Saule Omarova hearing brings out the identity-politics grievance mongers — to hide her indefensible ideas

Democrats were up to some slimy old tricks in their bid to ram through the nomination of radical left-wing Saule Omarova into the position of comptroller of the currency, the nation's top overseer of banks.

At the hearings, Sen. John Kennedy triggered a ruckus after he asked what a lot of us are asking: "I don't know whether to call you 'professor' or 'comrade.'"

It prompted hollers of "McCarthyism" from left-wing senators Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, along with "racism" and "sexism" and "nativism."  Saule herself engaged in that, in a public-relations "build up" interview with New York magazine.  The misnamed Lincoln Project went wild.  And not satisfied with any of those overused canards, Ukrainian-born Alexander Vindman, who in his day amounted to a coup-plotter against the legitimately elected President Trump, tweeted this:

It was outrageous, a naked bid to shut down any debate of what's relevant here — which is Saule Omarova's shockingly far-left, Marxist, and dare we say it, Soviet-style communist, ideas, which demand scrutiny.

By Vindman's logic, anyone who leaves a communist country and has an accent is by default an anti-communist and a natural Jeffersonian democrat.  Vindman claims to be some sort of conservative fan of democracy, or at least he did in his careerist bid to get a fancy White House job during the Trump administration before plotting to oust him from office.  One wonders what goes through his head as he advocates for such an obvious far-left communist-educated person controlling the highest banking job in the land as he wraps himself in the flag.

It's the return of "don't you dare question my patriotism," which was John Kerry's argument after footage emerged of him flinging his war medals over a wall and making false "Zhengis Khan" smears against U.S. troops to paint them as war criminals in his campaign against the United States, succoring the communists in Southeast Asia at war with us mightily. 

This kind of rubbish creates a lot of white noise because there are genuine questions about Omarova's horrible Soviet-style ideas and what she would do with her hands on the levers of power as America's top bank regulator.

Her number-one idea, which didn't get the Senate hearing questions it should have, or at least the press coverage of questions so sorely needed, is her scheme, voiced this year, to "end banking as we know it" by nationalizing all "demand deposits." 

As reported by WireDailyNews (emphasis mine):

Imagine what it would be like instead of just a public option for deposit banking, this would be actually the full transition. In other words, there would be no more private bank deposit accounts and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the fed. And there are very interesting implications from that thought experiment, for example, with the much more direct and proactive tools of monetary policy, like helicopter money.

Which is, you know, considered radical, primarily because economists really do not know how to manage the issue of what will happen in the inflationary environment when the central bank needs to contract the supply of money — how is it politically feasible for the central bank to effectively take money away from people's accounts.

Demand deposits are a banking term for people's checking and savings accounts, the bank accounts the little guys hold for their paychecks and rainy day funds.  All of their accounts would be moved from their Chase Bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and other banks into a big pen at the Federal Reserve, and anyone who wanted to keep his accounts where they were would be out on his ear.  Rude customer service?  Nobody answering the phone?  Broken ATM?  Too bad — you wouldn't be able to move your account to another bank.  You'd get a choice of one bank to put your deposits in, same as the Soviet Union used to offer, just like the Wendy's fashion show ad. 

Communists and socialists have always had a "thing" against choice.  "You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country," said Bernie Sanders.  Apparently, you don't need multiple banks to choose from, either.

Under such an arrangement, imagine the potential for IRS spying on all those bank accounts at that single entity at the Federal Reserve.  Coincidence of coincidences, that has been the Biden plan all along under his flailing "Build Back Better" porkulus spending plan, which is promoted as a social-spending Green New Deal full of free stuff.

Free spying, too.

And it's worth noting what Omarova herself disturbingly brought up that once the government mismanages its money supply by printing and spending up a storm for social programs and triggering inflation, it'll come for those bank accounts.  Her name of the game would be to dip into people's accounts to steal the money as a means of halting inflation, not allowing what normally happens in free markets experiencing inflation, which is cash-savers moving to other kinds of assets.  Just crudely seize people's money in the name of the collective good.  Private property?  No, no private property.  And your money is no longer yours.  She actually discusses this as a matter of political feasibility, meaning "people will complain" as her concern, instead of a constitutional right to private property and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Nobody has "rights" in her view, save for central planners.

Does that sound Soviet?  It's about as Soviet as it gets.  She calls it a "thought experiment," but seriously, who holds those kinds of thought experiments?  Some people hold "thought experiments" about being rich.  Omarova holds thought experiments about how she can control everyone's bank account.

And speaking of Bernie Sanders, to whom is she connected?  Yes indeed, Bernie Sanders himself, that avowed socialist who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union and whose website has praised monstrous failed communist dictators such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.  She's also connected to self-described socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and left-wing senator Elizabeth Warren.

According to the glowing New York magazine profile of her:

But Omarova also writes regularly with her Cornell colleague Robert Hockett, an adviser to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and is admired by Elizabeth Warren, who said through a spokesperson, "It's hard to think of anyone more qualified or well suited to take on this role."

Of all the Democrat politicos she could be connected to, those are the ones she picks: the guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, praised Castro and Chávez, and has problems with too much deodorant on store shelves.

She denied she was a communist during the hearing, but that's what all of them do.  Even Castro as he fought in the Santa Clara mountains to seize power in Cuba in the late 1950s denied he was a communist.  He ripped the mask off after he managed to shoot his way into power.  The ends justify the means in communism, which is something Omarova, as a student of Lenin in her youth, one sufficiently full of revolutionary fervor to win a spot at Moscow's most prestigious university and trusted enough to travel abroad to study in Wisconsin (dissidents didn't get those things), would have known very well.

Someone at the Senate hearing should have asked her about that.

Someone also should have asked her what she didn't like about communism because the ideas she's presenting now for us suggest she very much likes communism.  She may not be a card-carrying communist, but she sure seems to be enamored of communist ideas.  It's not just the nationalization of bank accounts, but a very creepy*sounding "National Investment Fund," which Issues & Insights wrote very well about here.

The white noise surrounding her nomination around racism, sexism, McCarthyism, nativism, and all that is nothing but a smokescreen to shield someone with very bad ideas derived from a failed and inhuman ideology so she can climb the ladder of power.  We assume that the Republicans can recognize this.  We can only hope the Senate has enough Democrats who will see through the "racism, etc." smokescreen to squelch this nomination of a person who seeks power yet constantly shows a fascination for oppressive ideas.

Image: Screen shot from Fox Business video via shareable YouTube.