As seen in the new memoir by Jill Biden, the president’s wife, she suspected that Biden was mentally unfit after his dismal participation in the debate with Donald Trump. During the debate, Jill Biden wondered whether her husband had a stroke.  However, afterward, she said he did a great job, while privately supporting him in his presidential campaign.

With her memoir, Biden has essentially confirmed speculation that she was part of a cover-up, publicly suggesting that her aging husband was capable of serving four more years, but privately worrying about his health and wondering whether he was up to running a global superpower.

But all this was also known to the other top Democrats who watched the public debacle.  After the debate, many Democrats knew they would lose the election based on Biden’s terrible performance that highlighted his feebleness, age, and inability to stand up to Trump.  The debate showed Democrats he was not of presidential caliber.

But all that was lost on the Democratic Party elite, who either ignore this reality or got back in line to protect the lineage of Democratic Party loyalists who stood by the antiquated party pillar that Biden had a “right” to the nomination, even though he was incapable.

The existence of this inner party monarchy was not mentioned in the DNC overdue “autopsy” report, which basically lied to grassroots Democrats about how the party is run and how the inner sanctum’s gross errors were covered up to protect the top administrator of the party and their cushy jobs.

The cover-up set the stage for the defeat of the weak candidate, Kamala Harris, by Donald Trump, a convicted criminal with 34 felony counts and a history of sexual abuse, which was a stunning defeat for the DNC leadership.

As Nia-Malika Henderson of Bloomberg wrote in an article, “The debate only underscored what Americans had been telling the Biden cohort for years: that the president was no longer up to the task. An AP-NORC poll from August 2023 showed that 77% of those surveyed thought Biden was ‘too old to effectively serve another four-year term.’ But, in their arrogance, privilege and self-important recklessness, the Bidens held on to power as long as they could.”

Yes, the Democratic Party today is still run by people who are arrogant, privileged, and self-important.  Nothing has changed. They hate the Progressives more than MAGA and Trump, and their values are still aligned with corporate Democrats who prefer the status quo on many fiscal and tax issues. The Democratic leadership is still toothless.

Their main focus is still on raising money, endless amounts of money, which they think will replace their lack of progressive new policies that will address the cause of many of the nation’s top problems: the wealth gap, tax reform, replacing members of the Supreme Court, and ending big money in elections.

This explains the large crowds that attend the rallies for Bernie Sanders and many other Progressives, compared with the low-energy events held by mainstream, professional Democratic Congressmembers.

The DNC has proven it is wildly out of touch and inbred. They thought Americans would value morals, ethics, and professional-academic credentials over the promises of a snake oil salesman.  Michelle Obama’s naive claim at the Democratic Convention, “When they go low, we go high,” proved she was ignorant about her enemy, MAGA Republicans, who wanted to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and everything that came after it. 

This Harris loss began in the insulated and rarified atmosphere of elite Democrats who decided on their candidates behind closed doors.  The DNC and the top Democrats neglected to confront Joe Biden’s deteriorating mental state. Then, they covered it up, thinking that their own grassroots followers wouldn’t notice Biden’s mental and physical frailty, especially when it contrasted daily with the more vigorous Trump, who walked taller, was more bombastic, and dominated the stage compared to Biden.

Before Biden was named a candidate, his age was already a well-known defect. This is why Democratic leaders enlisted Barack Obama to convince Biden not to run. But in the rarified world of Dem politics, Biden said that because of his long career, it was his right to be the candidate, despite his obvious frailties.

The Dems succumbed to elitism and an unwritten rule that Biden had a lock on the nomination, even when there were better, more vigorous, modern candidates that could be publicly presented to the party.

But Obama and the DNC elite succumbed to Biden’s claim that he had a right to be the candidate. Biden’s indecision about stepping aside was a fatal flaw in the nomination process.  The Dems scrambled to find a candidate because of Biden’s stubbornness to resign. The Dems had to settle for the weak Kamala Harris, a lackluster senator and bland public figure, as their vice president.

Today, Harris is known for her bright smile and for being able to wave, walk, and clap her hands at the same time. During her four years as VP, she did not become a master of any policy issues and never had an authoritative, identifiable presence.

Whether that was intentional or not, Harris remained in the background, perhaps fitting her personality. Today, Harris is still in the wings, waiting for another opportunity to be an elected official of some stature, but it looks like people recognize she missed her opportunity. It’s tough being an out-of-work elected official, but if a university or corporation offers Harris a job, she should take it.

An “Autopsy” for the Democratic Party?

The DNC “autopsy” report is a poor choice of words. The “autopsy” could also apply to the current Democratic Party, which lost its way when Bill Clinton became president, representing corporations, not the working class.  Clinton was a disgrace for his sexual escapades in the White House, and his policies moved the DNC to the right.

Barack Obama excelled at being a good orator who had no patience for politicking and getting votes from Congress.  As a legislator in the Illinois House of Representatives, he showed the same aloofness in doing the personal relationship thing to get votes.  His record in the Illinois Senate was dismal.  But he attracted the attention of the Pritzger family, who pushed him and bankrolled his campaign to the national level. Obama proved his corporate bias in his policies by appointing Eric Holder as his attorney general.

Holder was a corporate lawyer at the powerful Washington law firm of Covington & Burling, which defends white-collar criminals. Holder was a corporate lawyer before, during, and after he was named AG by Obama, yet he stood by Obama, who tried to present himself as a man of the people.  Obama’s other fatal flaw was that he thought he could make deals with the MAGA-Tea Party crowd.  Obama never realized he was dealing with modern-day Confederates who always wanted to revoke the Emancipation Proclamation.  It wasn’t until Trump’s second term that some high-level Black Democrats seemed to acknowledge this.  But then, the damage was done, and the steamroller was gaining speed.

So what does the DNC “autopsy” show?

It looks like the people who run the DNC now are the same losers who ran the party when Harris and her forgettable VP choice, Tim Kaine of Virginia, ran against the manic dynamism and fluid liar Trump. In the campaign, Harris and Kaine looked tongue-tied, desperately trying to deliver a message.  But any rational presentation against a sociopath like Trump requires much more powerful people than Harris and Kaine.

Worse, the DNC  sidelined the Progressives, like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and discouraged more progressives from delivering more powerful and honest populist messages than Trump.  If confronted on his populist plank, Trump looked like he had zero credibility. 

But the DNC hated their own Democratic populists more than they did Trump.  This same position was evident when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, attacked Sanders more than Trump because she considered Sanders a greater threat to Hillary than Trump.  She was probably right, but the DNC would never give the main stage to Sanders, who could generate voter enthusiasm along with a powerful platform for action.  This was a big mistake for the DNC, but they had to curtail the progressives or risk losing their contributions from the billionaires who would be faced with a tax increase.  This is what happens when the DNC becomes beholden to its corporate donors.

So what good is the DNC “autopsy”?

Not much. It’s too little, too late.  It is incomplete and a poor excuse for a “report” from the nation’s main party.

In a report by Reid Epstein in the New York Times (May 22, 2026), MInority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York made the spineless statement that the head of the DNC, Ken Martin, should be judged on his management ability at the ballot box.  Too bad no one told Hakeem that if voters vote against the Dems and their leader, Martin, at the ballot box, then it’s already too late.  With wimpy Dem leadership like Hakeem and Chuck Schumer, who needs enemies?

It’s no wonder that, as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, July 4th, most Americans have little hope for the future. The Trump-MAGA gang is looting the government in broad daylight, while the DNC leaders cannot acknowledge that they lost this battle when Clinton was president 33 years ago.

It will take the country a few generations to recover from the damage the Trump regime has done to the federal government, its agencies, and the Supreme Court as Trump’s wars, tariffs, embargoes, and self-dealing derail the lies of millions worldwide.

In the meantime, the DNC is taking an evolutionary approach to its leadership changes.  Its current leaders will continue their uneventful political management careers, get their paychecks and pensions, and hold retirement parties until new blood is gradually allowed to enter the DNC sanctum.

By then, the wealth gap between the top 1% and the other 99% will be too great to bridge, and the DNC will be swamped by historical events.

In his remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference, National Rifle Association (NRA) chief executive Wayne LaPierre railed against any imaginary effort to roll back the Second Amendment and gun control ownership as the “new socialist wave in America.”  He then warned that if Democrats gained more elected seats in Congress, “our American freedoms could be lost, and our country will be changed forever.”

As part of this rant, LaPierre (whose annual salary and bonus in 2015 was $5,051,249, according to Pro Publica, Feb. 22, 2018, National Rifle Association of America IRS Form 990 2015) also mentioned Saul Alinsky, the community organizer whose name has become associated with Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

According to CNN, in his address, LaPierre also criticized independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, and other high-profile Democrats, such as New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker.

“Socialism is a movement that loves a smear,” LaPierre said. “Socialism feeds off of manipulated victims.”

Seemingly, out of nowhere, he said all the anti-gun protests are “in the Saul Alinsky strategy of sowing grievance and indignation to raise holy hell.”

He added later, “You should be anxious, and you should be frightened” about the potential of another Democratic takeover of the House, Senate, and White House.

He then went on to address the NRA’s enemies: “If you are a member of the leftist media or a soldier for the violent left, a violent criminal, a drug cartel gang member or a would-be terrorist,” he said, “hear this: You’re not going to win, and you will not defeat us.” He also criticized the FBI.

Later, he said, “Think about it. The leftist movement in this country right now is enraged. Among them and behind them are some of the most radical political elements: anarchists, Marxists, communists, and the rest of the left-wing Socialist brigade.”

And to put some funding issues behind this, he also trotted out the right-wing nemesis. He continued to vilify the “billions from George Soros” and the money from “a vast network of leftist organizations.” These are the tried-and-true demons of the right wing, and as usual, he was not specific on any of the dangers coming from these organizations.

So, why would the right-wing hero LaPierre mention a Chicago community organizer, whose roots were in social work and establishing community self-help programs, as part of any efforts to control assault weapons?

Dog Whistle the Jewish Guy

LaPierre has no interest in grassroots community organizing. Just the opposite. He works to have individuals tout the NRA propaganda line 100%, top-down from the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.

In contrast, Alinsky (1909-1972) and community organizers “focus on building social organizations, expanding their membership base, raising questions or alternatives, developing sound organizing strategies, recruiting leadership, assisting with fundraising, running member meetings, and facilitating training sessions,” according to Wikipedia. Community organizers also have little money to work with.

Alinsky, a criminologist by training who was never a Socialist or Communist, has become the villain of the right since he was cited in the work of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The right-wing propaganda machine intentionally distorted his record for a few reasons. First, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on organizing and cited his famous book, Reveille for Radicals. This put the community organizer in the crosshairs of the right wing.

Anti-Alinsky feelings were elevated when then-Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson intentionally lied about a critical fact in the book. “One of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky,” Carson declared as the crowd booed. “Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky … This was someone she greatly admired, and that subsequently affected all of her philosophy.” And why is this bad? Well, Carson explained (erroneously), Alinsky dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to none other than … Satan himself!”

Now, invoking the name of Satan in a convention speech is profound. Still, Carson, the failed head of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump cabinet, never elaborated on how Satan fits into the picture.

In that same 2016 Republican Convention, Carson said: “This is a nation where our Pledge of Allegiance says we are one nation under god. This is a nation where every coin in our pocket and every bill in our wallets says, ‘In god we trust.’ So, are we willing to elect someone as president who has, as their role model, somebody who acknowledges Lucifer?” Carson asked. Again, the crowd booed.”

All this provides some background about the hatred of Alinsky and the right wing. The NRA and the Republican Party believe in top-down control and absolute allegiance. Alinsky offers the opposite: grassroots community organizing and democratically elected representatives to empower individuals to convey their preferences and priorities up the ladder to elected officials.

The NRA now represents the nationalist movement that was elevated with Trump and the Russian influence. (The NRA spent $30 million on advertising and other campaign materials supporting the Trump campaign.) Throwing in the name of Alinsky, a Jewish name, caters to the white nationalists. LaPierre did not throw it in without knowingly appealing to that group. This happened in a national audience attended by police, the FBI, and federal and state officials, many of whom let the comment and context go unnoticed.

The NRA also did not discuss its role in the current Russian election meddling investigation.
In a Newsweek article, Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, the Washington DC research company that commissioned former British spy Christopher Steele to compile the notorious dossier alleging Trump’s links to Russian intelligence, alleged that Russian agents had penetrated the NRA. He said this in testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.

“It appears the Russians, you know, infiltrated the NRA,” Simpson told the panel in a since-released transcript. “It appears that the Russian operation was designed to infiltrate conservative organizations. And they targeted various conservative organizations, religious and otherwise, and they seem to have made a very concerted effort to get in with the NRA.”

But more people now know that while the NRA cloaks itself in God, national purity, unlimited gun access, and the flag, it is building the alternative reality in which more guns, blind hatred of anyone it deems an outsider,  and tribal fear help it raise millions of dollars for arms manufacturers.

Ominously, on the NRA’s website, it boasts that “The NRA Is Closer Than You Think.” Sadly, this may be true unless people act against it.

For a much-needed parody about the failure of corporate capitalism, check out this article in the Monthy Review. If you don’t think unregulated corporate capitalism has a lot of problems, how do you explain the sad fact that Trump became a billionaire?

This is a clever, much-needed light parody about the danger of unregulated, corporate-dominated capitalism. More businesses, especially executives and managers, should read the Monthly Review since it provides an alternative viewpoint about what we see on cable news and in the corporate press.

The popularity of Bernie Sanders (who I contend could easily have beaten Trump were he not derailed by the DNC) and the rise of nationalistic populism are explained in the alternative press (like the Monthly Review.)

It also explains why Millennials and younger workers are privately disgusted with their jobs and job

prospects over their working lifetimes. The sad fact is that millions of young workers will not be able to retire, or if they do, they will face a massive drop in their quality of life.

As someone who has been writing about retirement for over 35 years, I can say there is no good news for future retirees on the horizon. Cuts in all types of benefits and less savings mean bad future outcomes for future generations.

As expected, elected officials are ignoring the impending retirement crisis. The reason is they don’t care. This complicated, depressing topic is at the heart of income disparities, low-wage jobs, the decimation of pension plans, and shifting all the investment risk to people who are ill-prepared to manage their own money for the next 35-plus years of their post-working lives.

So, if you are a corporate manager working with Millennials, find out why they will never be able to retire or afford a home (Hint: they don’t have the money for a down payment, or they have bad credit scores from substantial college loans.) Find out why they don’t consider their jobs a career. The reason is that the corporation has no loyalty to its employees, so why should the workers have any loyalty to their employer?

But if you want to be an innovative manager, let me know. I may have some ideas for educating workers if the company wants to change its corporate structure, such as converting to a co-op. Don’t consider this if you work at GE, JP Morgan, or Wells Fargo.

But if you are a severely small company, be an innovator.  You’ll become more profitable, have lower employee turnover, be a better community member, and have higher productivity.  You won’t become Gordon Gecko, Jack Welch, or Jamie Dimon, but you can have your self-respect. And you won’t have to waste money on macho motivational speakers (I’ve seen many at sales meetings, and they all suck) who excite your employees by clapping, telling war and sports stories, and then collecting their daily $4,500 speakers fee (plus expenses) that changes nothing.

So, if you want to follow the corporate pack, keep doing the same things in these transitory times. If you do, you will be ruining the American Dream for millions of Millennials.

The truth hurts, but here it is:

“Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there. Let me tell you something else some of you might not agree with, it wasn’t that Donald Trump won the election, it was that the Democratic Party lost the election.”

—Sen. Bernie Sanders

And, of course, he is correct.

The 2016 election was for the Dems to lose and they fulfilled their own gross inabilities.

A new Fox News poll out this week shows that Senator Bernie Sanders has a +28 net favorability rating among the U.S. population, which beats all other elected politicians in both parties. Sanders is even more popular among the “independents”, where his popularity is at a mind boggling +41.

This is not unexpected.  If it were not for the DNC’s concerted effort to derail the Sanders campaign, we would have an experienced, honest politician in the White House.

The more voters got to know Sanders, they more they liked him.

Yet since Trump won his unexpected election, no one from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton’s well-funded campaign have made any public statements about why and how Clinton lost the election. Worse, no one has taken responsibility, despite the fact that the Clinton campaign was the most expensive public election campaign ever waged.

As this news story from the Guardian states, Sanders has been more and more popular “ever since he gained national prominence in 2015 when he started running for the Democratic nomination. The more people got to know him, they more they liked him – the exact opposite of what his critics said would happen when he was running against Clinton.”  In short, Sanders became more popular with mass public exposure while Clinton stayed the same or declined.

But politics is about control and Clinton controlled the money and the DNC.  Estimates said Clinton raised over $1.4 billion (as of Dec. 31, 2017) and spent $556 million on her campaign, according to the Washington Post. Even the 65,844,610 votes Clinton received failed to win the Electoral College.

The Dem’s Efforts Were All for Naught

Worse, the parties responsible for this devastating loss–the DNC and Clinton–have never issued a report, study or formal explanation about how Clinton, who was considered the front-runner all along, failed so dismally. The end result is the DNC and Clinton lost to a rabidly-conservative, John Birch Society-based administration that has the power to derail and dismantle progressive and democratic values for an entire generation.

Now it is time for the DNC and Clinton to take responsibility and explain to their voters why the campaign failed. And while it is an inconvenient truth, it is evident this major loss was due to much more than any Russian computer hacking, voter suppression and FBI chief James Comey’s ill-timed statements regarding Clinton’s e-mails.

If it was better managed, the Clinton campaign should have been able to weather those serious events. But the campaign was terribly mismanaged. Now, votes deserve an explanation.

There are many questions to answer, but here are some key ones that should be included in any formal report:

Questions That Are Just For Starters….

• When did anyone at the DNC and in Clinton’s campaign first become aware of Russian hacking attempts? Who was informed and what did they do about it?
• Who was in charge of cyber security at the DNC and did they have the money and resources to protect their computer assets? If not, why not?
• Why did the Obama administration not immediately start an investigation into reports about Russian hacking during the election campaign? Who in the Obama administration made the decision not to investigate the Russian hacks?
• Why was Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide, not removed from her responsibilities when her

  

  husband, Anthony Weiner, was identified as sexting with an under-aged girl? This event showed that Abedin was a potential security risk and political liability, yet she was allowed to remain in her position as a top Clinton aide. As a result of the Weiner investigation, her computer was later seized by the FBI and the found to contain classified material. This was one avoidable event that sparked the FBI investigation.

• Who at the DNC developed an anti-Bernie Sanders plan and why were his very popular, pro-economic messages now fully incorporated into Clinton’s messaging earlier?
• Why did Debbie Wasserman-Schultz only allow six Democratic primary debates and why were they scheduled at times when few would watch, such as the Sunday night of Martin Luther King Day weekend, or the night of a NFL matchup between the New York Jets and Dallas Cowboys, or on a Saturday night weeks before Christmas? Were these dates intentionally chosen to favor Clinton over Sanders?
• Who supervised former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and what were her responsibilities and salary to head the DNC?

  

• Who was responsible for inserting the words “a basket of deplorables” in Clinton’s Dec. 9, 2016 speech when she was referring to Trump’s supporters?
• Who at the DNC headquarters made the decision not to send volunteers and Clinton to Michigan, a key swing state, even after reports were received that she was losing the state?
• Who in the DNC leadership was instrumental in promoting the anti-Sanders bias and why?
• In some states, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said he never heard about complaints that Clinton was losing directly from people in the DNC on his state teams before Election Day. How could this have happened? Who was responsible?
• Since the Clinton campaign knew from the start that her supporters were not enthused about her candidacy, why did her campaign neglect to bring in Sanders supporters much earlier in her campaign?
• Why did Bill Clinton meet with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac? Did he think that was an appropriate time and place to make a social call?

The DNC Needs To Explain Its Incompetence

These are some questions that should be answered to help explain the greatest political upset in modern history. Yet despite the fact that 65,844,610 million people voted for Clinton, the DNC has not shown the common decency to prepare and distribute a comprehensive, independent report on why she lost the election.

This report and explanation is long overdue. The fact that it was never prepared or released also explains why Clinton lost the election. Elitism, arrogance, blind reliance on a “scientific” data-driven model and hubris all played a greater role than any Russian hacking or FBI head James Comey’s ill-timed claim about a new e-mail investigation.

The election was Clinton’s to lose, and for a variety of reasons, she lost it and in the process, probably cost the Democratic Party and average Americans a generation of pain.

It’s time to call for a formal independent report about why the DNC and Clinton lost the election.

Hit “Like” on  Mutualfundreform.com’s page on Facebook—@mutualfundreform– if you agree.

If so, the event would be an uneven intellectual, bare-knuckles debate about a range of critical issues ranging from the failures of unregulated capitalism, income inequality, the ban on Muslins, immigration the role of diversity in a democracy, wage inequality and the role of nationalism and more.

It would also show the vast distinction between Sanders, a man who has served in public life since 1981 when he served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont versus Trump, who built an immense, but undetermined, business fortune using some of the best tricks modern capitalism, bankruptcy and tax evasion have to offer. Trump has never held public office.

The debate would be an uneven intellectual matchup, but it has the potential to be the best national platform ever to show the distinctions between unregulated capitalism and a new political alternative.

The debate also would show the distinct personalities differences between of Sanders, whose net worth is in the areas of $528,000 versus Trump’s estimated around $4 billion net worth, according to Forbes.

On trial would also be the political philosophy of democratic socialism versus the supposed benefits of unregulated capitalism, protectionism and nationalism.

Since the average median income of Americans is $53, 657 annually in 2014, which was 6.5% lower than in

2007, the year before the last recession according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the audience would also be able to ask themselves what they have in common with a billionaire who pays little or no taxes (an open question since Trump is not releasing his tax returns) and a guy who makes his campaign hats in China and uses non-union, non-American labor whenever possible.

While Trump has said the debate would get huge ratings, it would also be the best civics lessons Americans have had since the Fireside Chats of Franklin Roosevelt that occurred from March 1933 to June 1944. In those radio speeches, Roosevelt made 30 speeches on topics ranging from banking to unemployment to fighting fascism in Europe.

The Sanders-Trump debate should also rekindle interest in the marathon Abraham Lincoln-Stephen A. Douglas debates of 1858 that marked the distinctions on a number of key issues, such as the extension of slavery, state’s rights and the role of the federal government.

The main difference between any current Sanders-Trump debate would be the huge intellectual, personal style and philosophical differences between the candidates.  Sanders is a polished orator who has a vast command of facts and figures supporting his issues. Trump uses repetition without adding new facts to placate an audience with his Jackie Mason-type delivery.

Of course, this entire debate would not be possible without the first televised debate in history in 1960, when John F. Kennedy met Richard Nixon. These debates made public image a huge factor in elections to a mass audience. And Trump’s public image has become his brand which has made him wealthy.

So if this event ever takes place, it should be one of the most watched events in the entire campaign, especially as Hillary Clinton faces more fallout from her e-mail mistakes that will only contribute to those who question her honesty.

In short, the Sanders-Trump debate could look like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington vs. Gordon Gekko. It could be quite a show.

But in order to get the revolutionary new regulations passed, the DOL had to make concessions to the multi-million lobbying efforts waged by the financial services industry.

Since the new regulations were written by lawyers for other lawyers, it is difficult or impossible for the average investor to understand what all the new concessions were made to the financial services industry by the regulators.

As an example, this is a link to the eight-page memo the DOL issued that showed it concessions it made to the financial services industry and its lobbyists inorder to get this pro-investor regulation advanced.

As just one example, the DOL was forced to extend the time limit for the regulation to be implemented after the financial industry characteristically complained that it needed more time to put the anti-conflict-of-interest rules in place.  In DOL language, this is how the concession was stated:

“The Department extended the first phase of implementation to one year after publication of the final rule. In addition, the Department adopted a “phased” implementation approach for the Best Interest Contract Exemption and the Principal Transaction Exemption so that firms will have more time to come into full compliance. In particular, the full disclosure provisions, the policies and procedures requirements, and the contract requirement only go into full effect on January 1, 2018.  Finally, the Department made it clear that it intends to provide compliance assistance to firms that have implementation questions to the greatest extent possible.”

Importantly for individual investors, the new regulations don’t include a review of any past investment recommendations or contracts for REITS or other limited partnerships that were made with an advisor who may not have had an enlightened idea that conflicts-of-interest work against a clients’ best interests. This means individual investors who were sold inappropriate, expensive products will not be able to get their mistake rectified by the advisors who sold them to unsuspecting investors in the first place.

It’s important to note that the new pro-investor regulations are not a done deal.  The financial services industry will continue to spend millions of dollars lobbying against the DOL rules until they are slated to be fully enacted on Jan. 1, 2018. They have been battling these regulations for about a decade and spent millions of dollars in client money to work against the best interests of their own customers. Based on their lobbying efforts that have opposed the adoption of the fiduciary standard over the past decade, as well as the industry’s unified opposition to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, it’s doubtful if there is any industry in the U.S. which has such distain for its own customers as the financial services industry.

So since the past is an indication of the future, the financial industry will continue to seek to de-rail the regulations until the final hour. The industry will also work against any Democrat being elected to the White House since both Clinton and Sanders support the pro-investor, fiduciary rules.

So with this in mind, individual investors should take action on their own to protect their own investments.

What Individual Investors Should Do to Protect Their Portfolios

So with that in mind, here is a simple check list of things to ask for and see when dealing with advisors to make sure they understand that you now that new DOL fiduciary regulations are in the pipeline.

• Learn to identify conflicts-of-interest in financial relationships, including those affecting your 401(k) at work.
• Remember that managing fees and expenses is the most important factor under an investor’s direct control. They must be managed for long-term financial success.
• Follow the “one-strike and you’re out rule” when it comes to dealing with your financial advisor. “Financial mistakes are too expensive for all investors and for retirees they represent money that can never be recovered,” he said.
• Ask your financial advisor if they adhere to the fiduciary standard, then ask them what it means to them, and finally, have them put that claim in writing.
• Get politically active and ask your elected representatives in Congress to continue to advance the DOL’s fiduciary standard regulation.
• Ask your advisor if their firm or the funds in your portfolio are managed by firms, such as AG Edwards, Edward Jones, BofA, Merrill, CitiBank, Oppenheimer, Principal, Hancock, Fidelity, T. Rowe, etc., contribute to lobby against the fiduciary standard. If they do, look for another firm or register your complaint that your own money is being used to generate fees and revenues that are then diverted to lobbyists working against your best interests.
• Don’t invest in fund companies that employ mutual fund wholesalers. Wholesalers are used in a national sales force and are among the most highly-paid jobs in the mutual fund industry, with an average salary of $165,000, according to Simply Hired. Wholesaler expenses are used to increase assets under management, but do nothing to boost the return on your mutual funds. On the contrary, they often decrease returns.
• Ask your advisor when your mutual fund last reduced its fees. Funds that grow in asset size reach a more efficient scale of economy and are cheaper to manage, especially with the decreasing costs of technology.  If your fund is growing in assets and has not made a corresponding decrease in their total expense ratio, ask why those savings are not being passed along to shareholders.

These may be tough questions, but the reality is no one will be more concerned about your money than you. Take the needed steps to protect it. If not, you have no one to blame but yourself.

That’s why the nation’s largest hedge funds have been pushing the odds, gaming the system, working to get the edge and hedging their bets to get the most bang for their millions in donations to the 2016 group of presidential candidates.

Hedge funds know how to work the system for their own benefit. They do it every day. They know the laws, the grey areas of the laws, and how to shape and then work the system to exploit any possible pricing or regulatory aberration. Detecting weaknesses and opportunities is their forte, so it is not surprising that the 2016 candidates are the focus of their attention.

Not surprisingly, the hedge funds and their many associated lobbying groups are pushing to maintain their dubiously-gained advantages, such as carried interest, preferential tax treatments, and pushing back any further regulations covering the use of leverage, OTC limits, the public disclosure of fees, performance, and expenses.

As reported on opensecrets.org, hedge funds as an industry started to make substantial contributions in 2007, when the industry was cited as a force contributing to the housing market debacle and resulting recession. To fight back any regulatory reforms the industry contributed nearly $40 million during the 2012 election cycle, or more than double their contributions during the 2008 election cycle.

After the popular calls to regulate hedge funds subsided around 2010, the industry began contributing to Republicans who pushed an anti-regulation and beneficial tax position. By 2012, the hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies, was the industry’s top contributor to Republicans with over $8.9 million in donations.

Hedge funds are a lobbying force.  They spent over $7.1 million lobbying in 2012. The Managed Funds Association spent over $4.1 million on lobbying in 2012.  All this money is being spent to push back or eliminate Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Consumer Protection Act, advocated by

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, including the regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, according to opensecrets. The industry also would be in favor of preventing the fiduciary standard requirement, as well as any public disclosures of performance fees and expenses.

Here is a list of the 20 largest hedge funds that contributed to candidates in 2015-2015 courtesy of opensecrets.org.  Note that the only two funds that contributed to Democrats were the Soros Fund Management and Paloma Partners.

But trying to identify the main sources of hedge fund money is like trying to put your finger on an oil spot: your finger gets dirty, but the oil spurts in all directions.

But we do know that hedge funds hate Bernie Sanders who has publicly said he would tax their transactions, break up the big banks (that would derail the prime brokerage business) and raise income and corporate taxes on their companies. Hillary Clinton has made less sever public threats, but as an

experienced politician and wife of the former president who repealed Glass-Steagall in 2010, she knows how to walk the fine line between actual and practical regulation.

So while the financial services industry remains one of the largest and best-funded lobbying forces in Washington, here are some of the candidates who have received their money and will respond accordingly if elected.

Jeb Bush

While it looks like Wall Street and other contributors will have to write off their contributions to the former Florida governor and son of a former president and brother of another president, Bush still has the name recognition and old machine apparatus to generate the most money ($128.037 million) of all the Democrat and Republican candidates. His largest single source of industry contributions is from the financial services industry due to Bush’s anti-regulation stance. Letting Wall Street remain unfettered has paid off: he raised $26.8 million from the securities and investment industry, or about 26% of all the money he has raised to date.

Chris Christie

Christie received almost all (98%) of his contributions from individuals, but the largest industry group contributing to his campaign was Wall Street.  While you would most of his contributions would come from New Jersey, his home state, most of his contributors (based on zip codes) resided in Greenwich, not New Jersey, according to opensecrets.org. When he was chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) in 2014, Christie received almost $700,000 in contributions from three New York hedge fund managers, who coincidentally were managing New Jersey pension assets, according to Institutional Investor. A New Jersey state legislator said those contributions were intended to help pay for Christie’s presidential bid. And while New Jersey has a prohibition against any “pay to play” payoffs (aka as a “quid pro quo” corruption) to gain access to its state bidding process, the contributions were seen as a form of tribute to gain greater access to state coffers, according to a New Jersey legislator.

Here are the hedge funds which all managed New Jersey pension money that made the contributions:

Source:  Institutional Investor, May 25, 2015

As the article notes, New Jersey does not have any public hedge fund fee and performance reporting requirements. Christy vetoed a bill in May 2015 that would require those disclosures, so it looks like the contributions achieved their goal and their put position went in-the-money.

Hillary Clinton       

Clinton’s top category of contributors is lawyers and law firm employees, and she also received the most money of all candidates from educators, and retirees, according to opensecrets. However, since her public promises to curtail Wall Street, the financial industry has reduced contributions to Clinton and all but eliminated them to Sanders. But Wall Street (commercial and investment banks and securities firms) has given Clinton about 7% of her total fundraising, primarily via Super PACs, according to opensecrets.org. As the most experienced politician in the 2016 presidential race, Clinton knows about the “triangulation” strategy devised by her husband to bring well-heeled Wall Street banks into the Democratic Party. Maybe the funds are betting on a back-door entrance to her policymakers as she looks better in the national election.  That could be their best bet of all.

What Hedge Funds Get in Return

So what do hedge fund contributions get for handing out money to politicians?  Plenty.

According to the Willamette Week, John Paulson, one of the industry’s most successful hedge-fund managers, made a fortune betting against the mortgage market (and against average American homeowners  as depicted in the movie “The Big Short.” For this bet, Paulson made $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on $9 billion: $0. Yes, he paid nothing.

This is because Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes in the future thanks to an arcane tax loophole known as “carried interest.”

In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35%. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income—not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker, according to the Willamette Week..

The Republicans and a key Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), voted to keep the tax rate on hedge-fund managers at 15%. Their public position was that hedge fund profits should be considered capital gains, not ordinary income.

But that was  a cover story.  Hedge-fund managers don’t pay 15%. At least, not currently. As long as they leave their profits in the company, known as “carried interest,” in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. Taxes are only paid when they are cashed out, which could be decades from now. In the interim, to maintain their high-style of living, the managers borrow against the carried interest, often at very low rates.

All this is something the average American taxpayer can never do, but they are just the working people who don’t have the access tot he best Congress money can buy.

frog, who was sitting on a nearby rock, if he could ferry him across the river on his back.

“I would do that for you, but how do I know you will not sting me and that I would not die?”

Perplexed, the scorpion replied: “I would not sting you since you are doing me a favor. And if I stung you, I would also drown in the middle of the river. I also consider you my friend, so I would not harm you for doing me this great favor.”

Convinced by this logic and sincerity, the frog agrees. The scorpion climbs on the frog’s back and they start across the raging river. As they approach the far bank, the scorpion lifts his long tail and stings the frog. As the frog gasps for air, he asks the scorpion why he killed him, despite all of his assurances that all would be well.

The scorpion looks the frog in the eyes and says: “It is my nature and nothing I do can change it.”

Like the scorpion, the nation’s largest investment and trading banks have it in their nature to be repeat offenders of U.S. securities regulation. Despite the fines imposed by the SEC, the same globally-known names keep getting cited by regulators for many of the same offenses.

It is a given that these banks operate with the most highly-paid and educated talent available in their compliance departments. They know the securities laws and regulations and have the best available trade tracking technology and millions in their compliance budgets.

So why does this happen? Why would a global investment bank continue to repeat the same mistakes and risk their public reputation to run afoul of federal regulators?

The reason is that violating securities laws is good business.  And like the scorpion, abusing unsuspecting and less sophisticated customers, their own employees, board of directors and shareholders is profitable and penalty free at the individual level for the perpetrators of securities frauds inside of global banks.

Take the latest case against JP Morgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank with $1.7 trillion in assets (as of December 31, 2014). The firm was cited in the Bloomberg report about how it settled SEC allegations that it didn’t  inform clients about numerous conflicts-of-interest about how it managed customers’ money over a half decade. The SEC fined JP Morgan a mere $300 million, a sum that accounts for a little more than 1% of the company’s annual operating profits, or about a month of profits generated from its asset-management division, Bloomberg said.

The core of the charges was conflicts-of-interest in the information Morgan provided its unsuspecting institutional and retail clients.

In its charges, according to the Bloomberg news report, “firms have an obligation to communicate all conflicts so a client can fairly judge the investment advice they are receiving,” Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC Enforcement Division, said in a statement. “These JPMorgan subsidiaries failed to disclose that they preferred to invest client money in firm-managed mutual funds and hedge funds, and clients were denied all the facts to determine why investment decisions were being made by their investment advisers.”

Regarding this same case, the SEC’s co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, Julie M. Riewe, said, “In addition to proprietary product conflicts, JPMS breached its fiduciary duty to certain clients when it did not inform them that they were being invested in a more expensive share class of proprietary mutual funds, and JPMCB did not disclose that it preferred third-party-managed hedge funds that made payments to a J.P. Morgan affiliate.  Clients are entitled to know whether their adviser has competing interests that might cause it to render self-interested investment advice.”

The problem here is that JPMorgan is a repeat offender.

In another instance in September 2013, the SEC said JPMorgan misstated financial results and lacked effective internal controls to detect and prevent its traders from “fraudulently overvaluing investments to conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in trading losses” in what the SEC said was a “complex portfolio.”  Yet anyone who has seen a trading operation knows this is like forgetting to add sugar to a brownie mix, but somehow JPMorgan’s well-paid trading management team did not know the real value of the securities being traded.

Even worse, JPMorgan hid the extent of the problem from its own board of directors.  “While grappling with how to fix its internal control breakdowns, JPMorgan’s senior management broke a cardinal rule of corporate governance and deprived its board of critical information it needed to fully assess the company’s problems and determine whether accurate and reliable information was being disclosed to investors and regulators,” George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said.

In this instance, JP Morgan violated “a cardinal rule of corporate governance.”  In the earlier example from December 2015, Morgan knew it was deceptively selling more expensive proprietary funds to unsuspecting clients, but continued to do so.

In these two cases alone, JP Morgan paid $507 million in fines, but like the Energizer Bunny, the firm got right back up and will continue to repeat these trading violations again in 2016.  That’s a given since, like the scorpion, it’s in JPMorgan’s corporate culture to victimize the unsuspecting, including its own clients, shareholders and employees.

Glass-Steagall Would Improve Chances for Adopting the Fiduciary Standard

This observation also helps explain why JPMorgan and many other investment banks oppose the fiduciary standard. Creating full conflict-of-interest disclosure to the unsuspecting will devastate their bottom lines because trading is always about getting the edge on the opponent. This means large banks are in a constant adversarial relationship with their own customers. Of course it’s about the extraordinary amounts of money paid in salaries, bonuses and perks to the employees who commit the violations, but it’s also about a culture where there is no accountability for individual violations.

That why advocates for the fiduciary standard should realize that enacting a fiduciary standard will only happen if large banks are broken up.

Re-establishing Glass-Steagall (which was repealed in 1999 by Bill Clinton) would accelerate the adoption of the fiduciary standard. Maintaining the current system, which bailed out the too-big-to-fail banks, only made them less accountable to everyone except their own inner circles.

In the current 2016 presidential campaign, no Republican is in favor of re-establishing Glass-Steagall and they are joined by Democrat Hillary Clinton. However, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley favor its re-introduction.

So the next time we see another big bank cited for SEC violations, we can rest assured that nothing has changed. The perpetrators will be familiar names, but there will always be new victims.

Tonight’s second Republican debate will continue to show the Party’s priorities, as well as what issues they choose to avoid.  While taxes, regulation, defense spending and anti-Obama rhetoric are all expected fodder for tonight’s debate, viewers should also take note of front-runner Ben Carson’s odd and ominous anti-government statements and how they combine with his religious fundamentalist end-times vision, and mis-readings of history.

While Carson’s statements by themselves are disturbing enough, what emerges from his interviews and speeches, are views that dovetail with the anti-federal government actions that have long been displayed by the anti-Obama Liberty Caucus, as well as the Tea Party.

For instance, Carson said if Jews were better armed, they could have protected themselves better or prevented Hitler from coming to power by militarily defeating Nazi thugs. Carson’s point is that an armed citizenry is paramount, even if the historical context is wrong.  The importance of an armed citizenry against an unpopular, fascist, repressive government is Carson’s main point and one which has been already decoded by the far right.

Carson’s end-days religious doctrine that is part of his observance as a Seventh Day Adventist, an evangelical belief focused on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Yet while the Church insists on the separation of church and state, appealing to evangelicals is critical and it emerges in his political rhetoric.

The End-Days

According to Terry James of Rapture Ready, “end-times politics are upon this generation, as is understood by those with spiritual eyes and ears to see and hear.”  He says “end-times politics pervade every aspect of life in the United States today,” whether it be in unabashed commercialism, entertainment, finance, and politics.

James also writes that “the politicians and the self-iconizing politics the majority of them practice” help set the stage for the apocalypse, especially the hubris in the form of the uncontained pursuit of wealth.

He does not specifically refer to Donald Trump (estimated net worth: $4 billion) or Carson’s money making deals, but his point has been accepted by both Democrats and some Republicans. (The Wall Street Journal estimates Carson could earn up to $30 million this year from speeches, book royalties, and board positions.)

But money drives today’s elections and candidate Carson was so motivated that he suspended his presidential campaign in October for two weeks to go on a book tour.  Presidential candidates are prohibited from accepting speaker’s fees while running for president, so the book tour was a legitimate, if impolitic, break.  Still, his followers did not seem to mind that boosting his personal income took precedence over discussing policy matters with the voters.

Watch for the Politics of Prophecy

There is also the issue of the politics of prophecy. Part of this philosophy endorses “the right to alter or abolish the government” since “God makes nations, but men make governments, according to Gerald R. Thompson of the Lonang Institute. Followers of this philosophy hold that the American Revolution was the first, and unfortunately, the last time the people were able to exercise their rights to overthrow what is now called the federal government.

Among the reasons for an overthrow or insurrection is that individual rights are being abused or eliminated on a mass scale. No specifics are provided on the Lonang Institute’s web site, but they could be related to claims by 2016 Republican candidates that the rights of Christians to freely worship are being curtailed (Mike Huckabee) or  that the rights of the unborn (who cannot vote) are being eradicated via abortion or some fabricated Frankenstein scenario (Chris Christie.)

Even Senator Marco Rubio, a friend says, “hates the Senate,” which is an odd thing

to say for a standing senator who makes $174,000 annually, plus a tremendous pension plan that eludes most in the private sector. Plus, if you hate the Senate, how can you run for president if you have to work with Congress on a daily basis?

Maybe that is an old-school interpretation because the Liberty Caucus, comprised of just 36 hard-core right Republicans, has already taken the rabid opposition position for the past eight years since the night of Obama’s first inauguration parties, that you do not have to work with your fellow Congress people, just oppose everything presented to you and collect your salary ($174,000 annually), compared to the national median family income of $64,000 in 2015.

This national median family income also includes members of the Tea Party who have amazingly lined up to vote against their own economic self-interests by endorsing Republican candidates that have vowed to convert Social Security into a fee-ridden private system complete with individuals assuming all investment risks, as well as making health care more expensive by privatizing that, as well as the U.S. Postal Service.

So as the Republicans make their pro-market, anti-regulation, anti-environmentalism, anti-Obama pitches tonight, listen closely for any references to an end-times, apocalyptic scenario that will accompany the right-wing coup now in progress.

Also, listen for any candidates who have a sense of history and for any explanation that ties the recent wars that contributed to the federal deficit or why the recession continues today because Congress was intentionally paralyzed from delivering any new job creation or tax relief programs. Maybe it’s the things we won’t hear tonight that will be the ones to haunt us in the coming years.