July 2011 - Represent Consumers

Bailout Redux

It all feels eerily similar to the atmosphere leading up to the 2008 bailout with warnings of looming government collapse and Wall Street and its cronies threatening doom.

Instead of a no-questions asked payoff of bankers, this time it’s the looting of Social Security and Medicaid, and cuts to other programs that benefit the aged, sick, vulnerable, in other words, society’s least politically potent, that’s at stake.

There’s another familiar aspect of the scenario: under the terms of the emergency, because the cuts are opposed by a majority of the people in the country, democracy has to be stifled, open argument limited. It’s more debacle than debate.

Anybody in Washington who isn’t for these cuts isn’t considered serious.

While the media portrays the debt ceiling standoff as a partisan nightmare, the quest for budget cuts is more of cooperative bipartisan effort with each faction playing its part.

The Tea Party raises holy hell about funding the government at all, so President Obama and the Democrat’s proposed draconian cuts to social programs and infrastructure look like the least bad alternative.

But make no mistake: the Democrats’ drastic cutbacks don’t represent compromise. They represent the goals of a financial and corporate elite that has been fighting for these goals relentlessly and methodically for years.

And they’re using this trumped up debt ceiling crisis as their latest gambit to achieve them.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California’s description of the first hastily put together bailout plan, could easily apply to our current predicament.

It wasn’t legislation, Sherman said at the time, it was a ransom note.

Consumer Protection Only Wall Street Could Love

When it comes to finding someone to head the Financial Consumer Protection Bureau that opened its doors this week, the Republicans remind me of that Groucho Marx bit: “Whoever it is, we’re against them.”

The Republicans have a pretty straightforward position: they’ve made it clear they’ll only be satisfied with one kind of financial consumer protection agency: one that’s dead, buried and incapable of causing the big banks any trouble.

Meanwhile, President Obama is caught between his promises to create a powerful new agency to rein in Wall Street and his need to raise $1 billion to fuel his reelection campaign.

So the president dissd the highly articulate Elizabeth Warren, who came up with the idea for the new agency and who has been a down-to-earth, no-nonsense advocate for consumers for decades, in favor of the former Ohio attorney general, Richard Cordray.

Republicans don’t like Cordray, who enjoys a decent enough reputation any more than they liked Warren. Obama could have waged a political popular fight in favor of Warren and real protection but he didn’t.

How come? On the one hand President Obama would prefer not like to see one of the signature achievements of his financial reform effort strangled in its crib.

On the other hand Wall Street doesn’t like even the whiff of anybody implying that the bankers might take advantage of their customers let alone anybody actually trying to do something about it.

Based on his weak negotiating efforts so far, Obama and the Democrats are perfectly capable of accepting some form of the proposal offered by Sen. Jim Moran, R- Kansas, which would turn the real power over the CFPB to a committee, preserving consumer protection in name only. Obama and the Democrats can run on that with the same gusto the president is pretending that the faux financial reform actually reined the Wall Street fraud and excess that led to the 2008 financial collapse and bailout.

Democrats and Republicans are competing hard, less for the affections of voters and more for the mountains of cash beckoning to them from Wall Street and corporate coffers.

In calculating whether to keep their promise to protect consumers or whether to bend to Wall Street, the president and the Democrats know that the Democratic voters have no other place to go right now; they are unlikely to swing to the “We’re against it” party even as much as Obama disappoints them

But Obama and the Democrats know Wall Street, which was generous to them in 2008, does have a choice. The Republicans are wooing Wall Street hard, though the Republicans’ knuckleheaded stance on the debt ceiling makes them look more like surly juvenile delinquents than a party with an interest in actually governing.

Time will tell whether the Democrats or the Republicans will actually allow the new agency to do real consumer protection or if they will thwart the majority’s will in favor of Wall Street’s.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/23/2011

While Country Suffers, Politicians Rake it in

While our politicians tell us the country is broke, they themselves are doing fine.

In the midst of debt ceiling hysteria, President Obama and the Democrats bragged they’d raised an eye-popping $86 million so far for his presidential campaign.

The various Republican candidates who have reported their cash have raised about $35 million so far, but it’s early yet.

Meanwhile the Republicans oppose any revenue-raising or loophole-closing that would be favored by a majority of Americans. Republicans continue to insist that increased taxes on the wealthiest would be job-killers, even though there’s no evidence to support their position.

For his part, President Obama, in an effort to appease Republicans, offered up a variety of cuts to Social Security and Medicaid that would be opposed by a majority of Americans.

Cutting services for those that need it most is what Obama calls “shared sacrifice,” though no one who could actually afford it is actually being asked to make any sacrifices.

As to the major challenges facing the nonrich – joblessness and foreclosure – those are beyong the skill and imagination of our leaders to grapple with.

The Republican strategy seems to be standing pat in the belief that the president will eventually cave in.

The president’s strategy appears to be to tie the aged, poor and vulnerable to the train tracks and then blame the Republicans when the train runs them over.

President Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, was proud that most of the $86 million was coming from small donors. I don’t doubt that a big chunk of that money comes from people who are justifiably scared stiff of turning the country back over to the Republicans, who never complained about the deficits when the previous occupant of the White House when he was running them up.

I understand the big donors. They get access and influence. But do the small donors have any influence? Do these small donors really believe that having the aged and infirm give up a chunk of their security amounts to sharing sacrifice? Can they make their voices heard along with their $5 donations? Or do they just have to go along with the president and the Democrats and whatever deal they make?

On Saturday morning we got news that the president would not appoint the stalwart consumer advocate to head the agency she dreamed up to protect financial consumers, and which she has been working to set up.

I wonder whose interests the president was thinking about when he made that decision – his Wall Street and corporate donors or those small donors his campaign manager was bragging about?

Congress / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/16/2011

With Watchdogs Like These...

It would be bad enough if our leaders were letting the high-finance big shots off the hook for their misdeeds because the authorities were just too incompetent to catch them.

But what’s worse is that those in power don’t want to hold the high rollers accountable and run the other way when any opportunity presents itself to shine a light on how we got here.

The most recent examples are the shenanigans of Rep. Darrell Issa, head of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Issa’s committee could play a crucial role in highlighting the abuse and fraud that led to the crisis if he chose, similar to the one played by Ferdinand Pecora’s hard-hitting investigation into the financial corruption and speculation that led to the Great Depression.

But Issa, a Republican, has other agendas in mind – like embarrassing the Democrats and protecting Republican interests in winning more donations from Wall Street. His priorities have been in lock-step with the Republican attack on government regulation of corporations, rather than figuring out how government might do a better job of responding to corporate abuse.

This week he hastily canceled an inquiry into the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission after emails surfaced that would have severely embarrassed Republicans on that bipartisan commission that investigated the causes of the financial collapse.

In response to Issa’s investigation, the Democrats on the commission issued another report, accusing the Republicans of rigging their conclusions to support their political goals – weakening the Dodd-Frank financial reform.

The commission itself had long ago collapsed along partisan lines, with Democrats issuing a report that reached bland conclusions – it was everybody’s fault, while three of the committee’s Republicans were reluctant to blame anybody except to the extent that they agreed with the bankers – it was the fault of an unforeseeable global housing collapse.

The fourth Republican, meanwhile, fixed the blame on the right’s favorite bogeymen – poor people, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But the FCIC’s Democrats have now unearthed an email sent by that fourth Republican, Peter Wallison, fellow at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute think tank, to another FCIC Republican, Douglas Holz-Eakins, the day after Republicans took the majority in the House of Representatives last year. In the Nov. 3 email, Wallison wrote that it is "very important" that the separate GOP statements "not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank."

Issa has a chance to redeem himself by joining the senior Democrat on the oversight panel, Elijah Cummings in scrutinizing the shameful foreclosures of members of the nation’s military.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen.

While Issa has shown some willingness to tackle an investigation of the Obama administration’s failed foreclosure relief program, he’s shown no interest in the robo-signing scandal or aspects of the housing crisis that might embarrass the big banks.

Martin Berg

Around the Web / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Foreclosures / Martin Column - 07/13/2011

Financial Regulator Makes Itself the Target

You might think that after missing the Bernard Madoff scandal despite repeated warnings, going soft on the big banks and other questionable decisions, the Securities and Exchange Commission couldn’t get any more embarrassed.

You would be wrong.

By now you know just how lax federal authorities have been in holding any of the too big to fail bankers accountable for our economic meltdown.

The chief culprits in looking the other way on financial fraud are the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But never fear, the Justice Department has leaped into action – to investigate the SEC itself for possible fraud!

Even if it doesn’t turn out to be actual criminal fraud, the mess the SEC got itself into is likely to undermine whatever remaining shred of confidence you’ve got in the troubled financial regulator and undermine its credibility.

The SEC’s latest debacle stems not from one of its investigations but from some internal agency business. It seems that agency officials signed a $557 million lease for office space it didn’t need and couldn’t afford in downtown Washington D.C. – without competitive bidding.

Among the gory details: the agency’s chief, Mary Schapiro, apparently approved the lease in a 10-minute meeting without asking any questions. Also, the agency’s inspector general found that a key document justifying the lease was dated a couple of days after the lease was made, but was actually created a month later.

When the SEC realized the Congress wasn’t going to fund it at the optimistic levels the agency had projected, SEC officials tried to back out of the lease and the owner of the office space demanded $94 million in damages.

Of course, congressional Republicans couldn’t be happier to find such ineptitude on the part of top Obama administration officials.

For Schapiro, the leasing fiasco is only the latest to raise serious questions about her leadership and judgment. Earlier, when the SEC finally did get on then Madoff case, she allowed the SEC general counsel to make crucial recommendations to increase how much Madoff’s victims would be compensated – even though the general counsel’s mother was among the victims. Schapiro told a congressional hearing that she knew of the general counsel’s personal Madoff link but allowed him to stay on the case.

When he appointed Schapiro in December 2008, President Obama praised her as “smart and tough.” She may well be. But in her performance at the SEC, she hasn't demonstrated it.

If President Obama wants to continue to signal that he’s in bed with the big banks, that he’s clueless when it comes to the notions of accountability and government ethics, and that government actually is just a cesspool of waste and incompetence, he should hang on tight to Schapiro.

But if he doesn’t, he should sack her immediately and find somebody who can do the job.

Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 07/09/2011

D.C. Disconnect: It's Just a JOBS Recession

According to one of the pontificators on NPR’s Marketplace, the economy is actually fine, we’re just in a “jobs recession.”

Now I feel better.

This is what passes for insightful commentary among the media elite on the day that unemployment shot back up to 9.2 percent.

“If you’re rich, it’s great,” says Felix Salmon, Reuters columnist. “But if you’re a working person it’s terrible.”
As for President Obama, he reacted to the terrible jobs report by saying: “We still have a long way to go.”

Except he shows no inclination to go there.

He’s wrapped up in the Republican austerity agenda so tight he can’t find his way to suggest anything to reduce unemployment.

He meekly suggested that reducing the deficit would help create jobs, though most economists acknowledge such cuts will hurt the economy – and the unemployed.

We all know that President Obama needs to raise $1 billion for his presidential campaign, and Republicans are falling over themselves to kill financial reform in their efforts to woo Wall Street. You have to admire the Republicans' focus: they don't give a damn about the economy, they only care about getting rid of Obama.

But both Obama and the Republicans they must be counting on only the rich voting.

The day before the jobs report, Obama’s top political adviser told Bloomberg News that the unemployment rate wouldn’t hurt Obama’s reelection chances. Obama adviser David Plouffe also asserted that people thought that the economy was getting better, based on anecdotal evidence.

Here’s what Plouffe had to say:

“You see, people’s — people’s attitude towards their own personal financial situation has actually improved over time. You know, they’re still concerned about the long-term economic future of the country, but it’s things like “My sister was unemployed for six months and was living in my basement and now she has a job.

There’s a — a “help wanted” sign. You know, the local diner was a little busier this week. Home Depot was a little busier. These are the ways people talk about the economy.”

Either Plouffe is drinking his own Kool-Aid or thinks he can play off the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression as a minor dip.

As emptywheel points out on Firedoglake, the measures of consumer confidence don’t agree with Plouffe’s blithe assessment. As emptywheel suggests, if they expect voters to keep them in their jobs, Plouffe, Obama and the rest of the administration need to get out of their bubble and start listening “to the pain of real people.”

Martin Berg

Around the Web / Martin Column / Uncategorized - 07/08/2011

The American Flag Deficit Reduction Program

The US deficit is estimated at $1.5 trillion. In Washington, the debate is between raising taxes or cutting spending. Neither is necessary, if we take advantage of America’s greatest asset, the Star Spangled Banner.

In dire straits after the Wall Street debacle, many governments across the United States and throughout the world are being pressed to sell public assets – buildings, utilities, trains, even highways. Just last year, Governor Action Hero tried to sell off California courthouses and other historical landmarks to a private consortium for $2.33 billion. Naming rights on sports stadiums and convention centers have always been a revenue strategy for municipalities and closely associated private firms like Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build a football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. In addition to seeking tax breaks from the city, the firm has already sold the stadium's naming rights to Farmers Insurance for $700 million.

Why not rent some or all of Old Glory on a daily basis to pay off the debt we have racked up to bail out Wall Street?

Here’s the math.

There are fifty stars on the flag (each one added when a state entered the Union). So if those stars were to be made “available” on a daily basis, there would be at least 18,250 “opportunities” every year (50 x 365).

Divide the deficit by 18,250, and we could eliminate the federal debt in one year if each star were offered up at the price of $82 million ($82,191,780.08, to be exact).

Sure, that’s hefty price, you might say. Who would pay it?

Answer: the folks who got America into this mess in the first place.

So let’s say J.P. Morgan Chase wanted the highly prestigious opportunity to occupy the entire flag for one day each year. Here’s what that might look like:

As a special inducement to pay $4 billion, companies that agreed to take the entire flag for a day could also be given the right to put some text on one of the stripes. It could be the company's most important message:

Or anything its CEO might desire:

Some may object that it is inappropriate to put the American Flag in the hands of big corporations. First of all, like the United States Supreme Court said in its Citizens United decision applying freedom of expression to corporations, all Americans will have equal freedom to buy access to the flag for $82 million per star. Corporations are Americans, too. Second, these companies own the United States anyhow, so what’s the biggie?

What about foreign countries? Should we rent the Stars and Stripes to our trading partners, the Chinese? If so, should we require them to write in English, or should we allow them to use Chinese characters?

That’s a tough question, and like all decisions concerning the American Flag Deficit Reduction Program, should be decided by the United States Congress.

Which, by the way, has a spectacular building in a prime location that would be highly attractive to certain firms. Consider this on the East Face of the Capitol Building:

"Congress. Brought to you today by Goldman Sachs."

Just think about it.

Financial Crisis / Harvey Column / Privatization - 07/07/2011

The 4th of Awry

When I grew up in a suburb south of Boston in the Sixties, the Fourth of July was distinctly the greatest day of summer. Preparations would begin well in advance. First, a trip to Chinatown where we’d pay ten times the fair price for a brick of firecrackers and as many cherry bombs or M-80s as we could afford. The night before, one of our gang’s parents would drive us down to the shore to watch the magnificent fireworks displays, while AM car radios would play patriotic tunes like the Star Spangled Banner. I can still smell the gunpowder that would waft in clouds around us. The next night, we’d conjure up our own smaller version in our backyards, occasionally evading the police when our displays raised the neighbors’ ire.

The times were contentious – the Vietnam War had engendered a national divide – but at the peak of our youth the future seemed limitless. We were about to land a man on the moon! The red glare of the Saturn V rocket as it heaved its gargantuan frame into space symbolized to us kids all that was great about America. Freedom was such a powerful force that it could break the bonds of gravity. As a nation, we would not be restrained.

That all seems like dim myth now. Savaged by the financial collapse and the cost of endless wars on the other side of our planet, there is no budget for fireworks here in Southern California, though some towns have lifted the ban on private sales of firecrackers to grab a little extra tax revenue. Our dreams of pressing the boundaries of space have likewise been downsized. Next Friday, the space shuttle will make its last journey, and “after that, there is little glory to look forward to,” the New York Times notes this morning. The universe has receded from our grasp.

Something has gone profoundly awry in America. Our Supreme Court has defined freedom to mean the ability of big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in behalf of their private political agendas, while the rest of us wield our personal freedom in obscurity and servitude. Awash in money from the powerful and wealthy, our elected officials have abandoned the majority of us. We are left to contend with rising health insurance premiums, disappearing jobs, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, a collapse of social services, and the deeply disturbing prospect that we are leaving our kids with fewer options and worse prospects than we enjoyed.

And fear has set in. Around a third or more of all Americans now fear for the basics: their ability to start a family, buy a home, put their kids through college, and retire. Through the tyranny of greed, we have lost our liberty to make a better future for ourselves. We have been robbed not merely of our savings, but of our personal and national sense of possibility.

We can recover these – we must. But we cannot do so alone. We can no longer hope to be led. We must, ourselves, lead.

Action / Harvey Column - 07/04/2011

Mortgage Frauds, Official Shenanigans

Just how did the biggest bank fraud in the nation’s history go on with the full knowledge of authorities for 7 years?

Apparently, without much trouble.

Earlier this week, a judge sentenced Brian Farkas to 30 years in prison. He was the head of one of the country’s largest non-depository mortgage companies, convicted of a multibillion-dollar fraud that has been labeled the largest in the country’s history. The case was brought to prosecutors by the bailout’s former special inspector general – after a bank associated with the mortgage company tried to rip off the Troubled Asset Relief Program for $550 million.

Prosecutors said they sought the tough sentence as a deterrent, though bankers might not get the message.

Writing in the New York Times, white-collar criminal law expert Peter Henning said more respectable executives at bigger companies “perceive themselves as different from – and often better than – those who have been caught and punished, even if they are not.”

But one of the most outrageous aspects of the case has nothing to do with Farkas’ behavior: It has to do with how a government-sponsored agency, Fannie Mae, found evidence of his wrongdoing in 2000 and didn’t report it. According to court testimony as reported by Bloomberg News and the New York Times, when Fannie Mae found out that the bank was selling loans that had no value, the agency merely cut its ties with the bank.

Another government-sponsored agency picked up the business a week later, Bloomberg reported.

William Black, a former bank regulator who has been a sharp critic of the current administration’s lack of aggressiveness in investigating fraud in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, told Bloomberg: “If there had been a criminal referral, Farkas would have gone to jail in 2002.”

Farkas’ firm, Taylor Bean remained in business for another 7 years before it collapsed in August 2009.

The confidential agreement to disentangle Freddie Mac from Taylor Bean was overseen by Freddie Mac’s general counsel, Thomas Donilon, who now serves as national security adviser to President Obama.

It’s not the first time Donilon’s actions have been called into question: while he was a lawyer in private practice, he led lobbying efforts to undermine the credibility of an investigation into Fannie Mae’s shaky finances in 2004.

It’s worth cheering that prosecutors finally successfully prosecuted a major case stemming from mortgage crowd. But it’s also worth noting that the perp does not come from the ranks of the nation’s too big to fail banks.

It’s also worth noting that Donilon’s conduct in the financial collapse didn’t get him cast out as a pariah, it won him one of the most important jobs in this administration.

Around the Web / Financial Crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/01/2011