RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | There Is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton Candidacy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Saturday, 15 November 2014 09:30

Greenwald writes: "There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances."

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein shakes hands with Hillary Clinton. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein shakes hands with Hillary Clinton. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


There Is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton Candidacy

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

15 November 14

 

t’s easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary Clinton’s inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC’s game of thrones, she’s about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the few unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely inspiring gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.

That she’s the beneficiary of dynastic succession – who may very well be pitted against the next heir in line from the regal Bush dynasty (this one, not yet this one) - makes it all the more tempting to regard #HillaryTime with an evenly distributed mix of boredom and contempt. The tens of millions of dollars the Clintons have jointly “earned” off their political celebrity - much of it speaking to the very globalists, industry groups, hedge funds, and other Wall Street appendages who would have among the largest stake in her presidency - make the spectacle that much more depressing (the likely candidate is pictured above with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at an event in September).

But one shouldn’t be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances. Those increasingly inspired factions include:

Wall Street

Politico Magazine, November 11, 2014 (“Why Wall Street Loves Hillary”):

Down on Wall Street they don’t believe (Clinton’s populist rhetoric) for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.

Although Hillary Clinton has made no formal announcement of her candidacy, the consensus on Wall Street is that she is running—and running hard—and that her national organization is quickly falling into place behind the scenes. That all makes her attractive. Wall Street, above all, loves a winner, especially one who is not likely to tamper too radically with its vast money pot.

According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I spoke to for this article, Clinton’s rock-solid support on Wall Street is not anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank. (For the record, she quickly walked them back, saying she had “short-handed” her comments about the failures of trickle-down economics by suggesting, absurdly, that corporations don’t create jobs.) “I think people are very excited about Hillary,” says one Wall Street investment professional with close ties to Washington. “Most people in New York on the finance side view her as being very pragmatic. I think they have confidence that she understands how things work and that she’s not a populist.”

The Israel Lobby

Foreign Policy, Aaron David Miller, November 7, 2014 (“Would Hillary Be Good For the Holy Land?”):

Should she become president, on one level, better ties with Israel are virtually guaranteed. . . . Let’s not forget that the Clintons dealt with Bibi too as prime minister. It was never easy. But clearly it was a lot more productive than what we see now. . . . To put it simply, as a more conventional politician, Hillary is good on Israel and relates to the country in a way this president doesn’t. . . . Hillary is from a different generation and functioned in a political world in which being good on Israel was both mandatory and smart.

Let’s be clear. When it comes to Israel, there is no Bill Clinton 2.0. The former president is probably unique among presidents for the depth of his feeling for Israel and his willingness to put aside his own frustrations with certain aspects of Israel’s behavior, such as settlements. But this accommodation applies to Hillary too. Both Bill and Hillary are so enamored with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to make certain allowances for the reality of Israel’s behavior, such as the continuing construction of settlements.

Interventionists (i.e., war zealots)

New York Times, June 15, 2014 (“Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says”):

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.

Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Old school neocons

New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn, July 5, 2014 (“The Next Act for Neocons: … Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton”?):

After nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back. . . . Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy. . . .

Other neocons have followed [Robert] Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”

And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board. . . . Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.

So take that, cynics. There are pockets of vibrant political excitement stirring in the land over a Hillary Clinton presidency. There are posters being made, buttons being appended, checks being prepared, appointments being coveted. The joint, allied, synergistic constituencies of plutocracy and endless war have their beloved candidate. And it’s really quite difficult to argue that their excitement and affection are unwarranted.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Democracy Day Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 15 November 2014 07:35

Sanders writes: "The goal of making Election Day a national holiday is not only to make it easier for people to vote, but to increase attention on the need for us to move toward a vibrant democracy."

Likely 2016 presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Sanders.gov)
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Sanders.gov)


Democracy Day

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

15 November 14

 

his week I introduced legislation to make Election Day a national holiday -- Democracy Day.

I am doing this because, as a nation, we should be embarrassed by the abysmally low voter turnout that we experienced in last week's midterm elections.

In 1863 at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln described our democratic form of government as one "of the people, by the people and for the people." And where are we today? Are we "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when 60 percent of those people didn't vote and 80 percent of young and low-income people failed to vote? Are we a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" when poll after poll shows that most Americans can't even name the political parties that control the U.S. Senate and U.S. House or who their members of Congress are? Are we a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" when billionaires can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect candidates to represent their interests?

Nationwide, preliminary indications are that the total turnout in the recent mid-term election was only 36.6 percent, according to the United States Elections Project at the University of Florida. If the preliminary estimates hold true, last week's turnout will be the lowest in modern American history and a full 22-point drop-off from the 2012 presidential election.

We Americans do better in years when the White House is at stake. Since World War II, turnout in presidential elections has ranged from a low of 52 percent to a high of 64 percent. But that's nothing to brag about. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance ranks the United States 120th in the world for average turnout. In Scotland, for example, there was 84.6 percent turnout in this year's referendum on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom. In Denmark, 80 percent turnout is normal. In Australia, where voting is compulsory, the turnout is even greater.

Clearly, here in the United States we can and must do better.

The goal of making Election Day a national holiday is not only to make it easier for people to vote, but to increase attention on the need for us to move toward a vibrant democracy. While an Election Day national holiday would by no means be a cure-all for increasing voter turnout, it would be an important step forward toward celebrating our democratic heritage and making a commitment to engage more people in the political process.

Creating a Democracy Day would be very important, but it is only one part of what has to be done to increase citizen participation and to create the kind of political system that we can be proud of.

To keep the billionaire class from turning our democracy into an oligarchy, we must also focus on campaign finance reform and public funding of elections. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and others should not be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns while candidates who are not rich or dependent upon the rich are unable to have their voices heard. That's why we need public funding of elections. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the disastrous 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that let billionaires and corporations spend unlimited sums to tilt elections in their favor.

Further, we have got to end the aggressive efforts to suppress turnout. Instead of encouraging more people to take part in our democracy, Republican legislatures and governors have passed laws to keep people away from the polls, especially low-income and young people. They have made it harder to register to vote. They have reduced opportunities for early voting. And they have made it more difficult to actually vote on Election Day by requiring picture IDs supposedly to address all-but-non-existent voter fraud. The laws aren't intended to discourage fraud, they are intended to discourage voting. They have worked. A study I requested from the Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan congressional watchdog, found states with strict voter ID laws saw turnouts drop 2 percent to 3 percent compared to states without such laws. The laws are designed by people afraid of what would happen to them if more people were involved in the political process. What cowards!

For those of us who believe in a vibrant democracy with an engaged and well-informed electorate, we have a lot of work in front of us. Sadly, in the year 2014, we must still convince the American people about the relevance of government to their lives.

We must convince young people that if they vote in large numbers, we can lower the 20 percent real unemployment they are experiencing with a major jobs program. We must convince students that if they participate in the political process we can lower the outrageously high student indebtedness they face. We must convince low-income workers that voting can raise the national minimum wage to a living wage. We must convince seniors that not only can we prevent cuts to Social Security, we can expand the paltry benefits that so many are forced to live on. We must convince the millions of Americans who are deeply worried about climate change that political participation can transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy -- and create millions of jobs.

Throughout American history, people have fought and died to protect and expand democratic rights. In these very difficult political and economic times, we cannot turn our backs on those heroes and heroines and their extraordinary efforts. The struggle continues.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
McConnell's Election as Majority Leader Announced With Puff of Toxic Black Coal Smoke Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Friday, 14 November 2014 12:31

Borowitz writes: "Clutching a charcoal briquette in his fist and raising it defiantly over his head, McConnell received a standing ovation from the Republican caucus."

Mitch McConnell. (photo: unknown)
Mitch McConnell. (photo: unknown)


McConnell's Election as Majority Leader Announced With Puff of Toxic Black Coal Smoke

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

14 November 14

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

he election of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) as the Senate Majority Leader was announced on Thursday by a puff of toxic black coal smoke rising from the United States Capitol.

Speaking from the well of the Senate, McConnell blasted President Obama’s recent climate-change deal with the Chinese, saying that it violated “the human rights of carbon.”

“I’m not a scientist,” he told his colleagues, “but I’m told that carbon is the basic building block of all life on earth. And that means it should enjoy the same human rights as you and I.”

Clutching a charcoal briquette in his fist and raising it defiantly over his head, McConnell received a standing ovation from the Republican caucus.

Outside the Capitol, McConnell supporters who had been waiting for the symbolic puff of black smoke let out an exuberant cheer, before rubbing their irritated eyes and choking.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How to Get Away With Murder: Ferguson Print
Friday, 14 November 2014 12:28

Excerpt: "The shorter version of this week's news out of Ferguson is basically this: Tin soldiers and Nixon coming."

(photo: Getty Images)
(photo: Getty Images)


How to Get Away With Murder: Ferguson

By Philadelphia Daily News

14 November 14

 

he shorter version of this week's news out of Ferguson is basically this: Tin soldiers and Nixon coming. The grand jury investigation of the shooting of teenager Mike Brown, by the Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson has dragged on for weeks, from the hot summer afternoon when Brown's corpse was left to rot on the street for four long hours, to this week's polar vortex. This cold snap makes it even more likely that authorities will finally announce the decision they've been carefully grooming for weeks, that Officer Wilson will not be charged with murdering an unarmed 18-year-old.

Still, even with the way that officials have unlawfully and selectively leaked pro-Wilson tidbits from the closed door legal proceedings, the news conference held on Tuesday by the beyond-ironically named Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was a remarkable show of force...and I mean that in the worst sense possible. Flanked by six uniformed officers, Nixon's entire purpose was to show zero tolerance for violence that hasn't occurred yet, to show he's ready for an "uprising" (a racially loaded term he used twice). The youth whose life was taken from him, Mike Brown, was never mentioned, not once. Meanwhile, CNN seems weirdly excited about what it claims is a spike in gun sales in and around Ferguson. I guess vigilantism is the new, Ebola.

People, we seem to have lost the entire thread of what Ferguson is all about -- the reasons this story has stirred the passions of millions of Americans. The so-called leaders of St. Louis County, the scene of the crime, have spent most of the last two months focused on these three things. 1) Stocking up, and I mean stocking up big-time, on the latest state-of-the-art riot control equipment, to the tune of at least $100,000. 2) Amassing a civilian army of 1,000 police, who've received, in total, at least 5,000 hours (costing God only knows what) of training in battling civil unrest, etc. and 3) Constructing an artificial, bogus narrative that will keep the focus on the possibility of violent protest (something there's actually been very little of over the last three months) and away from any culpability for the reckless actions of Darren Wilson...or the separate and unequal society that Wilson's department props up.

Politically, what Nixon, the zealously pro-cop St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch, and the predominantly white power structure in Ferguson have accomplished has been nothing short of remarkable. Beginning in those four excruciating, humiliating four hours when Mike Brown's bullet-ridden body was left face down on the hot Ferguson asphalt, the powers-that-be have worked the story line. They pushed against the "micro" story -- why did a police officer fire multiple rounds at an unarmed youth, some 100 feet away with (as multiple, credible witnesses report) his hands in the air? And they've done so much to vanish the "macro" story line -- the systemic discrimination against mostly black communities like Ferguson -- from City Hall to almost intentionally crappy schools to a slew of fines against poor people to keep corporate taxes low to the police harassment and brutality against communities of color, and a justice system that distorts all burdens of proof when the accused wears a badge.

Now, there's little talk of justice coming out of Missouri these days. Instead, the focus is all about preparing Ferguson and the world for a decision that seems like it was etched in stone just moments after the first shot was fired 94 days ago, that Officer Wilson will not be held accountable. It's kind of ironic that in the midst of all this, ABC launched a prime-time series called "How To Get Away With Murder." That's an entertaining notion for a fictional character, but in real life it's not hard to pull off, not when you have the power of the state, its ability to manipulate the many layers of justice, and to set the parameters of the narrative in the mainstream media. Let's look back on some of the critical plot twists on "How To Get Away With Murder: Ferguson."

Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall: The bias toward shielding critical information from the public, rather than informing citizens, started with the initial police report that disclosed zero information and included no account of what happened from Officer Wilson, presumably on advice of the police union or an attorney or both. The most basic information about the incident -- such as the name of the officer involved or the number of shots that struck Brown and the location of the bullets -- were not released until a week or more after the confrontation, if then.

Lie about critical facts: As thoroughly documented by the writer/activist Shaun King and others, the information that law enforcement did release in those critical early days of the case were often misleading at best and flat-out wrong at worst. A prime example: Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson told reporters that the police officer, at his police car, fired at Brown when he was just 35 feet away, a distance that made it somewhat more plausible that Wilson felt threatened. But the numerous photos of the scene prove that Brown was 100 feet away, a much greater distance that alters the narrative. This is just one blatant example of a fog of ever-changing information that have obscured the most basic truths -- such as why Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were stopped,, and what transpired in the critical first few seconds of their encounter.

Smear the victim, and lie in the process: At the same news conference at which Wilson's name was finally made public, Ferguson chief Jackson released video that shows the dead youth, Brown, earlier on the day he was shot, apparently stealing a type of cigars from a convenience store and physically confronting a clerk. Jackson publicly claimed he was only releasing the video because of requests from the news media. If true, this would have been the only instance where local police eagerly complied with an information request -- but in fact it was shown to be a lie. There was no request. What's more, Jackson initially said the convenience store report was the reason for the pedestrian stop, but after that story went public Jackson again changed his tune. The damage to Brown's reputation had already been done, and the mission of shining the spotlight away from Wilson had been accomplished. And if Wilson were to be charged, the local jury pool would have been poisoned, against the victim, by the video release.

All but suspend the 1st Amendment. Local law enforcement went out of its way to make Ferguson a hostile work environment for reporters covering the story. The tone was set early in the citizen protests, when working journalists for major news organizations like the Washington Post were arrested by police without provocation. There were multiple episodes of journalists, some independent and some from prestigious news organizations, who were threatened, harassed, roughed up or tear-gassed by the cops. Authorities, including the Federal Aviation Administration, even created a no-fly zone over Ferguson and lied about its real purpose, which was to keep out journalists. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning rights group Amnesty International came to Ferguson this summer and found "legal and human rights observers as well as members of the media have repeatedly been obstructed from carrying out their roles and responsibilities by law enforcement in Ferguson" -- with 19 journalists arrested.

Abuse the grand jury process to spin a misleading narrative: Rather than charge Wilson with a felony offense in the immediate aftermath of the killing, the authorities decided to take all the evidence before a grand jury. It is arguable that this was a legally valid move, but it's important to understand that this was also a stalling tactic, to drag the case into the winter months when leaders hoped (wrongly, it looks like), passions would have cooled along with the temperature. Never forget that justice delayed is justice denied. What's more, prosecutors have enormous power to sway a grand jury in whatever direction they wish. Anyone who follows the law remembers the comment by New York justice Sol Wachtler, that a prosecutor could convince a grand jury "to indict a ham sandwich."

Or...not indict the shooter of an unarmed 18-year-old.

The decision to allow the supposed target of the grand jury's probe, Wilson, to come in and give his side of the story is a giant "tell" for which direction prosecutors were taking this. Is it any wonder why any and all requests for a special prosecutor to handle this investigation were rejected? But what's happening in St. Louis is even worse than that. The grand jury process is supposed to be a highly secretive one. (Just ask Woodward and Bernstein how that works.) But yet this supposed closed-door process has been riddled with news leaks -- all of them favorable to the narrative that Officer Wilson's allies want to take root. Reporters were parceled ambiguous -- and arguably misinterpreted -- autopsy reports of Brown's body, and were told only about Wilson's self-serving testimony and other grand jury witnesses who seemed to support the officer's account.

This fall, the public heard next to nothing about the slew of credible witnesses who say Brown was shot, at distance, with his hands up to surrender. What, for example, of the construction worker who was just 50 feet away who a) didn't know Mike Brown from Adam and b) saw the youth throw his hands in the air and say "OK, OK, OK, OK.." before he was shot to death -- an account that he gave that same day, speaking to his co-worker on video? These witnesses who saw Brown in posture of surrender, not attack, when he was killed have been increasingly tossed down the Memory Hole and the leaked, only-supporting-Darren-Wilson testimony has grabbed center stage.

This entire choreographed song-and-dance of social injustice is all pointing in one clear direction: Word that will come very soon -- maybe this week, maybe next, most likely on the coldest rainy or snowy day in the forecast -- that Officer Wilson will not face charges. In the meantime, the actions of St. Louis officialdom (with an assist from the Justice Department, which leaked at 5:01 p.m. on Halloween Friday that federal civil rights charges are unlikely) raise so many more questions than they answer. An indictment, after all, is not a finding of guilt, but a chance -- based on the probable cause that Wilson's shooting of the unarmed suspect was unlawful -- to adjudicate the matter in an open court, before a judge and a jury of the officer's peers.

Wouldn't such an outcome, with its public airing of the facts, be preferable to spending tax dollars and tying up hundreds of law-enforcement officers on a riot-control assignment that -- to be perfectly blunt -- probably invites violence as much as it prevents it? The only answer for all of this I can come up with is that the whole tottering structure -- of militarized police and mass incarceration, of lousy underfunded public schools and taxation-by-petty-fine, without representation -- is so wobbly that the authorities are afraid to remove even this one tiny Jenga block. But it's too late. The instability of Ferguson, of Missouri and of America's promise is already there for all to see -- regardless of what happens now to Darren Wilson.

This morning, the lawyers for Mike Brown's family urged calm in response to the looming decision. "We want to make it very clear that on behalf of the Brown family we do not condone any acts of rioting, looting or violence and that we want to encourage all of those that support the justice for Mike Brown to remain vigilant," attorney Anthony Gray said. I couldn't agree more. Violence is immoral...and more than counter-productive; this summer I toured blocks in North Philadelphia that still haven't recovered from riots that took place there in 1964. Conversely, remarkable victories have occurred from non-violent civil disobedience of the kind championed by Dr. Martin Luther King.

Forceful, but non-violent, protests -- sit-ins, boycotts, and the like -- would surely be warranted if this slow motion train wreck of injustice in the American Heartland plays out the way it surely seems to be playing out. And here's why: The authorities in Missouri are trying to write an ending to their fairy tale that what transpired there was business as usual -- when in the moral, reality-based world it's been anything but. And people should make it known that this is no longer business as usual, not just in Ferguson but in Philadelphia and in all four corners of this country.

Because the words that Dr. King uttered a half-century ago are as true today as they were then: that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The road back to justice in this case is a long one, and it doesn't begin when the grand jury's decision is announced. It starts right now, in taking back a narrative that the authorities have larded down with fiction. Because the killing of Mike Brown isn't their script to re-write. It's a nightmare that's all too real.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Wall Street Takes Over More Statehouses Print
Friday, 14 November 2014 12:21

Sirota writes: "No runoff will be needed to declare one unambiguous winner in this month's gubernatorial elections: the financial services industry."

Dome of State Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois. (photo: Shutterstock)
Dome of State Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois. (photo: Shutterstock)


Wall Street Takes Over More Statehouses

By David Sirota, Truthdig

14 November 14

 

o runoff will be needed to declare one unambiguous winner in this month’s gubernatorial elections: the financial services industry. From Illinois to Massachusetts, voters effectively placed more than $100 billion worth of public pension investments under the control of executives-turned-politicians whose firms profit by managing state pension money.

The elections played out as states and cities across the country debate the merits of shifting public pension money—the retirement savings for police, firefighters, teachers and other public employees—from plain vanilla investments such as index funds into higher-risk alternatives like hedge funds and private equity funds.

Critics argue that this course has often failed to boost returns enough to compensate for taxpayer-financed fees paid to the financial services companies that manage the money. Wall Street firms and executives have poured campaign contributions into states that have embraced the strategy, eager for expanded opportunities. The election results affirmed that this money was well spent: More public pension money will now likely be entrusted to the financial services industry.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 Next > End >>

Page 2654 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN