The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Shall We Focus on Saule Omarova's Actual Plans?
I can't speak about whether Biden nominee Saule Omarova would be a good banking regulator, or about just what she believes is the right banking policy. But I'm pretty sure the following are all irrelevant to the nomination:
[1.] That, at age 28, in 1995, she was arrested for shoplifting and admitted to stealing the items. Obviously bad behavior, and I'm not one to pooh-pooh shoplifting; but while it is a significant crime, it is still rightly seen as a comparatively minor crime. And at 26 years' remove, it seems a minor matter indeed, which I find hard to see as relevant to her qualities today.
[2.] That her ideas are supposedly shaped by her upbringing in the Soviet Union. Sen. Patrick Toomey opined that she "'clearly has an aversion to anything like free-market capitalism,' … citing examples of her academic work" (of course a perfectly legitimate criticism, if it fairly captures her work), and added, "You could ask yourself, 'Where would a person even come up with these ideas?' Well, maybe a contributing factor could be in if a person grew up in the former Soviet Union, and went to Moscow State University, and attended there on a Vladimir Lenin Academic Scholarship."
Unfortunately, native-born Americans do just fine at coming up with socialist ideas, and of course many people raised under the Soviet system know especially well the problems with those ideas. Why not focus just on the ideas she actually expressed as a scholar, rather than on her schooling in her late teens and early twenties (in a time and place where aspiring university students would be unwise to turn up their noses at a scholarship named after Lenin).
[3.] That she wrote a thesis on "Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in [Das Kapital]" when she was a Soviet college student in the late 1980s, and where I expect a thesis on Milton Friedman's economic analysis would not have been well received. The thesis appears to be unavailable, but I very much doubt that we can learn things from what she wrote when she was a 22-year-old Soviet college student beyond what we can learn from what she wrote when she was an American law professor.
[4.] That she didn't resign from the Young Communist Union (Komsomol), which Soviet teenagers routinely joined if they knew what was good for them, and which they generally just aged out of (until it was disbanded in 1991). Sen. John Kennedy engaged in that particular line of questioning.
Again, her work as a scholar is entirely fair game for determining her qualifications; and I'm skeptical of the claim that "her critics [are] singling her out because she is a woman and a minority"—I suspect they are singling her out because she's a nominee of the opposite party, and that's what one does nowadays. But going back 30 years in her education, and 25 years for an arrest for a minor crime, makes no sense, however much it may be par for the course in American politics today.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's not like she hasn't said plenty of damning things recently about economics in particular. It really would be nice if we could focus on that...
Congress is all grandstanding theatrics and diversion these days. Is it any wonder it accomplishes next to nothing?
He biggest problem is her registration as a Democrat, making her an agent of the Chinese Commie Party.
Federal scumbag lawyers threatened banks into PC lending to irresponsible diverses in the 2000's. The underwriter would say, this paerson cannot afford this mortgage. The bank would reply, sign or be replaced, because the scumbag lawyers had threatened their charters.
The irresponsible diverses did not pay their mortgages. The banks offered high interest rates to buyers, and bundled these garbage loans at 7% instead of 4% for other mortgage securities not going to irresponsible diverses. Result? The depression of 2008. Thank the scumbag federal lawyer thug for the Depression of 2008.
Her biggest problem is that she is an American trained toxic scumbag lawyer, not the above trivialities from long ago. Her legal education is the biggest detriment.
The second biggest problem is her ethnicity, no matter what the denier Volokh says. No one born East of Germany can be trusted with money. All are inherently thieves. Entire blocks of stores had to close because of Russian immigrant shoplifting in the Philadelphia area. Stealing and lying are part of Eastern Europe culture.
A short lesson for DB, who seems to be blaming the Community Reinvestment Act (passed during the Carter administration for "The depression of 2008." The CRA required regulated banks, which had a long history of not making loans to minorities, to base loan decisions on the objective credit-worthiness of the individual, and not on redlining the neighborhoods in which the individual lived. At that goal, it worked pretty well through the next three decades.
But then came the late 1990's/early 2000's financial industry deregulation which slightly amended the CRA, while also removing several underlying statutes that had stood since the 1930s. That allowed many much more lightly-regulated financial entities to move into the home mortgage market. That was the primary enabler of the sub-prime lending crisis—the single largest cause of the 2008 economic to which DB refers.
These (de facto unregulated) companies had always been far more speculative, aggressively pursuing higher returns while winningly accepting a far higher risk. That pursuit encouraged them to create new ways to package mortgages (mortgage-backed securities) which they found to be far more profitable than the stodgy old home mortgage. The problem started when they quickly ran out of mortgages to package, so started offering inducements to (de facto unregulated) mortgage originators to give them more and more mortgages.
Thus, deregulation allowed companies with no experience in judging the creditworthiness of home buyers, to originate mortgages. That created a competitive carnival of lending to more and more people who were less and less qualified. They didn’t care about the quality of the loan because they were immediately sold to loan packagers. The (de facto unregulated) packagers didn’t care because they immediately bundled them and sold them on the securities market as “low-risk” (because they were secured by peoples’ homes!), high-profit bonds.
Some (de facto unregulated) lenders started actively recruiting unsophisticated, low-income people, yes, sometimes from minority communities. But that was the fault of neither the CRA nor "scumbag federal lawyer thugs." It was the fault of mostly rich, mostly white crooks.
Recklessly lending money to rich white guys (like Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns) became part of a culture of stupid, reckless, really risky lending. Lending money to poor people isn't what crashed the economy. Lending money poorly to rich people did.
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you feel like Behar...Hey, I think I might have repeated myself!
Trump supporter, of course.
Who do you think Antifa vote for?
Dear David-who-misspells his name,
That is nonsense. At least dig up some quotes from her academic work that are damning.
Donnie, Boy. That is an ipse dixit. At least make an argument of fact of logic. I provided the inside story of the Depression of 2008, 100% the fault of the lawyer scumbag, federal thug. Now this new scumbag will be carpet bombing the economy again.
Dear Behar,
My comment was to your
"He biggest problem is her registration as a Democrat, making her an agent of the Chinese Commie Party."
Which is patent nonsense. You provided no linkage whatsoever to China.
"Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Markets don’t always know best.”
That's 2019.
Anyone stupid enough to believe the Soviet Union didn't have a pay gap is not qualified for the job.
To understand how much they valued equality / equity, just look at all the Soviet women in leadership roles.
Even if true (which it isn't), it is besides the point. If everyone is equally miserable, then you have no "gap" but your system is a failure.
Which is something many on the left have always failed to grasp.
The number of things leftists fail to grasp is astonishingly high.
Another commenter beat me to it:
And at 26 years' remove, it seems a minor matter indeed, which I find hard to see as relevant to her qualities today.
Yes, but no. She was 28 at the time. Lotsa people thought George W Bush's DUI-ing, 24 years before he ran for President, was relevant. And only some of those will have been persuaded by his conversion to religion and boozelessness.
Of course the real doozy of this genre is the fuggedaboutit applied to Ted Kennedy. C'mon man, it was way back in his "youth." He was 37 at the time and had already been a US Senator for six or seven years.
Yeah, this was something done as an adult - and 10 years into being a legal adult, too, rather than some childish impulse.
Also, it wasn't trying to steal $5 worth of something or some other trivial amount. She was arrested for trying to steal hundreds of dollars worth of stuff.
Oh, and rather than remorse, she actually claims it wasn't theft! Instead, the store employees, video cameras, police, and her own confession were just the result of a "confusing situation".
No, actually, that's the words of a WH spokesperson. She didn't claim that anywhere I can find.
And what store employees, video cameras, police, or confession? As far as I can tell from googling, what we have is (a) a police report; and (b) a court record showing her prosecution was deferred. She doesn't deny she was arrested. That appears to be the extent of what's established.
I recall Henry Hyde minimizing his adultery (in his 40s I think) as youthful indiscretion when he was railing against Clinton. Maybe the personal isn’t political? Or is that only for ‘publican pols?
Your point escapes me.
That you think a DUI is equivalent to shoplifting speaks to how much of a danger you are behind the wheel. Please don't come drive in my community.
Well, of course, shoplifting obviously is more morally culpable. It's done stone cold sober, there's no question of inadvertently slipping into an impaired state, then deciding to drive due to impaired judgement.
When the COC nominee shoplifters. It was premeditated while in full possession of he faculties. And the harm to the victim was 100% certain. not a mere risk.
Phone auto-mistake. Bleah.
Please don't come drive in my community.
Happy to oblige.
But what about throwing things at your local police and setting fire to commercial property in your neigborhood ?
That you think the comparison he made is one of equivalence speaks either to your immaturity or dishonesty.
They did?
Well, if you google "Bush DUI" you get about 7.5 million hits. "Bush drink-driving" nets you 24 million.
"Clinton Lewinsky" and "Clinton intern" get about 4.5 million and 13 million respectively.
So at least as far as items accessible to google are concerned, those stories seem to be roughly of the same order of magnitude.
Shall We Focus on Saule Omarova's Actual Plans?
This is very much a modern and leftist attitude to selecting people for the public sphere. I split my two perjorative adjectives deliberately, since this fancy has always much stronger on the left, but it now appears on the right too, to a somewhat lesser extent.
It is not that policies are irrelevant, nor that you should overlook the fact, if it is so, that a candidate or nominee is committed to lunatic policies. It's more that commitment to lunatic policies, in advance of taking office, is a signal of foolishness, unwisdom, unseriousness, and immaturity.
Details like trustworthiness, wisdom and competence are at least as important as policy positions.
I recall a British businessman who was sympathetic to the Blair government, and who was drafted in as a minister in that government. After he'd quit, still sympathetic but bemused, he said, of his fellow ministers, something along the lines of "It's very odd. They seem to think that once they have come up with a policy, their job is done."
If Trump had nominated someone who was previously in the actual Nazi party or the current European equivalents found over there, then there is no way in hell anyone would post anything like a "let's get serious here" kind of defense. This lady is a commie true and red. That is good enough for me to keep her out of an office of public trust.
Come now Jimmy, aren't there good people on both sides of all that?
Nope. No good Nazis and no good Communists.
I'm sure they are and all can are free to use their First Amendment rights and should be able to do so without fear the local police in collusion with Antifa are going to suppress it. That doesn't give them a right to a public office though.
By all means look at the actual policies she called for once she was in the U. S. and freed from Soviet pressure to toe the Communist line.
Once she reached the USA, did she say, "what a relief that I can finally proclaim the wickedness of Soviet policies"?
What was her line on embryo certificate of deposits, amirite?
Thank you for the well-reasoned and relevant response.
Anyone who so casually dismisses the banking rights of zygote-Americans can not be considered serious.
You're the real racist.
Relevant and astute, thank you.
Zygote hater.
If you can't protect the savings of the unborn-Americans from the commies you might as well be Nancy Pelosi.
Is it your purpose to remind us you have nothing of substance to say and that you just like to argue? No need, we all know that already.
Aren’t there some third graders running around out there without knowing that they are racist oppressors? Wasting time talking trash on a message board when your primary purpose remains unfinished……
What in the world re yu saying? Have you lost it completely?
I think Queen Amalthea is going to have to join Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland and Daivd Behar in disappearing from my VC comments.
She proposed as a Professor, in the last 5 years federalizing all bank accounts and have the Fed:
”fully replace—rather than compete with—private bank deposits.”
As well as having the Fed directly debit accounts when it wants to shrink the money supply.
She's also advocated bankrupting coal, oil, and gas firms to reduce global warming.
I agree her early 20's should not disqualify her from the position, but it certainly is somewhat relevant to her character and qualifications.
In what universe is someone's academic thesis considered totally irrelevant to their nomination? Not the deciding factor, certainly, but it's at least relevant enough to bring it up, and read the thesis to see what she had to say.
But let's be clear it's her current writings and opinions that are well beyond the mainstream that will sink her nomination, the other stuff is window dressing that just provides additional context.
I agree with you that criticism of her actual proposals is valid.
But what isn't is the stuff Kennedy pulled, "I don't know whether to call you Professor or Comrade." That's just totally scummy.
So is emphasis on a thesis she wrote in a situation where, as Eugene points out, "a thesis on Milton Friedman's economic analysis would not have been well received." Talking about that is just ridiculous.
IOW, the Republican criticism has been pointless and disgusting.
Hey, at least nobody called her a rapist.
It helps that, apparently, she didn't engage in any rapey behavior. Still unclear, does she like beer?
Neither did Kav, until the Dems needed to try to keep him off the court.
Neither did Kav,
Maybe, maybe not. Certainty is unjustified.
Well by that standard we don't know that Omarova is a rapist either.
But if the standard is that conduct from years past that has nothing to do with a nominees professional qualifications should not be brought up, then we can say the extremely thin allegations against Kavenaugh should never have been brought up either. After all the Kavenaugh allegations had never been aired before, were from when he was a minor, and completely unsubstantiated.
Where Omarova was an adult, and the crime was investigated at the time and Omarova admitted to it.
The old trope that the seriousness of the allegations matters more than the lack of any supporting evidence just encourages wild accusations, the more serious the allegations the more convincing the evidence should be.
"Well by that standard we don't know that Omarova is a rapist either."
Only to the extent we don't know that about anyone, but, again, no one accused her of any sexual assault. Multiple people accused Kavanaugh (including when he was a legal adult). So they are significantly different in how certain we should be in each case.
"But if the standard is that conduct from years past that has nothing to do with a nominees professional qualifications should not be brought up...'
That's not the standard anyone has articulated. But you know that. So this is just a troll point.
"The old trope that the seriousness of the allegations matters more than the lack of any supporting evidence just encourages wild accusations, the more serious the allegations the more convincing the evidence should be."
This is true with respect to convicting a person.
The situation is more complicated in terms of lifetime appointments. Denying an appointment is denying a special privilege, not punishment. The standard of proof of good character is (or should be) on the nominee, not the people trying to block the nominee. Yes, there are perverse incentives and crediting any allegations to tank a nomination certainly encourages allegations.
But surely you aren't saying you would rather 9 rapists get a lifetime appointment than that 1 person of good character be denied a lifetime appointment? I'd think we could all agree the ratio should be the reverse, at least.
"Multiple people accused Kavanaugh (including when he was a legal adult)."
A few loons came out of the woodwork when it was politically advantageous to do so. There's no real evidence that Kav did anything wrong.
"A few loons came out of the woodwork..."
Assuming the conclusion. As already pointed out, your certainty is entirely unwarranted. That you apparently believe certainty is warranted tells me a significant amount about you.
‘Pub Pols are just attacking to score sound bites. That’s been a problem in politics for a long time. Everyone wants attention more than they want to solve problems.
It was entirely proper. Her econ opinions haven't changed since her USSR academic days -- it is a valid question whether she is still a communist, or "only" a Marxist academic.
Some on here have about the same depth of thought process as edgy teens calling everything gay, only they use Communist, or if they're feeling fancy, Marxian.
Given the policy positions Kazinski named, calling her a communist is earned and deserved, and it's pointless and disgusting to suggest otherwise. Sometimes the rhetoric of outrage is called for.
"That's just totally scummy. "
True, but was irresistable
"IOW, the Republican criticism has been pointless and disgusting."
No more so then the Democrats criticism of Kavanaugh, actually probably a good bit less so than how the Democrats treated Kavanaugh.
Not really. Her proposals indeed are strongly flavored by statist, collectivist control. The criticisms of her by Republicans you object to are crude but accurate.
People can change their mind. Example: Karl Popper was a committed Marxist in his early 20s; not only did he reject marxism later, but he wrote some of the most passionate defenses for an open (classically liberal) society (in addition to foundational work on the philosophy of science). If Popper had been proposed for government office later in his life, his early marxism shouldn't have been a problem.
The problem is not that Omarova was a marxist in her 20s, it's that she's *still* a marxist.
I agree that what she wrote is fair game, but I would dissent from describing writing a law review article exploring an idea as "proposing" it.
(Maybe she did actually propose it in the real world; I haven't studied her that closely. But if the only basis for your claim is that article, I don't think it's entirely fair to describe it that way.)
There's a link in this piece to kennedy's website, where some 'key excerpts' are listed, though there is only an ellipsis where kennedy said this;
"I don't mean any disrespect - I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade"
Of course, he meant lots of disrespect. It was the only possible purpose of that statement. It wasn't a question.
It's obvious that kennedy doesn't want any comrades or cosmonauts working for the US government.
And should have meant plenty of disrespect for anybody who'd write this. Wrote it last year, mind you. Proposed a huge, and yes, communist style, power grab. With said power to be exercised by... The comptroller of the currency!
In effect, that paper was her job application.
And somebody might outgrow shoplifting committed at 8, or even 18. But by 28 your character is fairly well established.
I'll wager you didn't bother to read the paper.
You'd lose that bet.
Not sure where you're getting that it's a "huge, communist style, power grab," then. Did you read the whole thing?
I'm sorry, do you not see that forcing everyone to keep their money in the Fed, and giving the Fed power to add to or remove from that balance, as a huge power grab?
Maybe you object to the "communist-style"? If nationalizing the entire banking industry is not "communist style", then what is?
Are you unable to understand that the "private banking" system is essentially already an extension of the Fed?
Did you miss the part where Omarova explains that the credit/debit mechanism is intended to achieve exactly what we're already trying to achieve through monetary policy, except that it does so without having to count on private banks responding to the incentives created by the Fed's limited tools?
Or maybe where she describes the "debit" mechanism as more akin to a savings account with limited withdrawals, to be used only in the rare circumstances, to fight inflation?
I'm not really interested in debating whether it is or isn't communism. I don't have the allergic, emotional response to that label that the boomers here seem to. I'm just looking at the monetary system we have and how Omarova proposes to make monetary policy achieve its desired outcomes. As I've said elsewhere, if your problem is with the "communist" nature of her proposed "People's Ledger," then you maybe should revisit the level of comfort you have with the Fed managing monetary policy, being able to compel private banks to keep certain amounts in reserve, controlling those private banks by adjusting its own interest rates, acquiring assets in order to flush liquidity into markets, and so on, to say nothing of FDIC insurance on your own bank accounts. We have a centralized, government-controlled, and comprehensively regulated monetary system already. It's just one constructed in such a way as to give private banks the ability to squeeze some profit out of it. Why am I supposed to worry about taking that out?
"Essentially" is doing a lot of work here.
No, the private banks have their own assets. They can use the Fed for short-term covering of on-hand assets, if they are short of legal requirements, but they are not required to either borrow from the Fed nor 'deposit' their assets with the Fed.
And yes, I did read the paper, and yes, she describes how her proposal would "essentially" (as you put it) cover the same functions as other financial policies - the same way that forcing people to live in state housing would insure housing equity and eliminate homelessness.
You seem to think that the current financial system is "bad", although I don't see any explanation from you as to why, and you want to change it - by giving the government more direct power to control money (and securities markets, according to the paper). The government has had issues for a long time with official statistics being manipulated for partisan purposes, such as inflation or unemployment, but again, you want to give the government more direct control?
People, or banks, have the rights to make their own decisions about what they do, even if those are suboptimal decisions. Government policies and incentives can attempt to convince people to do things the government wants, but this system would have the government replacing persuasion with forcing people to do as the government wants.
That's about as close to a communist power-grab as you can get! I'd rather people make bad decisions than have the government force bad decisions onto them.
I guess we've been kickin it communist-style since 1913.
Oh, really? Tell me, why is Omarova proposing this power-grab if we've been doing it since the Federal Reserve was founded?
Or maybe the Fed serves an entirely different purpose, and you're just being foolish again.
"forcing everyone to keep their money in the Fed" is a thing that's already going on.
If you're going to substantively criticize someone's policy proposal, step one is to understand the status quo.
You're already doing better than most on here by attempting to engage with her work. But you gotta do some Googling if you're not an expert.
"step one is to understand the status quo"
My understanding of the status quo is that, today, the comptroller can't stop me from withdrawing from my bank account. Is your understanding of the status quo different?
Might be National Socialist
Off topic to Brett:
You may be interested in this new paper in the Lancet,
"Neutralising antibody titres as predictors of protection
against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the impact of boosting:
a meta-analysis"
http://www.thelancet.com/microbe
Published online November 15, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00267-6 1
Sorry, but while it might have been unfair to bring up her early upbringing if she had come to the US and overcome it, her academic writings are, in fact, perfectly in keeping with that upbringing. They're terrifying.
It doesn't change the fact that bringing up her early upbringing is irrelevant and unfair.
I guess one argument is that in then getting press coverage for the outrageously unfair and disrespectful questioning, people then say well she has recently said similar things.
On the other hand, it's extremely slimy behavior and a fair number of people will think, if your best line of attack is where she grew up and what she said as a Moscow University student where praising the virtues of Milton Friedman likely would have ended your hopes and dreams, then you must not have much.
I think it's likely more effective to not be slimy. But I don't think we should set the bar for when it's okay to slime someone with whether it is effective or not. How about we punish slimy people at the polls so we can have less of this bullshit?
If you had actually read the article you linked, you wouldn't be "terrified." If you find her ideas "terrifying," you should find our current system - where our money is just Fed notes, our banks all regulated by the Fed, our monetary policy managed by the Fed's control over our banks' dealings with the Fed, and so on. Omarova's "People's Ledger" just streamlines a system that is currently managed through a lot of different pieces.
A streamlined system that would streamline some terrifying abuses.
What, exactly, is "terrifying" about managing monetary policy directly, rather than through indirect mechanisms that have to operate by trying to create incentives for private banks?
Shall We Focus on Saule Omarova's Actual Plans?
CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES
The People’s Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy
[by] Saule T. Omarova
[Abstract] The COVID-19 crisis underscored the urgency of digitizing sovereign money and ensuring universal access to banking services. It pushed two related ideas—the issuance of central bank digital currency and the provision of retail deposit accounts by central banks—to the forefront of the public policy debate. To date, however, the debate has not produced a coherent vision of how democratizing access to central bank money would—and should—transform and democratize the entire financial system. This lack of a systemic perspective obscures the enormity of the challenge and dilutes our ability to tackle it.
This Article takes up that challenge. It offers a blueprint for a comprehensive restructuring of the central bank balance sheet as the basis for redesigning the core architecture of modern finance. Focusing on the U.S. Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”), the Article outlines a series of structural reforms that would radically redefine the role of a central bank as the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a democratic economy—the People’s Ledger.
On the liability side of the ledger, the Article envisions the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the Fed’s balance sheet and explores the full range of new, more direct and more flexible, monetary policy tools enabled by this shift. On the asset side, it advocates a comprehensive qualitative restructuring of the Fed’s investment portfolio, which would maximize its capacity to channel credit to productive uses in the nation’s economy. This compositional overhaul of the Fed’s balance sheet would fundamentally alter the operations and systemic footprints of private banks, funds, derivatives dealers, and other financial institutions and markets. Analyzing these structural implications, the Article shows how the proposed reforms would make the financial system less complex, more stable, and more efficient in serving the long-term needs of the American people.
Keywords: central banking, Federal Reserve, CBDC, digital dollar, digital currency, FedAccounts, central bank balance sheet, financial system, systemic risk, shadow banking, structural reform, Glass-Steagall, fintech, financial stability, monetary policy, National Investment Authority, infrastructure finance,
Suggested Citation:
Omarova, Saule T., The People’s Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy (October 20, 2020). Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-45, 74 Vanderbilt Law Review 1231 (2021), Available at SSRN:
https: ssrn.com abstract=3715735
or
http: dx.doi.org 10.2139 ssrn.3715735
Carl,
Thank you for the verbatim citation.
With apologies to Bernard, "the People’s Ledger" is just what the proletariat desire.
"Digitizing money" the ultimate weapon of the surveillance state against the citizen.
"fundamentally alter the operations and systemic footprints of private banks, funds, derivatives dealers, and other financial institutions and markets" In otherwords nationalize the banking system. She learned well at MSU.
The Article makes an interesting proposal, actually, if you consider the issues with our current system that she describes.
Unfortunately it's partly predicated upon a way of thinking about what money is that the troglodytes here are unlikely to interpret as anything other than socialist dogma.
Well it does give the government total control and unlimited surveillance of everyone's money sources, expenditures and assets.
And you may like that feature, but I'm betting at least 80% of the public would not. The government has already tried with at least some success to choke off access to the financial system of legitimate businesses like gun stores, marijuana retailers and distributors, porn mavens, payday lenders, for profit schooling, etc.
I hardly think we can trust the government with total control of all capital inflows and outflows, and anyone who does think that is an idiot, or a Communist, but I repeat myself.
Omarova does concede that people's distrust of the government would be a problem for her proposal.
I don't know that it makes a lot of difference to me whether the government knows and controls my bank accounts. Because, as it is now, all of that is known by my actual private bank, which uses what it knows about me to sell me mortgage loans, wealth management services, proprietary investment products, and the like.
Well, you seem to be missing an important piece of of Omarova's proposal. She wants the government to be able to take money out of people's accounts for no other reason than that the fed has decided that there is too much money in the system.
Your private bank can't legally do that.
Money is no longer standing in for some brick of gold. So this proposal isn't really going to effect any individual's liquidity.
I don't know enough to know if it's a good idea, but I do know enough to know it's not communism.
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2634&context=facpub
the limited utility of traditional corporate governance as a mechanism of systemic risk management reflects deep-seated inadequacies in the conceptual and normative apparatus of modern U.S. corporate law
COMMUNISM!
In the case of both policies she is exhibiting a communist's contempt for property rights, and the totalitarians' horror of competing power centers.
She sees assets, her first thought is to take them, though somebody already owns them. She sees organizations, the government must control them.
So, yes, COMMUNISM!
This is such a childish misunderstanding that I'm almost embarrassed for you.
Her argument in favor of the "golden share" in systemically important financial institutions reminds me a bit of the arguments made by the types here who have argued that social media companies should be publicly regulated as "common carriers."
Who suggested nationalizing the social media companies?
No one's talking about nationalizing anything.
What we are talking about are approaches to regulating an already comprehensively regulated, systemically important industry that is already subject to coordinated, centralized, national decision-making.
People are pointing to the pervasiveness of Facebook and its importance in people's lives, in support of a broader argument that it should be subject to regulations forcing it to act like a "common carrier" without the ability to select users or speech. It would be forced to operate like a public utility and to revamp its entire economic model. Having the U.S. government provide its own version, or own Facebook outright, would only be the next step.
You are deeply confused. For example, public utilities are typically not common carriers, and vice versa.
So your response is 1) regulations mean communism, followed by 2) rampant speculation about her general worldview.
This is extremely shallow. And managed not to actually engage with my quote or the paper it came from at all. Because why do work when all want is a scalp?
It's not rampant speculation one you read her work. This woman shouldn't hold any policy making position at all, and least of all the position she last year proposed should have control over everybody's savings.
Omarova's actual proposal:
People would have a "transaction account" and a "reserve account." The reserve account would be created with the express understanding that the Fed would effect monetary policy through it, including by crediting amounts to the reserve account for purposes of stimulating economic activity. When not subject to counter-inflationary measures, people would be able to spend freely from the reserve account. But the Fed would also effect counter-inflationary measures by managing the account, which it would do by "debiting" the transaction account and/or essentially "escrowing" a portion of the reserve account. People would not "lose" these amounts, but rather would be unable to spend it while escrowed; in order to lessen the sting of this, the escrowed amounts would be subject to additional interest, which itself may be used to give people an incentive to move amounts into the reserve account.
Brett's interpretation: "the Fed should have control over everybody's savings."
Your explanation is just a very long-winded version of what Brett said.
"People would not "lose" these amounts, but rather would be unable to spend it while escrowed."
So what if a business needs the money for an expansion of their operations, or to offset an unexpected loss, or give their employees a bonus.
What if I want to buy an oil company stock that's paying a 5% dividend, will that be allowed, or only investments in green energy like an electric bus manufacturer are allowed.
Who's money is it, mine or the government's?
So what if a business needs the money for an expansion of their operations, or to offset an unexpected loss, or give their employees a bonus.
Are you missing the part where the Fed would do this specifically to cool down economic activity, during a period of high inflation?
What if I want to buy an oil company stock that's paying a 5% dividend, will that be allowed, or only investments in green energy like an electric bus manufacturer are allowed.
I think the question is more, if we take for granted that the government can use economic incentives to try to "nudge" people toward making one decision rather than another one, what are the best ways to do this? If we want people to invest more in "green" businesses, we can and do do this through low-interest loan programs, tax incentives, and the like. I don't see Omarova making the case for using monetary policy to do this kind of fine-tuned policy-making, but in theory I don't see why you couldn't. What would be the problem with doing so, exactly - again, taking for granted that this is something we already treat as normal to do, using other types of economic incentives funded by the government?
Who's money is it, mine or the government's?
I mean, it's "yours," but behind this kind of simplistic frame is the more complicated, almost metaphysical question.
What is "money"? Where is "your money," right now? It's not gold under your mattress. It's likely one or more accounts, spread across one or more financial institutions. And those accounts, themselves, are just these ledger items, specifying a debt owed to you that you can draw upon pursuant to the terms of those accounts. And when you do draw upon them, it's not like the bank goes into some vault, where it has a locker specifying "Kazinski's dollar bills," and brings them out for you. No - you're probably transacting primarily digitally, directing your bank to pay a vendor, or a credit card company, or another bank, some amount. Which they correspondingly do by adjusting ledger items. The same is probably true of any securities accounts you might have. No one is sitting on a pile of stock certificates for you, etc.
This is kind of how it works, all the way down - down to the level of the Fed. This is what Omarova is getting at, when she describes the "spendability" of your money having to do with the Fed's giving reality to the "full faith and credit" of our currency. It's not the government's money, but "your money" is in fact just a store of value consisting of promises by the Fed. And monetary policy is effected by managing those promises. So the question is, then, just whether it makes sense for the Fed to continue to effect that policy through indirect mechanisms, or if we can in some way make the whole process more transparent and effective.
"Are you missing the part where the Fed would do this specifically to cool down economic activity, during a period of high inflation?"
What I'm not missing is that, today, if I have $X in the bank I can withdraw it for any purpose I want - to buy into a continuing care facility, pay for hookers and blow, pay tuition for the grandkids, help out the kids when they get laid off, whatever my little heart desires, whether or not the comptroller wants me to.
I kind of like being in charge of my own life.
If other people want to share their financial decision making with the government, fine, I have no objection. Heck, a lot of people might be better off with the government putting them on an allowance. Just leave me out of it.
You keep saying things, but you don't quote anything.
S_0,
You grossly distort what Brett said. "She sees assets, her first thought is to take them, though somebody already owns them. She sees organizations, the government must control them."
Indeed that is not talking about regulations; it is talking about nationalization of the entire banking system and proclaiming that all monetary instruments are the property of the government. Communism or National Socialism, take your pick.
a communist's contempt for property rights, and the totalitarians' horror of competing power centers. is about her advocating for banking regulations. Regulations on an already highly regulated industry. This is not communism.
She sees assets, her first thought is to take them is indeed a different argument, it is fictional. That is what I was addressing with "rampant speculation about her general worldview."
If he's read the paper, he hasn't understood it. Which is weird, because it's not really hard to understand.
Lost thesis? If you accept her claim that it is "lost", that disqualifies her based on lack of competence.
Ruqt: Can you elaborate? She says she wrote it on a typewriter (quite likely in late 1980s Russia, where my sense is that personal computers were not generally available). She then moved across continents; it's unsurprising that she wouldn't bring it with her. And the university says they no longer have it, again unsurprising given the passing of 30 years, which included a massive change of regime and a time of considerable economic difficulty.
Do people generally keep paper copies of a college thesis for 30 years and across however many moves?
Eugene,
In the late 80's Eugene Velikhov, Gorbachev's science advisior made a strong push and publicly advocated to put personal computers in the hands of Soviet citizens. MSU students would have been reasonable candidates to get the first machines.
I know this because I personally heard him say so and discussed it with him.
Stupidly the US state Department opposed the idea of sending PCs to the USSR.
On October 5, 2021, Senator Toomey sent a letter asking Ms. Omarova to provide the Committee with a copy of the thesis no later than October 13, 2021, to allow the Committee adequate time to translate and thoroughly review it. To this day, Ms. Omarova has neither provided a copy of her thesis to the Committee nor provided any explanation for her failure to do so.
“All nominees within the Committee’s jurisdiction are required to provide their writings, articles, and papers. Unfortunately, Professor Omarova appears to believe she is exempt from these rules,” said Ranking Member Toomey. “In order for lawmakers to fully and fairly consider Professor Omarova’s nomination to serve as our nation’s top banking regulator, we need a complete picture of her policy positions. The fact that she recently deleted references to her thesis begs the question: what is she hiding?”
https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-on-professor-omarovas-refusal-to-turn-over-thesis-on-marxism-what-is-she-hiding
Why no immediate response to Senate inquiry citing lost thesis?
Would her 2017 CV citing this thesis note "Thesis not available"?
I don't even have a paper copy of my M.A. thesis and that was written very early in this century on a computer in this country. I never had a bound prestige copy made since this was not the done thing, particularly for an M.A. thesis that was supposed to be incidental on the road to the Ph.D. It never really occurred to me to take care of a printout of what turned out to be the final submission draft.
Of course, I had dozens of drafts on my computer, but that was a different time. I replaced the desktop PC on which I'd written it within about a year. I had backups on 3.5" and iOmega Zip disks, which seemed impressive and permanent at the time. Now they are museum pieces. There may be a copy on an CD-ROM somewhere. This technology is at death's door. None of our home computers have them.
I probably emailed it to myself but I no longer have access to that email address, having left the university over 15 years ago.
Fortunately, I suppose, the university scanned all M.A. theses and put them online.
This is pure EV, from a good point of view. I just got done commenting to a Reason article about the defamation case between Project Veritas and the NYT that cites to some of his work, that I discovered blogging through EV, when he responded to a rather intemperate email of mine in a listserve (Cyberia-L) that we both participated in. He suggested that I temper my language and personal attacks, in order to better make my points. Two decades later, I try to always keep his advise in mind when commenting, and always marvel at his ability to maintain decorum, and never, ever, to replace arguments on the merits with personal attacks. I try to emulate him, but, alas, I am not always successful.
Here, I agree with him, there is plenty substantive to attack this nominee on, and the shoplifting is far in the past, in their callow youth. Moreover, EV too is a Soviet refugee, and, yet, his work has been far from what would have been seen as Marxist inspired. Dwelling on this nominee’s Soviet past comes across to me too as essentially an ad hominem attack, which does not really advance the argument against confirmation.
28 years old is not a callow youth. It may be she has become more adult over the years, but theft at age 28 is not a youthful indiscretion.
Eugene, like a good propagandist, makes his apparent point indirectly and implicitly - "Judge her by her work, not by her background [which is bad enough!]" - and throws in an ideological sop after all of the "reasonable sounding stuff" is out of the way - "I'm skeptical of the claim that 'her critics [are] singling her out because she is a woman and a minority'" (without mentioning a single case where a white, male Biden appointee has received the same kind of treatment).
For more in this vein, you can hop over to where he comments on the Rittenhouse trial indirectly by purporting to talk about the proper role of a university administrator, when speaking on current events, or to another post where he intimates that discriminating against Trump voters in your workplace dealings with them might rise to a crime under North Dakota law.
I used to wonder how the Conspirators could tolerate having a hack like Josh on the board. But I see increasingly, as Eugene has gotten older, that he and Josh are cut of the same cloth and fighting the same battles. Eugene's just smarter and more sophisticated.
I've been disappointed in Prof. Volokh a decent amount in the past year or so, but this post seemed fine to me. I did not get a hint that her scholarship was bad, only that he hadn't read it.
Not his target audience, I'll suggest.
The people criticizing Omarova for being Communist have, in many cases, accused Biden pere et fils of being in the pocket of the CCP. Is that white-male-y enough for you? Or will you lean on the "appointee" part?
So you're saying they're equal opportunity idiots?
It might shock you to know that the Chinese Investment Corporation is all over the place, in the "shadow banking" sector, so you're going to find that pretty much everyone in the business (including both Democrats and Republicans) has gotten in bed with the Chinese, at this point.
"In many cases..."
I've seen Behar say it here. Where are the "many" others?
One of the most revered figures on the American right is a former avowed Marxist, yet it's so clear that he has not only repudiated those views, but actually trod a lot of new ground in making the case for free market capitalism to help cure society's ills.
I'm speaking of Thomas Sowell.
How would you describe the battle Prof. Volokh is fighting?
As I see it, he's fighting to preserve freedom.
You, being a leftist, have a problem with that. Fair enough.
Hey, she's not totally for national socialist policies. She's just in favor of a National Infrastructure Bank and a National Management Corporation. Also a fan of the "Green New Deal", a far-left plan to prolong economic hardships in the pattern of FDR through centralizing control of the economy.
People bring up her Communist past because she didn't obviously leave it behind, and it seems very much to have shaped her policy outlook.
She probably even supports that Communist social security, amirite?
At least she’s not calling for one religion. That would qualify her for national security advisor in some circles around here.
I suppose people could focus on Omarova's actual positions, as several of the commenters have here. Those positions are extraordinarily ill-conceived, although maybe Prof. Volokh has something to say in their defense. But in any case, it simply isn't the way democracy works, that legislative hearings on nominees are devoted to high-minded discussions of policy. Ask Zoe Baird. Or Brett Kavanaugh. Omarova isn't being treated any worse than any other nominee with a criminal record.
My question is when Kennedy suffered the brain damage that effected his speech.
The Oxford-educated man didn't used to act like a cartoon version of a good ole' boy's playing dumb routine.
Did he not speak at all before the supposed brain damage? If it effected his speech, I would think the timing should be pretty clear.
You reminded me of a politician in a hearing saying he had brain damage in a car accident and that's why he was pushing some traffic rule. I thought it was a brain-damaged rule, but I was too polite to say so.
I can't speak about whether [PRESIDENT'S NAME] nominee [NOMINEE'S NAME] would be a good [POST], or about just what [PREFFERRED PRONOUN] believes is the right [DOMAIN] policy. But I'm pretty sure the following are all irrelevant to the nomination:
Would apply to, what 70%? 80%? 99.99%?, of confirmation hearing questions?
If Congress is concerned that a nominee would wield too much power and restructure the banking system once confirmed, the fault lies with Congress for delegating too much power. smh.
I mean yeah, she is an extreme far left socialist. An extreme far right nominee could do damage as well. The solution is to reduce the power of the office so we dont have to worry about nominating angelic Officers.
I don't think it's an "either or" situation. The US Senate should reject her nomination both because she's a thief who shopflifted hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise and because of the policies that she exposes.
I wonder what Senator Kennedy's questioning says about his audience. For all his "ah shucks" demeanor, the fact is Senator Kennedy is an intelligent well educated man. He is a Rhodes Scholar and could easily have questioned Ms. Omarova on her positions. This discussion would have likely have been boring. He may in fact have done that later. I think he was thinking that his audience was "dummer than stumps" and so he pulled out the Communist reference. It is not just Democrats who think that many Republican voters are undereducated, but many Republicans themselves think this.
It seems to be a point of actual pride for many or them.
These people voted for Trump! A man whose claim to fame was pretending to be a businessman on TV! Who had a string of failed scams and cheats behind him! These are people who spent a year (under Trump) eagerly awaiting the vaccines, and then flipped to being anti-vaxx (under Biden), and are even (right now) starting to sour on remdesivir (i.e., which helped Trump recover) in favor of ivermectin (which never was intended, even among those who initially made the case for its use, for treating advanced symptoms).
People talk about Trump as having activated and consolidated a radical right-wing base, shifting the Republican party solidly to the right. But in fact what he did was expose just how blatant the scam could be - in fact, the more outrageous it is, the better! And now the party elite are toying with how far they can push that envelope.
These idiots are so dumb, they won't even see it when you spell it out to them. Here is a video clip where your elected representative said the exact opposite thing two years ago! They clearly are just saying whatever they need to say now to get you to vote for them! Do you really think they care about what you want?
Why don't they get it?
One of the ways people deal with the world is observe trajectories. This is not just sportsball games. It applies to driving, playing with a dog, and other physical activities.
It applies elsewhere: is a price going up or down? Is the cake batter thickening? Is my knee joint getting stiffer over the years? Is Sue getting worse grades in Econ 101?
It applies to people: is my friend getting crankier? Is Joe gaining weight?
So yes, it does apply to someone who shoplifts hundreds of dollars of goods at age 28. Her life trajectory should be pretty well established at age 28, and if theft is part of her social outlook at age 28, I'd bet a donut it's not far from her outlook today. When she writes the same kind of collectivist bullshit now in the US as she did 30 years ago in the USSR, yes, that is relevant -- if nothing else, it shows a rigid mindset which is ill-adapted to changing situations. One could well ask why she even left Russia for the US.
Yes, all of her adult life is fair game.
'The criminal sub-race will have these indicia in their past, you see.'
This is an awful way to treat humans.
It's basically neo-phrenology based on past anecdotes instead of skull shape.
I see you didn't even try to rebut any of what I said, but instead denigrated something I didn't say.
You're basically using anecdotes as propensity evidence. I think I laid out pretty well the boxes that logic puts people in and why that's an awful idea.
There is no serious doubt that Omarova shoplifted at age 28, and no serious doubt that she avoids taking responsibility for it now by using bullshit excuses and weasel words.
There is no serious doubt that she wants to give the federal government much more direct control over wide swaths of the economy. She has written multiple papers along those lines in recent years, just somewhat more polished than what she probably wrote in college.
The examples are very specific to this nominee, and yet you invent a quote about a "criminal sub-race" and allude to some "neo-phrenology". As usual, essentially everything you wrote is wrong.
YOU have not serious doubts, but you're not a very serious person.
And yet, you don't claim anyone else has serious doubts either. As usual, you don't make any argument except that the people who disagree with you are bad people.
That's pretty much "liberals'" general approach to political debate.
Pointing out when the other side is pounding on the table rather than making an argument is a mainstay of mine.
Refusing to engage and just yelling about libs generally is not an uncommon response, yeah.
He has no defense other than No True Scotsman and screaming "Racism". At least SimonP tries to pretend that these proposed policies would have a good effect.
I don't say that anywhere.
What I am saying is that Omarova's proposals strike me as a thoughtful and logical attempt to reform an existing monetary system. Her papers make the case for them and explain the benefits she thinks they could provide. She straightforwardly acknowledges that her proposals are likely to trigger knee-jerk responses from the hoi polloi, and I think she wildly underestimates the intensity of those kinds of responses (as we can see in the repeated "communist" labels here).
I have no idea if they would actually be beneficial. I just don't see them as disqualifying. She has some ideas; they likely won't go anywhere; they'll see expression, if anywhere, in regulatory activity designed to lower barriers to the unbanked and give the Fed better tools for effecting its current monetary policy goals.
What are the arguments to defend against?
Michael P's lack of serious doubts seem to manifest as bare assertions.
Above, you seem to misunderstand the current state of affairs pretty fundamentally, since what you think is communist is the status quo for the modern era.
I'm a little confused what you are arguing here.
Are you suggesting that her shoplifting episode is fabricated?
Or that eliminating private banking, with the Fed Reserve being the only bank available, and able to remove money from accounts as desired, isn't a pretty fundamental transformation in the status quo?
Poster Alphabet seems to think that having shoplifted at age 28 makes you a 'certain sort of person.' Which is like Victorian level nonsense.
Things about which Michael P has little doubt but offers no proof:
Omarova shoplifted at age 28,
She avoids taking responsibility for it now by using bullshit excuses and weasel words.
She wants to give the federal government much more direct control over wide swaths of the economy and has written multiple papers along those lines in recent years.
The first thing is true. The second is bullshit ('why hasn't she apologized for shoplifting when she was 28?' Please.) The third is completely unsubstantiated, and at best stuff he heard other people tell him.
If he wants to make an argument, there's plenty of material for him to cite. But no, he appeals to his own lack of doubt. Which convinces only himself, and even then only because he is a zealot.
Perhaps if you paid any attention at all to the debate, you would realize that the defenses of shoplifting include disfluent statements like "This case was ultimately dismissed in January 1996 – more than 25 years ago – and was the result of a misunderstanding and confusing situation." Getting caught by a security guard after shoplifting is not a "misunderstanding" or a "confusing situation".
And perhaps if you read what people are citing -- or even discussing in this thread -- you would understand the kinds of controls that she proposes over banking and other industries.
"She wants to give the federal government much more direct control over wide swaths of the economy...(this) is completely unsubstantiated"
The following is quoted upthread:
"This compositional overhaul of the Fed’s balance sheet would fundamentally alter the operations and systemic footprints of private banks, funds, derivatives dealers, and other financial institutions and markets."
Are you suggesting the quote is fabricated, or that it isn't proposing giving the government more control over a large sector of the economy? Perhaps your view is that "private banks, funds, derivatives dealers, and other financial institutions and markets" don't constitute a wide swath of the economy?
Absaroka, your quote is not at all the same as 'much more direct control'.
Michael P, if that counts as avoiding responsibility, then you have more information about what happened back then than anyone else does.
Gaslightro, even for you, this line of argument is stupid.
How is Omarova proposing to fundamentally alter the entire financial system?
By transfering most functions to the control of the government! How is that, in any way, not "much more direct control" than being forced to work through suasion?
And are you claiming that Omarova's confession to theft at age 28 and denial of theft at age 54 is not avoiding responsibility?
And finally, it takes a grade A++ liar to pretend that the current US banking system is no different than what Omarova proposes when even Omarova herself does not make that claim.
1) 'transferring most functions to the control of the government' is either not proposed, or happened in 1913, depending on your definition.
2) I don't know what happened back in the day, so I think accusing her of lying is going of pretty half cocked.
3) You exclude the middle between any change and 'much more direct control over wide swaths of the economy.'
4) You need to learn what gaslighting is. Saying something you disagree with is not that.
Why yes, if you redefine words at will, Mr Dumpty, you can make a word mean exactly what you want. But since banks still exist with their own funds, make their own decisions on what to do with it or where to keep them (past a small regulatory amount), and so on, your claim that it already happened is trivially false - and was when you made it the first several times.
Next, your ignorance (impressive as it is) is no bar to other people with functioning brains from looking at two statements made by Omarova: Confession to theft at age 28, and denial of theft at age 54. One of those is a lie, no matter what you believe happened.
Your "we can't know because we weren't there" has never stopped you from making judgments about a wide variety of other things or people, but it is interesting who this slothful induction always seems to show up to defend...
Also, what 'middle' are you pretending there might be? She openly admits in the paper that she intends have the government take control of most of the financial industries to 'solve' a bunch of problems. What do you think this 'middle' possibility is? Spell it out for everyone here.
Finally, gaslighting is the hostile practice of information manipulation to force someone into doubt or self-denial, usually through the strong denial of reality.
Your behavior here often does exactly that, as you blatantly lie and deny reality in attempts to manipulate people into doubting what actually happened.
And you are doing it again, here.
Mixed feelings on this post.
The argument is that she lived in a harsh system where, in order to have a decent career, she would need to write and say things she didn't believe, and she did that. Fair enough, we can't expect everyone to be a hero of truth and conscience, and many of us do the same even when the stakes are lower.
However, now she's at another junction in her career advancement. This time, is she saying what she really believes, or what she thinks "they" want to hear? I think it's a fair question. She doesn't have to be a hero but she doesn't have to be Comptroller of the Currency, either.
Why start focusing on facts and policy now? From 2016 to January 2021, almost no one could discuss policy because all anyone would talk about was:
- how words made someone feel bad
- made up stories about how the bogeyman was going to get you
- pretending that PR talk and meetings were bribes
- whether people sneaking across the border were living the 100% trouble-free lives they deserve
- pretending that using the word "fight" in a political speech was some sort of crime
- lies about Russian collusion
How many genuine policy discussion were there? How many policy articles versus how many shallow pearl-clutching posts about words?
Well, just an observation. Think of the Presidential debates in 2016. On the Democractic side, they mostly did focus on policy differences. The Republicans talked about things like penis size.
So who do you think was most responsible for debasing public debate from 2016 to 2021? It's pretty clear to me.
Democrats did that -- they came up with the "short fingered vulgarian" insult and similar lines, and kept baiting Donald Trump to address the personal attacks. Scum like you then ignore the incitement and only look at the response. That tactic failed in the Rittenhouse trial, too.
I misremembered the quote: "Because while we try to make sure that [the rioters] were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."
Of course, her office walked that back as soon as they realized what she admitted to.
Well, no, completely wrong. Graydon Carter came up with that thirty years earlier.
Dishonest as usual, Michael. There were no Democrats on the debate stage. While there were Republican operatives and loud mouths who said mean things about Hillary (e.g., her sexual orientation, etc.), somehow the other candidates for the Democratic nomination didn't bring up those issues on the debate stage.
Meanwhile, even assuming a "Democrat" somewhere first made a joke about small hands (hardly established), it wasn't a Democratic candidate for any high office (President, Senate, etc.), but Rubio and Trump did engage in a back and forth about Trump's penis size during a national debate among Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination. There is hardly a lower point in deviating from policy discussions in all of American politics.
But you won't admit it because you are a dishonest troll, Michael P.
…pwning the libs was the extent of GOP policy. Remember that they couldn't even put together a party platform in 2020.
This.
Also, their one unifying policy position from 2009 to 2016 was opposing then abolishing the ACA ("Obamacare"). But, as soon as they secured the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, ....crickets. Even when they mentioned policy, they weren't serious about policy.
(Or we can talk about how they excoriated Obama for deficit spending during the Great Recession (even shut down the government over it), but deficits came down under Obama. Trump is elected and proposes to try to buy votes, Cruz and Co. are suddenly fine with that to tune of a first non-recession trillion dollar deficit, followed by more of the same until Trump and his Republican Congress had added very nearly as much to the deficit in four years as Obama and Congress did in eight. Again, even when Republicans talk policy, they aren't remotely serious.)
Tax cuts. Regulatory reform. First Step Act. Us Energy Independence. Lowest Unemployment since the 1960s. The China policy Biden is continuing. The defeat of ISIS. Iran policy.
Keep being shallow.
"Tax cuts." So you thought trillion dollar deficits during the "best economy ever" was good policy?
"Lowest Unemployment since the 1960s." Well, as the trend under Obama continued, it did get that low. But Trump didn't leave it there, now did he? (He can't both get credit for good numbers and deny responsibility for bad numbers. An honest broker would acknowledge that neither the good nor the bad were wholly, or even primarily, about any Trump policies.)
"The China policy Biden is continuing." Has Biden praised Xi's treatment of the Uyghurs as "exactly the right thing to do"? Or has he praised China's put down of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations? I must have missed that.
"The defeat of ISIS." A "Mission Accomplished" moment? Last I checked, they are were still beheading people and otherwise active.
"Iran policy." You decide to one-up declaring unfinished business a final victory by declaring utter failure a success. So Iran sped up development of their nuclear program under Trump and, just for kicks, also cracked down on the reform movement. Nice work that.
"Us Energy Independence." Basically, the same as with the unemployment numbers. The trend toward independence started under Obama. Depending on how you count it, we got there under Trump then lost it under Trump, or we still have it. But, in either case, the most important policy changes that got us there were in the 2015 energy bill signed by Obama (which did a lot to encourage domestic oil production). Still, it's dishonest to give any particular President credit for the numbers at any particular time, particularly as the downward trend in net energy dependence started under Bush, gained pace under Obama, and reached a low but also flattened under Trump.
But, that's Trump and his sycophants, take credit for the sun rising, blame someone else or circumstances when it sets. Be smarter than Trump and his sycophants.
Biden ended US Energy Independence.
I think the 1970s show we never had it.
And then in 2017 or 2018 we did again. Biden destroyed that.
You're just making assertions. How are you calculating energy independence, such that you can date when we were and weren't, particularly your bold and unsupported statement that "Biden destroyed that."
Here is someone explaining the different ways to calculate it and why we may or may not have had it, depending on how you count it (and also what factors gave rise to it...hint, not Trump).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwilrMaXmqr0AhVCVzABHe9sAOcQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Frrapier%2F2021%2F11%2F14%2Fis-the-us-energy-independent%2F&usg=AOvVaw04j9EN_arj_Dw8K8SQ44a4
Another detailed take which also shows you have no idea what you are talking about:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-28/what-energy-dependence-the-u-s-still-needs-russian-oil-and-middle-east-peace
Be smarter than just to parrot Trump talking points. You understand that his one talent is being a bullshit artist. Don't repeat anything he says until you verify it yourself. And, in fact, we were a net importer in 2017 and 2018, it wasn't until 2019 that we became a net exporter of energy (and 2020 when we were a net exporter of oil), but we still weren't "energy independent" in any meaningful sense in either of those years.
Also, the policy change that really closed the gap was the 2015 energy bill which spurred more domestic production. Signed by Obama.
And Biden didn't end anything. First, the data isn't in for 2021 yet and you can't seriously suggest that production fell off a cliff or demand surged because of Biden. Or do you credit Biden for the roaring economy that has caused inflation and the surge in energy demand, post-pandemic? Your assertions are empty rhetoric and make no sense when compared to the real world.
Which is complicated.
But Trumpers never get that. It's all hero worship, all the time.
And now Biden has destroyed a great deal of the gains that were made.
I’ll leave the dumb partisan hairsplitting to you because I absolutely do not care whether we were 97% or 102% energy independent before Biden's destructive anti-American changes.
Ben,
You're just trolling. Faced with data, you again retreat to platitudes. Pathetic.
I don’t read long, partisan, hairsplitting posts. I don't care about hairsplitting and well akshually it’s not really energy independence because … bullshit. Because no one does.
It's close enough. It was an achievement, regardless of whether partisan assholes want to complain about the name of the achievement. But, of course, the original point was that it was achieved through policy. That thing that David Nieporent is too shallow to engage with.
Not caring about your stupid terminology games is not "trolling".
It’s too bad all you have to say is that we achieved just short of perfect energy independence before Biden showed up and wrecked it.
Here’s the definition of trolling, since you're so intent of using the correct terminology for things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Nothing about having to indulge assholes trying to split hairs or move goalposts.
Tell David Nieporent. Policy. It exists. Trump had it and took actions to advance policy goals. You can relate whatever lame partisan narrative you want, but policy actions took place and David Nieporent is extremely shallow for not knowing about any of it. Just like most leftists.
You really think the US should have continued to have by far the highest business tax rate of any country in the world? Even Obama didn’t think so, but he wasn’t willing to do anything about it without raising other taxes to punish other Americans and looting the treasury for giveaways to buy Dem votes.
Some of America's most effective libertarian and conservative intellectuals have come from Communist countries. They have seen Lincoln Stephens's "future" and realized that it does not work. Judge Omarova on what she has done and said in this country.
Yet people kept bringing up the Trump Tower meeting with 6 Russians, at least 4 of whom are American Citizens. Something seldom mentioned.
Are you saying Omarovas is a foreign agent?
She does not have to be.
For that Trump Tower analogy to work, that seems to be the implication.
No, you're not that dumb, you're just pretending to be.
The implication, perfectly obviously, is that for precisely the same reason that EV stated in the case of Omarova - being born in Russia is irrelevant - it was irrelevant in the TT case. But used all the same, because useful to the fable.
Except the analogy is attempting to compare actual current allegiance to required actions decades ago.
These are nothing like the same, and it says something about the shallow way you see things that you attempt to make this leap.
I'm not clear how "but some of the people in the room were actually American citizens" is a defense to the charge that they met with an overt agent of the Russian government.
The above description is accurate. But, once Perestoika got under way, that changed. There were no longer any serious consequences for not joining. For example, in my "class" of 20-30 persons, only two chose to join.
(I have no idea when Ms. Omarova was in the Komsomol.)
She was born in 1966, which should give some point of reference. When did people age out of Komsomol, their 28th or 29th birthday? It seems to me something else of note happened when she was 28.
Yeah, go full Internet sleuth to discover this thing you've already committed to uncovering. Surely you will crack the case.
S_0,
You're trying hard on this one not to see the obvious. Her indocrination through at least her early 20s has remaned with her as her driving intellectual light.
Come off it, Don. There is no evidence she was indoctrinated. That's lamer than guilt by association.
Her policy proposals I've seen are not particularly communist, if you bother to read the linked paper.
I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's certainly not communism.
This is just redbaiting, and its very lame. And you should do more due diligence before you fall for it.
Her policy proposals ARE particularly communist, if you read the linked papers. It's just that some people have, in the nation's gradual descent into a command economy, gotten too jaded to recognize communism when they see it.