The "Centrists,"

or the so-called DLC, or, more accurately, the neoliberals, are definitely at war with populists of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the neoliberals have Obama's ear for the simple reason he is also one.

Has the Kool Aid Finally Worn Off

for Frank Rich? For the first time in many months he finally makes some coherent sense regarding Obama.

Well, when you are in fact a product of the Chicago School, and Obama actually taught at the University of Chicago, and when you surround yourself with Friedmanites of the Democratic persuasion, or neoliberals, any economic policy which seeks to prop up the status quo is going to fail. The status quo, which for the past thirty years has been Friedmanism or some variation thereof, has been a complete failure. If one wants to use the Katrina comparison, you can't plug a leaking levee with a bandaid.

And Geithner and Summers HAVE to be ditched.

On the Contrary,

Larry Summers, as well as all of the other neoliberals, needs to be sacked on his butt.

But The New Republic more often than not supports neoliberal positions and neoliberals, whether or not those positions and individuals are good for the country.

And speaking of Summers and his cohorts, how about AIG?

Maybe I have become infected with that dreaded political disease, "group-think." I am as fed up with AIG as I have ever been at any American company since Enron, and maybe even including Enron. I hope it is not merely because I have been told by every elected official, every news reader, everyone, that I should feel this way. I would hate to become so wooly-pated that someone might confuse me with a marino.

The idea that these outrageous bonuses that this bankrupt company is paying to their executives out of OUR pockets constitute some kind of unbreakable contractual obligations is palpable nonsense. It's just an excuse, and a bad one at that. It's almost as if Summers or Geithner asked them to provide an excuse, ANY excuse, and they could try to make it fly no matter how wacky it was. They made the auto companies break their contracts with the unions, right? Those weren't as binding? Unlike GM, this company engaged in utterly irresponsible behavior and was instrumental in CAUSING our current financial problems. They should go bankrupt. They should already BE bankrupt. Unlike GM, this mess was, in fairly large measure, AIG's fault.

There are so many options to stop this that I have no way to list them all. Tax those bonuses at a 100% rate, which might be the best option because they could do that to ALL bonuses -- not just AIG's -- above a certain amount, or any amount paid by companies that are losing money. Take over AIG's obligations to policy holders at pennies on the dollar and let the rest of the company go belly-up Chapter 7, which is probably the most just and fair outcome. Mandate that AIG receive no further help unless these bonuses are NOT paid, and let the poor "betrayed' millionaire executives try to sue to compel payment. Those court proceedings would be a real hoot!

Or storm their offices with torches and pitchforks and drag the bonus recipients, and the executives who ordered them, out by their feet. Indeed, this last might be my personal preference. Looters deserve looting -- an eye for an eye.

If this is not stopped my confidence in Obama's power and wisdom will wane. I'm really quite ticked off.

I have said repeatedly Obama's sentiments are neoliberal, not progressive or even liberal. And if he doesn't ditch the neoliberalism and neoliberals like Geithner and Summers, he will fail as president.

Then we will be REALLY screwed.

Echoing Some of My Complaints

with Obama, Michael Lind asks what in the hell happened to Democrats that they jettisoned supporting public institutions and went the neoliberal route, which will NOT work:

The point of this imaginary monologue is simple. Once upon a time in the United States, public goods -- from retirement security and energy research to public roads -- were provided by the government and paid for by taxes. As late as the Nixon administration, the provision of public goods by government was considered perfectly compatible with a robust market economy by so-called Modern Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon as well as New Deal Democrats like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. In the intervening 40 years, however, free-market fundamentalists of the Chicago School have managed to change the debate, redefining "socialism" to mean not only public ownership of the means of production, but also public provision of public goods.


Rather than fight back, most Democrats in the last generation adapted to this hostile conservative political climate by jettisoning New Deal "big government" liberalism for "market-friendly" neoliberalism. Neoliberals shared the right's enthusiasm for deregulating industries that New Deal Democrats had regulated in the public interest. Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy supported the deregulation of trucking and airlines, while Bill Clinton presided over the dismantling of the New Deal era's banking regulations and declared: "The era of big government is over." Neoliberals and conservatives agreed that public goods should be provided by private, for-profit or nonprofit entities, rather than government agencies. If private corporations or universities had no motivation to provide public goods, well, then, they would be bribed with tax credits or other government subsidies.

We need to get back to true Democratic principals, not try to beat the Republicans at their own (losing, destructive) game.