LyrArc Article Gist
Donald Trump's economic advisory team includes in addition to Harold Hamm, shale energy billionaire, Steven Mnuchin, CEO of hedge fund Dune Capital Management, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson, Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor, bankers Stephen Calk, and Andy Beal, tax expert Stephen Moore, and David Malpass, a columnist for the WSJ. The team is headed by Stephen Miller, an aide to Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. The Washington Post points out that the selection of the team with many hedge fund businessmen including John Paulson, who bet against faulty mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis, is at odds with his criticism of Hillary Clinton for her contacts with Wall Street and his message of not having any connections with Wall Street so that he could better represent the interests of ordinary Americans- people hurt by the 2008 financial crisis with the high jobless rate for older white men. In the 2008 election both candidates John McCain and Barrack Obama were shown in media articles to have connections to lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the 2012 election Mitt Romney as a private equity executive at Bain, was a part of the financial industry. This time in 2016- after all the noise and tumult about who represents Main Street- is no different for Trump and Clinton's connections to the financial industry. Only Clinton has to respond to the movement within her party from Bernie Sanders for providing a genuine example, and breaking with the past. The team of economic advisors put together by Jeb Bush led by Glenn Hubbard may be little different in substance than the one put together by Trump in its connections to the financial and real estate industry. The only person who took on the financial industry to fight for homeowners interests shown in Lyrarc since 2008 is Sheila Bair of the FDIC, a Kansas Republican. She could truly represent the interests of working class and ordinary Americans simply from a notion of fairness that  is so much a part of the American experience. Yet she has said running for office and fund raising in the way it is practiced today makes the thought too difficult to accept. Recent developments do not offer encouragement. Yet ordinary Americans ought not to forget, and ought not to let anger affect a discerning view of things. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Responding to criticism of the Clinton Foundation which has affected Hillary Clinton's ability to win voter support in her contest with Bernie Sanders, the Clinton family has decided to take action in August 2016. The Clinton Global Initiative will be discontinued in 2017. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will stop raising funds for the Clinton foundation. The Clinton Foundation will not accept funds from foreign donors. What started as a do-good effort to raise funds for worthy causes such as world health, poverty and hunger turned out -because of its very success in raising large amounts of money from corporate donors- into a distraction for the election campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016. It opened up Hillary Clinton to charges of having conflicts of interest from outsiders Sanders and Trump. Hillary Clinton discontinued her association as a board member of the foundation in 2015 when she began her campaign. Bill Clinton continued to give paid speeches and raised $2.6 million. All that fund raising appears to have been a big mistake and not even fair to the candidate, as it gave rise to misperceptions about the candidate going far beyond what the Clintons ever understood about was happening. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it, it gives rise to accusations of impropriety that may affect an election, without the voters getting a chance to evaluate the candidates on the basis of what each candidates program or agenda is. In this the Clinton family may have realized that in retrospect the entire foundation activity appears to be a small matter, when put next to the choices facing the U.S. and the world in 2016 for the next decade and beyond. The Clinton Foundation in future would be managed by people independent of the Clinton family and circle. The next step would be setting it up as a public foundation, a new board and professional staff. Was it all worth the problems it has created for voters being able to get a clear idea of what each candidate offered, an not acting as a huge and dangerous distraction which Hillary Clinton and the country and the world could do without, considering the significance of making good choices in a general election- very much so. The foundation and the fund raising made it possible for outsiders Sanders and Trump to turn this election into one of slogans and accusations, to which the Clintons were unprepared to respond, acting as a distraction  which was bad for the country and the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...