March 2010 - Page 2 - Represent Consumers

Tea Party For Two

Is the Democratic Party obsolete?
That’s the question that keeps nagging me as I watch President Obama and the Democratic leadership fumble away their opportunities to fight for meaningful reform of health care and the financial system.
The president and congressional leaders consistently shy away from fighting for reforms they themselves propose, such as the public option or the consumer financial protection agency.

They obsess over whether someone will accuse them of partisanship, or whether they will spook the markets if they crack down on reckless profligate bankers. They appear to find any excuse to avoid pushing the kinds of fundamental of changes that would challenge the health care and financial industry.

I don’t think you can blame the Republicans, whatever their own faults. They oppose reform. They’re fighting Obama and his policies as a way to regain power. They’re pursuing that opposition determinedly, and they’re betting it will pave their way back to a majority. It’s not the Republicans’ fault if they set traps for the Democrats and the Democrats continually fall for them.

Members of the Democratic leadership have shown profiles in cowardice when it comes to fighting for any reforms opposed by the insurance or financial industries. In the latest display, House and Senate leaders are furiously trying to blame the other for the death of the public option, even though it’s supported by a majority of Americans and even 40 members of the U.S. Senate.

But the insurance companies have fought the public option, which would provide those forced to buy health insurance under reform an alternative to private insurance. So the Democratic leadership has shown determination to find a way to eliminate the provision without leaving their fingerprints on the corpse.

The same with financial reform, where the Democrat leadership has zigged and zagged but hasn't won the fight for strong independent consumer protection or meaningful regulation of the complex investments that blew up in the meltdown. Sen. Chris Dodd, the long-time friend of insurers and financial titans who serves as Senate Banking chair, flirted with a strong reform proposal when he was running in a tough reelection campaign. But he backed off after he decided to retire and now appears ready to resume his traditional role in service to the bankers’ lobby. As an industry publication recently noted, insurance companies will miss Chris Dodd.

The Democratic leadership don’t seem to stand for any strong principles.
The president and Democratic leaders pay only lip service to the deep anger in the country over the erosion of the middle class, and the bank bailout that pumped up Wall Street while leaving Main Street on life support. The Democrats fear that anger because they know that their own Wall Street-friendly policies have helped fuel the series of speculative bubbles that brought prosperity and then a crash that wiped out the financial security of millions of Americans.
The president and his party are banking that the economy will improve enough by later this year, and 2012, to blunt voters’ anger.
If it does, the Democrats will claim credit for setting the economy right without having unduly upset their contributors in the financial and insurance industries. Even better for the Democrats, they will be able to bolster their fundraising by showing how they hung tough against the call for stronger reforms.
The Democrats came into office promising not to “waste a crisis.” But their efforts to reform health care and the financial system and to put Americans back to work have shown a distinct lack of urgency.
Could there be another way?

Obama will face voters on the 100th anniversary of the last presidential election in which a third-party candidate beat a major party candidate. The third-party candidate was a former president, Teddy Roosevelt, running on the progressive Bull Moose ticket promising to bust up the powerful big corporations of the day, known as trusts. Roosevelt was angry that the president who followed him, Republican William Howard Taft, hadn’t followed in his activist political footsteps. The former president was not afraid to show his ire, calling on his followers to launch “a genuine and permanent moral awakening.”
Taft, for his part, favored a laissez-faire policy toward business and regulation that resonates with the era that we’ve been through. “A national government cannot create good times,” Taft said. “It cannot make the rain to fall, the sun to shine, or the crops to grow.” But by meddling, government could “prevent prosperity that might otherwise have taken place.”
Sound familiar?

Roosevelt lost the election to Woodrow Wilson, but he got more votes than hands-off Taft.
Today the tea party is rumbling on the right, threatening revolt against the Republicans. There’s already the beginnings of a coffee party. If the economy doesn’t cooperate with the Democrats, the tea party’s discontent could be just the beginning of the end of the two-party stranglehold on our government.

Innovation Just Isn't What It Used To Be

When Wall Street wants to get out the big intellectual artillery in the argument against strong financial reform, they haul out innovation.

Regulation will strangle innovation, and we can’t have that, the financial titans contend. Innovation is the strength of America, without it we will lose our competitiveness, yadda yadda yadda.

But over the past several decades financial innovation has focused too much on mathematical models and not enough on a vision of improving the country and people’s lives.

Selling mortgages with exploding balloon payments doesn’t qualify as innovation; it’s a cruel trap.

The recent version of financial innovation, complex investments and gambling vehicles like derivatives and credit default swaps, no doubt made many bankers wildly rich, but these “weapons of mass of financial destruction,” as Warren Buffet labeled them back in 2003, also planted hidden, little-understood land mines of risk that helped create the financial crisis when they blew up.

It’s no longer just the pitchforks that are questioning the value of these innovations. Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief born again as the lone voice for meaningful financial reform in the Obama administration, recently said the only modern innovation that brought real benefit to people was the ATM card.

And the financing of innovation in the rest of the economy isn’t faring any better.

A couple of top economists, including a Nobel Prize winner, weighed in recently with a scathing view of the financial system in the Harvard Business Review.

Edmund S. Phelps (the 2006 economics Nobel winner) and Leo M. Tilman, both of Columbia University, wrote in the January issue [no link]: “The current financial system is choking off funds for innovation...Outdated accounting conventions and inadequate disclosures make it impossible to evaluate the business models and risks of financial firms. Excessive resources are allocated to proprietary trading, to lending to overleveraged consumers, to regulatory arbitrage and to low-value-added financial engineering. Financing the development of innovation takes a back seat.”

To finance opportunities in clean and nanotechnology that the current financial system is ill equipped to serve, the authors propose a government-sponsored bank of innovation.

The bank bailouts have no doubt soured people on the notion of the government in the banking business and rightly so.

But this hasn’t always been the case.

It’s worth remembering that the greatest financial innovation of the past 70 years was a government-sponsored program called the G.I. bill.

I heard about the G.I. bill growing up because it financed my dad’s education after he returned from World War II. Many others got help with home loans.

Ed Humes, an author and former Pulitzer Prize winning investigative newspaper reporter, has written a splendid account of the G.I. bill, “Over Here.” It captures how individual lives as well as the entire nation was shaped by the ambitious program.

The idea of a massive program to help veterans was first articulated by FDR, in part to prevent a reoccurrence of the bitter 1932 Bonus March, when angry World War I veterans and their families descended on Washington, D.C. to demand promised benefits. The government response was a fiasco – soldiers were ordered to fire on the persistent veterans. Nearly 10,000 were driven from the veterans’ encampment; two babies died. The resulting stink helped Roosevelt defeat the sitting president, Herbert Hoover.

I spoke with Humes about the history behind the G.I. bill.

The proposal faced stiff opposition from the financial industry and the education community.

“They argued that the average Joe returning from World War II was capable of being neither a college student nor a homeowner. The bill was basically rammed through over their objections, because of a combination of altruism and fear.”

It didn’t hurt that the bill was created by the American Legion, a conservative veterans’ group.

The G.I. bill was an overwhelming success, not only for the veterans but the college system, the building industry (it helped create the suburbs) the economy at large and the banking industry as well (it created the modern mortgage industry). “For every dollar spent,” Humes said, “seven was returned to the economy.”

Humes draws a direct connection from the G.I. bill to today’s bailouts. “They had a dead housing market, it had never recovered from the Depression. But did they throw money at the banks? No. They encouraged people to buy homes.”

The G.I. bill shows what’s possible when those who are governing possess large vision, heart, will, persistence – and fear. No mathematical model can come close.

Derivatives / Martin Column - 03/03/2010

Back to the Future of Reform with Sen. Chris Dodd

Dodd moves to scale back Consumer Financial Protection Agency plan

In an attempt to lure the Republican votes needed to get a sweeping overhaul through the Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan for a less powerful Bureau of Financial Protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010

Dodd Proposes Financial Protection Committee Housed in Treasury Department

In new attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get semi-sweeping overhaul through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Financial Protection Committee inside the U.S. Treasury.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2010

Dodd Proposes Professor of Financial Protection at University of Connecticut

In renewed attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get modest financial fixes through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to give the University of Connecticut $150,000 to hire a professor to teach the public about financial protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Dial 1-900-4Protection Line

In a leisurely attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get itsy-bitsy, not too scary reform bill through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to set up a 900 number to be answered on weekends by volunteers from credit card customer service departments. Costs of the program will be defrayed by charge of 99 cents per call.

-- Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2010

Dodd Proposes Facebook Financial Protection Page

In further attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get any kind of friggin’ bill through Senate, the soon to retire to the financial industry Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Facebook page where consumers can share financial protection ideas with each other.

-- Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Wall Street Protect Consumers

Fuhghettaboutit.

-- Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2010

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 03/02/2010

Around the Web: Declaring Independence on Consumer Protection

Read Reuters’ economic blogger Felix Salmon’s intriguing takeaway from the weekend’s depressing news that Repubs have rejected even Chris Dodd’s watered-down, weakened version of the financial consumer protection agency. Salmon’s prescription: the Dems should accept whatever the key Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Bob Corker, want. It won’t be that much worse than Dodd’s current “toothless” proposal is now.

Then, consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren should team up with a non-governmental organization like the Center for Responsible Lending and perform the function of a real independent consumer financial protection agency, warning people about particularly bad loans or institutions that are rip-offs, and commending good ones.

Are the Republicans really thwarting the Democrats? Or do Democrats not get anything done by design? Salon’s Glenn Greenwald tells you how and why the Democrats have perfected ineffectiveness and timidity into a high art. Read it and weep.

Meanwhile, the old dinosaur print media isn’t dead yet. New York Times’ columnist Gretchen Morgenstern has a scathing take on the naiveté of Fed chair Ben Bernanke’s takes on Goldman and their Greek default swaps. As for Bernanke’s “quaint” insight that the SEC will probably be interested in looking into the matter, Morgenstern writes: “If the past is prologue we might see a case or two emerge from the inquiry five years from now. The fact is that credit default swaps and other complex derivatives that have proved to be instruments of mass destruction still remain entrenched in our financial system three years after our financial system was almost brought to its knees.”

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Derivatives / Federal Reserve - 03/01/2010