The Moyers & Company episode David Stockman on Crony Capitalism starts with:
Moyers & Company explores the tight connection between Wall Street and the White House with David Stockman, former budget director for President Reagan.
Now a businessman who says he was “taken to the woodshed” for telling the truth about the administration’s tax policies, Stockman speaks candidly with Bill Moyers about how money dominates politics, distorting free markets and endangering democracy. “As a result,” Stockman says, “we have neither capitalism nor democracy. We have crony capitalism.”
Stockman shares details on how the courtship of politics and high finance have turned our economy into a private club that rewards the super-rich and corporations, leaving average Americans wondering how it could happen and who’s really in charge.
“We now have an entitled class of Wall Street financiers and of corporate CEOs who believe the government is there to do… whatever it takes in order to keep the game going and their stock price moving upward,” Stockman tells Moyers.
This episode is a perfect example of why I sometimes stop watching Bill Moyers’ shows. The truth he tells is just too depressing. For someone like me, whose faith in President Obama has already been severely shaken, this show makes it even more difficult to conceive of supporting Obama in the 2012 election.
Can the President’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday contain anything that will change my mind? There are many things he could say, but I have my doubts he will say them. Is he going to say that his administration is now going to promote policies that are against the best interest of all of his own senior advisers? If he fails, that will just further cement my disappointment.
My previous post Elizabeth Warren And Hillary Clinton Trade Lessons has this disheartening quote from Elizabeth Warren:
…I believe that Mrs. Clinton was responsible for President Clinton’s veto of that bankruptcy bill. Ultimately, Congress passed the bill again in 2005 and George Bush signed it into law. But in that five-year period in between, eight million families went through the bankruptcy system, while the law was still intact. So the veto was important, and I believe she was the cause. And that’s what’s so disheartening. She changed her vote in the Senate. If Hillary Clinton, one of the strongest, most independent politicians of her generation, felt that she needed to conform her voting to the desires of the banking industry once she held elective office, what hope is there for the rest of the politicians?
I think I can detect in the way that the Warren campaign is running, that Warren has already found the need to conform her votes to the desires of the banking industry.