Biden Fed nominee faces grilling over reparations and police reform Lisa Cook, a professor of economics at Michigan State University who served under President Barack Obama as a senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers, was nominated by President Joe Biden to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors. During her confirmation hearing Thursday, Republicans are planning to highlight her past political remarks and social media use to raise questions about her commitment to remaining nonpartisan as a top Fed official. Cook has a history of speaking about reparations, which is the notion that the government should subsidize or give some sort of payout to the decedents of slaves. She has supportedlegislation that would create a commission to study and develop reparation proposals. For instance, Cook has retweeted people who have been critical about the current state of policing and in support of mass racial justice protests that sprung up across the country after the murder of George Floyd. “The violence in Portland stopped the day federal officers left town. Stop saying the protesters are the violent ones,” said one missive, which she retweeted after riots and looting rocked the Oregon city. During a 2020 interview for the show Merrittocracy, Cook was asked about some of the causes and charities that she supports and thinks others should support with their time or finances. Among others, she cited liberal voting rights activist Stacey Abrams’s group and said she has also donated to “bail funds” for “protestors who have been thrown in jail for no reason.”
Sarah Bloom Raskin’s Fed nomination appears doomed after Manchin opposes her record In her writing and public remarks, Raskin has highlighted the economic and financial stability risks tied to climate change. In a column published in September, she wrote that “financial regulators must reimagine their own role so that they can play their part in the broader reimagining of the economy.” Raskin’s supporters want to see the Fed thoroughly evaluate how more intense and frequent climate disasters, from wildfires to hurricanes, could harm the health of banks or ricochet through the financial system. They are also hoping the Fed will move toward encouraging banks to reduce their exposures to climate risks. ________________ Keep this kind of politics out of monetary policy.
But her kid died and provided a convenient excuse for not filing required financial disclosures. You know, kind of like every other family who loses a family member and calls the IRS to explain... At least Manchin has guts. Seems like many senators don't. Mitt, I'm directing that at you.
But what if we evaluated how more intense and frequent climate disasters could harm the health of banks or ricochet through the financial system and found that these "climate disasters" were actually not more frequent than ??? What would be the harm in such a study? Has anyone made a legitimate study of such? I think not. Perhaps we've just been basing our assessment on CNN headlines determined by how many viewers, and therefore now much advertising revenue, these headlines could attract. Are these disasters really more frequent or is this another example of what could be termed the "internet effect"? Is this just another of endless examples of seeing something once we believe it? What would be the harm in finding out the truth? That's a crazy question, isn't it. I mean considering how many in the past told the truth and had their tongues cut out.
Oh my god, here is a women who wants to ask questions and find out the answers, so we can make policy based on fact rather than politics. Let's not have that. It could mean the ruination of the GOP. We could characterize the GOP many ways, but none is more appropriate or revealing than, "A political party firmly opposed to looking for answers to tough questions because they may not like the answers. "