middle-class - Represent Consumers

Back in 1894, Nobel Prize-winning writer Anatole France made an astute observation:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

If he was around today, he might update his observation like this:

“In their wisdom, the co-chairs of the deficit reduction commission suggest that the rich and the poor wait until they’re 69 years old to collect their full Social Security pensions and to live with reduced cost-of-living adjustments.”

He might also note that the co-chairs, one a former Republican senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, and the other former Democratic presidential chief of staff and Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles, think it would be a good idea that both the rich and the poor learned to get with less help Medicare, give up their mortgage interest deduction and pay for admission to the Smithsonian Museum for the good of the country.

This is 21^st century America’s contribution to the evolution of shared sacrifice. The rich will have to suffer cuts in their Social Security benefits right along with the poor in order to achieve the greater good of reducing the deficit.

Of course there’s good news: under the co-chairs’ proposal, neither rich nor poor will have tp pay additional taxes on the profits they make speculating on the economy.

Simpson and Bowles’ recommendations are being hailed in the upper reaches of the establishment. David Broder intones from his perch at the Washington Post that the proposals are like “a cold shower after a night of heavy drinking. It’s time to sober up.”

Meanwhile President Obama acknowledged he’s facing “tough choices.”

Translation: he would really, really like to help the middle-class and the less fortunate if only the other bad politicians (and the deficit commission he himself appointed, stacking it with members who have advocated cutting social security) would let him.

The deficit commission chair’s proposals are nothing more than a continuation of the bailout and the financial crisis policies started under the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration, with the by now familiar cast of winners and losers. These proposals require the middle-class and less affluent to bear the burden of decades of disastrous policies, while those who benefited from those policies continue to avoid paying any costs for the consequences.

Simpson and Bowles are just the latest advocates waging a massive propaganda campaign in an attempt to convince people that Social Security is the main drag on the deficit. While the deficit is a serious problem, it’s not the fault of Social Security. And the deficit is not even the most serious problem facing our economy – it’s high unemployment and the foreclosure crisis. In their proposals, Simpson and Bowles don’t acknowledge that economic reality.

The full deficit commission issues its report in less than 2 weeks. Why not contact them here and let them know what you think? If they don’t want to stop peddling propaganda I know a couple of bridges where their reports could be put to good use, keeping away the cold.

So President Obama did not appoint bailout critic and middle-class champion Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He did appoint her to an important-sounding post as a White House adviser with responsibility to set up the agency, which after all was her idea in the first place.

Is the president actually marginalizing her with the window dressing of a fancy title? Or will she have a meaningful role in setting up the agency and shaping policy?

The punditocracy has gone into overdrive analyzing the president’s handling of Warren.

The positive spin is that it’s a savvy political move on Obama’s part to get her to work right away creating the agency and avoid a Republican filibuster, and that the president will finally be hearing from an insider not under Wall Street’s spell.

The more skeptical interpretation sees it as the latest example of the president’s failure to push back against Wall Street on issues that Wall Street cares about. As he has in the past, rather than picking a principled fight with Wall Street (and Republicans) Obama found a way around it.

The third spin, from Barney Frank, is that Warren actually didn’t want a permanent appointment now, keeping her options open to either exit the administration or accept the job later.

Writing on WheresOurMoney.org earlier, Harvey Rosenfield, eloquently described why Warren is the best person to lead the new agency.

Warren has been a long-time critic of predatory lending practices and the American way of debt. In her role as congressional monitor of the federal bank bailout she’s been a fearless straight shooter and a down-to-earth demystifier of the complexities and foibles of high finance.

But Obama’s handling of her appointment reinforces the impression that he’s weak in the face of Wall Street’s power. Why in the world, with a high-stakes election less than 2 months away, would the president want to avoid a fight with Wall Street and Republicans on behalf of the undisputed champion of the middle-class and consumers? If the president does intend to appoint Warren to head the agency later, does he seriously think it will be easier later?

Unlike most of the president’s other top economic advisers, Warren has never been cozy with Wall Street. But it’s simply not realistic to expect the president is about to get more aggressive in reining in the big banks with Warren on the inside.

The president has shown that he is capable of ignoring perfectly good advice from well-respected advisers with impressive job titles within his administration. Remember Paul Volcker? The former Fed adviser has been a lonely voice within the Obama administration warning about the continuing dangers of the too big to fail banks and too much risky business in the financial system. But the president used Volcker as little more than a populist prop, preferring the more conciliatory approach championed by his other top economic adviser, Larry Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed president Ben Bernanke. These three effectively fought off the tougher aspects of financial regulation at the same they time touted themselves as real reformers. While the president made clear Warren will work directly for him, will she be able to match Summers, Geithner and Bernanke, all seasoned bureaucratic infighters? She’s done little to endear herself to them and has publicly tangled with Geithner.

There’s no question that Warren, a Harvard bankruptcy law professor, has already played an extraordinary and important role in helping understand the financial collapse and its fallout. She’s never been anything but forthright, no-nonsense, principled, unafraid to speak truth to financial power and to demand accountability. She will need all those qualities as well as thick skin and nerves of steel for her new job. The stakes are high. I wish her well.

Warming up to the Deficit Commission

Elizabeth Warren's Inside Move