 5) Improved sex education. America is seriously over-populated, yet procreation remains a fundamental right under the US Constitution. If say the 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure attenuates, why doesn’t the right to procreate start to attenuate at a certain point? Right now the third-world strategy of having as many kids as possible (because there is poor or no education for women, poor property rights, and no pensions for anybody) is just as acceptable as the first world model on 2 kids per couple (high education for women, secure property rights, and a comprehensive pension scheme). Swedes certainly know which world they live in, the Chinese know which world they must live in, but the Americans can’t make up their minds if they are living in Denmark or Pakistan.
You can say that again.