As a cautionary point, I am suspicious of wanting to decrease political interference. Barney Frank noted in a New Yorker that the Obama Administration downplays the importance of ideological differences. One wonders if this is why Frank's name appears in a way that implies he was participating in undue political interference. I am a little unsure why we want to "prevent political interference" but rely on "investment criteria and the facts of the case." Isn't this the same assumption about technical reasoning of financial wizardry that got us into this problem in the first place? The politics are on Obama's side, he should lead with a plan not failed financial algorithms. Of course we want policy based on our best knowledge and best practices and I respect that Obama's consent to lead is based partly on competence; but, we should not go running into the belly of technical reasoning, especially if that technical reasoning got us into this trouble in the first place. Such algorithms exist to disguise the political interference done by finance capital they do not remove politics from the equation, only the people's politics.
MinnPost’s 7th anniversary party
9 hours ago