The Whitehouse has posted the video A Conversation with President Obama and The Wire Creator David Simon on YouTube.

President Barack Obama and David Simon, the creator of HBO’s The Wire, sat down to talk honestly about the challenges law enforcement face and the consequences communities bear from the war on drugs.

Thanks to Earl Faneuf for posting this on Facebook. I liked the video when I saw it, but didn’t see the need to post it on my blog until just now.

One of the comments on YouTube does a good job of explaining why I finally realized it was worth posting on my blog.

Scott Jackson

Great conversation. I like the connections made between economics, humanity, law enforcement, sentencing, recidivism, justice, policy, education, and employment. This is a wide-ranging discussion in such a short time.

Sharon and I were having such a conversation when I decided to show her this video that Earl had posted.

When I watch President Obama in videos like this, I wonder how he can be so wise on many things, but so off track on some others. A few off track areas are his promoting the awful TPP “trade” agreement, failure to prosecute the criminals on Wall Street, and his failure to understand that the value of reducing the deficit is pure myth.

Friends of Bernie Sanders has posted on Facebook Want to better understand why we have a federal deficit?.

Here is the image they use.

Here is my too complex comment:

Please shift the measurement to something important like the unemployment rate, the labor participation rate, and the level of inflation. Adjust the secondary things like deficits and level of taxation to produce good results in the primary things, and we will all be better off.

While these statistics are true and part of the cause of the size of the deficit, it is of course more complicated than this. We may simplify at our peril.

For any situation involving something as complex as the economy, we might be able to determine a proper size for the deficit. We might also be able to determine a proper role of corporate income tax. With a higher level of corporate taxes coming in, we might or might not have a lower deficit as the proper amount for the state of the economy. A lot depends on what companies are doing with the money they are not paying in taxes and a lot depends on what the deficit is being spent on.

When you sell the idea that the deficit is the primary measure of anything significant about the economy instead of how the economy is performing for all the people, then you are likely to be selling a one size fits all solution that probably does not fit all situations.

I got an email from Elizabeth Warren.  What she describes here seems to me to be a clear case of bribery.  It is an offer of payment for a quid pro quo.  I think even the Supreme Court still recognizes this as bribery.  Where is our Department of Justice?

Subject:	Wall Street isn’t happy with you, Steven
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:01:23 +0000
From:	Elizabeth Warren <info@elizabethwarren.com>
To:	Steven Greenberg

Steven, In 2008, the financial sector collapsed and nearly brought down our whole economy. What were the ingredients behind that crash? Recklessness on Wall Street and a willingness in Washington to play along with whatever the big banks wanted. Years have passed since the crisis and the bailout, but the big banks still swagger around town. And when Citigroup and the others don’t quite get their way or Washington doesn’t feel quite cozy enough, they quickly move to loud, public threats. Their latest move is a stunner. According to Reuters: Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said. Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters. JPMorgan representatives have met Democratic Party officials to emphasize the connection between its annual contribution and the need for a friendlier attitude toward the banks, a source familiar with JPMorgan’s donations said. That’s right, the biggest banks on Wall Street have made it clear that they expect a return on their investment in Washington. Forget making the markets safer (where they can still make plenty of money) and forget the $700 billion taxpayer bailout that saved them and forget the need to build a strong economy for all Americans. Forget it all. The big banks want a Washington that works only for them and that puts their interests first – and they would like to get a little public fanny-kissing for their money too. Well forget it. They can threaten or bully or say whatever they want, but we aren’t going to change our game plan. We do, however, need to respond. According to this breaking news, our 2016 Democratic Senate candidates could lose at least $30,000 because of this decision. Can you help us raise $30,000 to match Wall Street’s money right now – and keep fighting for a Democratic Senate that will work for people instead of big banks? Now let’s be clear: $30,000 is a drop in the bucket to JPMorgan and Citigroup. Heck, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon makes more than $30,000 in just a few hours. The big banks have thrown around money for years, spending more than a $1 million a day to hold off Dodd-Frank and the consumer agency. But they are moving out of the shadows. They have reached a new level of brazenness, demanding that Senate Democrats grovel before them. That kind of swagger is a warning shot. They want a showy way to tell Democrats across the country to be scared of speaking out, to be timid about standing up, and to stay away from fighting for what’s right. Ok, they have taken their shot, but it will not work. I’m not going to stop talking about the unprecedented grasp that Citigroup has on our government’s economic policymaking apparatus. I’m not going to stop talking about the settlement agreements that JPMorgan makes with our Justice Department that are so weak, the bank celebrates by giving their executives a raise. And I’m not going to pretend the work of financial reform is done, when the so-called “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now than they were in 2008. The big banks have issued a threat, and it’s up to us to fight back. It’s up to us to fight back against a financial system that allows those who broke our economy to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while ordinary Americans continue to struggle. It’s up to us to fight back against a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists – and their friends in Congress – that our regulators forget who they’re working for. Let’s send the biggest banks on Wall Street our own message: We’re going to keep fighting, and your swagger and your threats won’t stop us. Help us match their $30,000 right now. Thank you for being a part of this, Elizabeth All content © 2015 Elizabeth for MA, All Rights Reserved PO Box 290568 Boston, MA 02129 Paid for by Elizabeth for MA

New Economic Perspectives has the article The New York Times Covers the TPP: A Commentary by Joe Firestone.

Wikileaks did us all another service yesterday by releasing the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP): Investment Chapter Consolidated Text,” and collaborating with the New York Times to get the word out. Jonathan Weisman wrote the story for the New York Times. Apart from providing a very high level and very selective summary of what the chapter says, the article contains talking points used by proponents and opponents of the TPP. I think a close commentary on the article and associated issues would be useful.

My recent post ISDS is a bad deal for America – Part ot TPP “Trade” deal about what Elizabeth Warren said about this. If this wasn’t enough to scare the daylights out of you, then this article in New Economic Perspectives ought to do the trick.

I see a similarity in how this is being justified and fears about it allayed, to what happened in the recent real estate/mortgage/financial derivatives melt down.  I commented on this similarity at New Economic Perspectives.

This is similar to the justification for selling derivative packages of mortgages as being safe.  The proponents did a study of the entire history of mortgages that were created by the normal rules of prudence by banks in the past.  They determined that the rate of default would have to be so far outside of normal, that the likelihood of the derivatives’ failure would be extremely small.  Then as banks started selling these derivatives based on the principles of prudent mortgage origination, the whole reason banks used principles of prudence went out the window.  What was being sold were packages of mortgages based on no history at all for that type of mortgage.  Any ratings on these securities that depended on completely unrelated history was as phoney as a $3 bill.

I hope I have been able to convey to you the similarity and the danger it poses.  It is clear in my mind that the same results will ensue (economic devastation), but I can never tell if others see the inevitability of the same results.

The Daily Kos has the article Majority of House Democrats back the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ People’s Budget.

The article has the link to the roll call vote.  My representative Richard Neal voted no. So here is the question for him.

96 House Democrats—a majority—voted “yes” on the People’s Budget, why were you one of the 86 House Democrats to vote against it? As your constituent, I would like an explanation.

I was upset that the People’s budget paid homage to the Republican myth that the deficit must be reduced.  The only two methods that the myth recognizes is either cutting spending in other areas to offset increased spending in the areas of the people’s budget, or raise tax revenues.

If promulgation of this myth was your reason for voting against the people’s budget, I could understand that.

Who would like to attend the Sturbridge Democratic Town Committee brunch honoring Rep. Neal to ask this question?  The date of the brunch is April 12th at 11AM.  It will be at the Publick House in Sturbridge.

NPR has the story Payday Loans — And Endless Cycles Of Debt — Targeted By Federal Watchdog.

For millions of cash-strapped consumers, short-term loans offer the means to cover purchases or pressing needs. But these deals, typically called payday loans, also pack triple-digit interest rates — and critics say that borrowers often end up trapped in a cycle of high-cost debt as a result.

On Facebook, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon posted the link to the above article. Merkley said the following:

Now we’re getting somewhere! This week the CFPB announced new rules to crack down on the abusive cycle of payday debt.

There is one thing missing from the discussion. What would these people do if they did not have access to payday loans? To complete the story and make it even more credible to the most cynical, we need at least one story that compares the situation of the victim after the payday loan to where they would have been had they not received the loan.

The payday lenders are claiming that they are performing a service. We need a direct refutation that proves that the victims are not better off than they would have been had they not received the “service”.

I want to put a nail in the coffin of this business that cannot be unnailed.

The Washington Post has the article What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions?

Everyone loves to hate performance evaluations, and with good reason: Research has shown them to be ineffective, unreliable and unsatisfactory for seemingly everyone involved. They consume way too much time, leave most workers deflated and feel increasingly out of step with reality.

I have been railing against performance reviews for many years.  I had many deficiencies and problems with being a manager, but what really drove me out of the ranks of management was the need to do performance reviews.  I even got myself into a position where my manager wrote performance reviews that I had to deliver to employees.  I once asked this manager whether or not he thought performance reviews were intended to demotivate employees?  The review he had just prepared would certainly do that to its intended target.  Even the toned down review that I had to deliver motivated this valued employee right out the door of the company.  I certainly couldn’t soften the blow to the employee by telling him, “You should have seen this review before I had it toned down.”

Politico Magazine has the article The GOP’s Playing Dangerous Politics with Israel by  Rep. Steve Israel.

I have seen dirty politics, but never before have I seen the ugly politics that I am witnessing now over the relationship between the United States and Israel. A game dangerously manipulated as partisan by the cynical, and easily fallen into by the clueless.

This seems to be my theme of the day.  Elite Republican politicians, in this case, who show disdain for “ordinary” morals.  The ordinary moral in this case is the one that says you shouldn’t play politics when millions of lives are at stake.

Elizabeth Warren has the Facebook post The GOP budget would gut Wall Street regulation.

The Republican budget resolution we’ll vote on tonight would weaken the rules on Wall Street and raises the risk of another financial crisis – all so the big banks can rake in more money. My message to the Republicans and their Wall Street friends is this: We know what you’re up to. We’re watching. And we’re ready to fight.

The video in that post is also available from YouTube as shown below.

Senator Elizabeth Warren joined Senators Jeff Merkley and Al Franken to discuss the GOP’s budget resolution, which would weaken the Dodd-Frank financial regulations and gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In the YouTube comments on the video, there is one person who is so sure of her misconceptions about money in the US, that it is just laughable. (Several more comments have appeared since I wrote the previous sentence. Many are equally laughable.)

One of the most important things I like about Elizabeth Warren is her demonstration of her belief in the idea that “ordinary” morals apply in the political sphere. In fact, recognizing when a policy is wrong, comes from recognizing its deviation from “ordinary” morals. Too many of this country’s worst policies come from “elite” people and “elite” politicians not recognizing this simple truth, Hillary.