Financial Reform Legislation - Represent Consumers

Latest D.C.-Wall Street brainstorm – bailouts with your bank deposits

Think your federally insured bank deposits are safe? Think again.

The geniuses that are supposed to be protecting your money have dreamed up a scary idea to use your money to help fund the next bailout.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory.

In December, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (which is supposed to insure your money in the bank) and the Bank of England proposed using your bank deposits to defray the costs of rescuing a too big to fail bank when it gets in trouble. Wall Street hates the term “bailout,” so they’ve came up with a more innocuous term: “resolution.” The report, “Resolving Globally Active, Systematically Important Financial Institutions,” is linked here.

“In all likelihood [in a bank collapse],” the report’s authors write, “shareholders would lose all value and unsecured creditors [including depositors] should thus expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders did not cover.”

People who trusted the bank and put their money there would not get their money back under this proposal. Instead their deposits would be turned into shares in the newly resuscitated bank.

A version of this already happened as a result of the Cyprus financial crisis. Now FDIC/BOE have proposed a similar approach for the U.S. and England the next time the big bankers fail.

Inside the Washington-Wall Street bubble, that’s not an “if.” It’s a “when.”

This latest proposal is what passes for smart thinking inside the bubble, untroubled by the bad banker behavior it enables or any concern for the public outrage simmering outside.

The proposal stems from a fact that surprised me when I learned it: when you put your money in the bank, you no longer own it; the bank does. It becomes the banks’ asset, which it promises to give you back under certain conditions. In legal terms, the depositor becomes an “unsecured creditor” of the bank. Under the terms of the FDIC/BOE joint December 2012 proposal, the unsecured creditors’ money could be used to offset the costs of resuscitating a bank that the geniuses in Washington and Wall Street determine is too big to fail.

The bankers and their faux regulators are in the hunt for new source of bailout fund because, under Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank law passed in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, they can’t use taxpayer funds the next time the $230 trillion derivatives market tanks.

Derivatives, you will recall, are those pieces of paper, unconnected to any physical assets, that created the house of cards that collapsed back in 2008 because nobody could figure out what the derivatives were worth.

Why not just let banks that engage in derivatives speculations and lose fold? The firms’ executives, bondholders and investors would get hurt. And we can’t let that happen, of course.

So they want to “resolve” a bank’s excessive risk-taking with our money.

In Cyprus, only the wealthiest’s deposits were seized. The FDIC is supposed to insure individual depositors’ account up to $250,000 per depositor per account. But under the FDIC/BOE proposal, even accounts of $250,000 or less could be seized by the failing bank and converted to stock as part of a bailout scheme.

Meanwhile, what about the purchasers of those risky derivatives, which the banks are still trafficking in more than ever? They would fare better than lowly depositors because they are treated as “secured creditors,” under a little-noticed provision that the bankers’ lobbyists had inserted into a 2005 rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law.

I’ve been surprised by how little attention this proposal has gotten. It’s been covered mainly by Ellen Brown, a longtime critic of the banking sector and the government’s failure to regulate it. Certainly a major reason for the paucity of mainstream coverage is the lack of transparency around the regulation of banking institutions, and the media’s failure to push back against that. The big media, with few exceptions, has largely bought the narrative that the Obama administration has been selling, which is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform law successfully reined in banks and solved the TBTF issue, and that we have left the bad old days of financial collapses and bailouts behind us.

Nothing could be further from the reality, as the FDIC/BOE proposal makes clear. The banks continue to engage in risky derivatives gambling, resist any efforts to get them to stop, and enlist their allies at the Fed and other faux regulators to find someone else to absorb the costs of their own inevitable gambling losses.

Much of the regulations that would implement Dodd-Frank are being watered down behind closed doors, where the public is locked out and bank lobbyists have easy access to apply relentless pressure.

Even after multiple foreclosure fraud scandals, the LIBOR interest-rate fixing scandal, and the J.P. Morgan London Whale derivatives trade scandal, the media is more interested in touting the revival of the merger and acquisitions market than doing skeptical reporting on big banks and regulators.

Another reason that the reality gets lost is that it doesn’t fit neatly into the Republican-Democrat frame through which most of the media sees all policy. While Democrats at least rhetorically favor regulation and Republicans blame government for all the banks’ problems, beyond a little political stagecraft the two parties have collaborated smoothly to continue to bury the issue and let the bankers off the hook. This gives members of both parties a wide berth to keep raising campaign money from the bankers, and their congressional staffers a pathway unobstructed by any unpleasantness on their way to lucrative employment on Wall Street when they want to cash in.

This FDIC/BOE proposal is just the latest example of the government regulators protecting the bankers’ interests and throwing the rest of us to the wolves. That’s not what a majority of Americans want, obviously. According to this Rasmussen poll, 50 percent of all Americans favor breaking up the big banks so they don’t pose such a threat to our financial future, and can’t continue to dominate our political landscape. Only 23 percent oppose such a breakup.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, has introduced legislation to break up the banks. Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democratic legislator from Los Angeles, has said he will introduce companion legislation in the House.

Breaking up the banks is critical, but its only the first step. We need the re-imposition of a modern-day version of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that barred banks from mixing in other financial businesses that place depositors’ money at risk. Its repeal in 1999 led directly to the 2008 meltdown.

In the updated Glass-Steagall, federally insured banks should be barred from gambling in derivatives or other complicated investments.

Meanwhile, we need full public hearings on the FDIC/BOE proposal, and any other proposals regulators are considering about how to pay for future bailouts that involves taxpayers or consumers.

Contact your senator and representative and demand an end to big banks and publicly insured bank gambling. This FDIC/BOE proposal is a grim reminder of what we get when we’re left out of the political process, and we leave our financial system in the hands of the politicians, the experts and the bankers.

Main Street talks back

Inside the D.C. bubble, Wall Street’s titans continue to have their way.

Their Republican allies in the Senate helped the titans kill the Buffet Rule, which would have required those who made more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes, double what investors pay on capital gains income.

Wall Street has continued to stifle efforts to regulate risky derivatives like the ones that led to the financial collapse, while most of the Dodd-Frank financial reform enacted in the wake of the financial crisis has yet to be implemented.

In the Wall Street Journal (no link), columnist David Weidner asserted Wednesday that Wall Street has gotten some of its swagger back. “Big financial interests,” Weidner wrote, “are beating back every broadside with a vigor not seen since the financial-bubble days.”

But outside Washington it is a different story.

Voting for the first time on the CEO compensation of a too-big –to-fail bank, Citibank shareholders rejected a $14.9 million annual compensation for its top executive. The “say on pay” vote, mandated as part of Dodd-Frank, is strictly advisory. Citibank officials can ignore it if they want.

For years, the company’s executives had promised that their pay would be strictly tied to performance. The CEO, Vikram Pandit, had been making $1 a year since the bailout during which time the bank performed miserably. But this year, the bank’s directors decided that Pandit deserved to get back on the gravy train with the rest of the industry’s CEOs.

The following day, shareholders at another smaller regional bank, FirstMeritCorp of Akron, Ohio, rejected the compensation package for their CEO in another “say on pay” vote. Directors of that bank wanted to raise the CEO’s pay $1 million to $6.4 million a year, after the bank’s stock had fallen 20 percent during the past year.

They’re just a couple of non-binding votes. But I found it striking that when Main Street voters had the opportunity to express their opinion directly on one aspect of Wall Street’s practices, the voters voiced disapproval.

Wall Street can’t dismiss their shareholders as a bunch of Occupy Wall Street types out to destroy the system, or marginalize their rejection as mere envy. These are hardnosed investors who would like nothing better than for Wall Street banks to get on solid footing and make money. But these voters realize that despite all the administration’s happy talk about how well the bailouts have worked, the banks still aren’t sound, and that the outrageous pay for top executives who haven’t delivered is a big part of the problem because it encourages focus on short-term profit, loading up on risk and relying on continuing government help to prop up their businesses.

According to Weidner, polls show that most voters have moved on from anger at Wall Street. That may be so. But if ordinary citizens, rather than Washington insiders beholden to Wall Street, were making decisions, I think they would coolly, calmly and rationally favor the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, and sensible regulation that would keep the titans from getting too carried away with themselves and their schemes.

Congress / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 04/20/2012

In new Hollywood role, former senator plays the heavy

Thanks to Hollywood lobbyist and former Senate banking chair Chris Dodd for telling it like it is.

Dodd warned that Hollywood’s big-money contributors, who have been very, very good to President Obama and his fellow Democrats, might withhold their cash after the president expressed reservations over a controversial Internet anti-piracy bill.

Who ever would have guessed it would be Dodd, who during his 21-year-long career in Washington collected more than $48 million in campaign contributions, much of it from the financial industry he was supposed to be overseeing, who would cut through all the lies and palaver to deliver the knockout punch to our Citizens United-poisoned political system?

“Candidly, those who count on quote `Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,” Dodd told Fox News. “Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

But who better than Dodd to make clear what contributors expect for their cash. He knows exactly how the system works, from both sides of the revolving door.

It was Dodd, after all, who made sure that AIG executives got their bonuses in 2009 while taxpayers were bailing out the firm at the heart of the subprime meltdown. It was no coincidence that AIG executives had showered Dodd with $56,000 in contributions.

Nobody knows this terrain as well as Dodd.

He was a “friend of Angelo,” one of those elected officials who personally got sweet mortgage deals – at below market rates– from Angelo Mozilo, the head of the Countrywide, the mortgage company that nearly sank under the weight of its subprime trash loans until Bank of America rescued it. (His colleagues on the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed a complaint against him.)

While he and his colleague, Rep. Barney Frank (House Financial Services Committee?), oversaw the watering down of financial reform legislation in the wake of the financial crisis, Dodd played the role of beleaguered public servant, wringing his hands in frustration over the army of lobbyists against whom he was claimed he powerless.

But now that’s he moved from Washington to Hollywood, he’s got a new script that calls for tough, public, bare-knuckled threats to the president of the United States.

And whatever he owes the American public for his perfidy as an elected official, we owe him a debt of gratitude for it. Because he has exposed the political system and the money that dominates it for what it is.

As Dodd has illustrated so eloquently, the Supreme Court got it wrong in their infamous Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to dump unlimited, unreported cash into our political system.

Money is not free speech. I don’t know whether Bob Dylan had Congress in mind when he sang nearly 30 years ago, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears,” but he was prophetic.

The impact of money in politics has put a curse on our democracy, and it won’t be lifted until we throw the corporations and the billionaires’ money out.

As Dodd’s remarks demonstrate, big money campaign contributions are a blunt force instrument, which corporate interests and the wealthy can use to control the politicians who depend on them for their livelihoods, as Dodd did when he was playing the part of the distinguished U.S. senator.

Rest assured, the people who gave him $48 million knew his real role was so serve them, whatever lines he was required to utter for the scene he was playing at the time.

AIG / Citizens United / Congress / Executive Pay / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 02/01/2012

Get Off Corporate Crack

I spent last week at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis, a gathering of activists who embrace the progressive label in one way or another.

The news media was there in force, churning out stories about how these progressives are dissatisfied with President Obama’s performance. That’s especially true in his handling of the economy, where unemployment is still too high, the foreclosure crisis is still rampant, the financial sector still hasn’t been adequately reformed after its excesses and Wall Street lobbyists have tangled up in knots even the meager attempts to regulate bankers.

One refrain summed up the frustration with the president’s performance on the economy: “No one has gone to jail.”

But beyond the venting that the media focused on was another, potentially bigger story that has the possibility of leapfrogging the divide between left and right.

That was the emerging demand for a mass movement to rid our politics of the corporate funding that has been as devastating as crack cocaine was in the streets.

Our politicians are hooked on corporate crack, and they will do anything and say anything to get it. They will break any promise, without caring how foolish and hypocritical they look.

This corporate money undermines both parties: Democrats promise to protect workers and consumers but end up promoting ineffective half-measures, while Republicans express support for the free market but actually support the unfettered power of a corporate oligarchy.

I had the opportunity to point out a recent example of how this corporate crack makes fools out of politicians and even the president of the United States during a Netroots session with Jeremy Bird, national strategy adviser to the Obama campaign.

I recounted how one day after reading about a secret meeting between Obama and his Wall Street donors at the White House, I received an email from Obama asking for five bucks, promising a different kind of fundraising campaign that didn’t rely on fat cats.

“Which is it?” I asked Bird. You can read Roll Call’s account here.

Bird responded that Obama’s “multi-faceted” fundraising wouldn’t take money from political campaign committees or lobbyists, but Wall Street contributions are welcome.

Does the president really see a distinction, or is he just hoping no one is paying attention?

If the politicians are counting on people feeling too cynical and helpless to take action, that may be changing, sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens’ United, which said that corporate campaign contributions are a form of free speech so they cannot be restricted.

During another session, John Nichols, the Nation’s crusading Washington correspondent issued a fiery call for a nationwide movement to promote a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens’ United.

He compared the potential impact of such a movement to the impact of the movement for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Though the “right to life” movement hasn’t achieved success. Nichols said, it has changed the nature of the debate.
Back on the subject of overturning Citizens’ United, Nichols said, “I can live without the actual constitutional amendment. But I can’t live without the movement.”

We need a movement that labels corporate crack exactly what it is. It’s not speech. It’s bribery.

Action / Around the Web / Congress / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 06/22/2011

Missing the Message

It’s absolutely clear that the Republicans mean to work with the big banks to block any financial reform, no matter how watered down, by any political means necessary.

The Republicans have opposed the president’s nominees in committee. As far as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, they oppose not only the popular consumer champion Elizabeth Warren to be its chief, they will oppose anyone President Obama nominates. The Republicans have made their intentions clear – they want to gut the agency before it’s born.

Meanwhile the bank lobbyists have gone to work on the regulators who are writing the actual rules to implement last year’s financial reforms, and have effectively stalled the process in its tracks.

To make sure that no one is missing the message, J.P. Morgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon went on the offensive this week, publicly stating that excessive financial regulation was weakening the economic recovery. Without offering specifics, Dimon told Fed chair Ben Bernanke at a bankers’ conference, “I have a great fear someone’s going to try to write a book in 20 years, and the book is going to talk about all the things that we did in the middle of the crisis to actually slow down recovery.”

While the bankers have been working feverishly behind the scenes to further water down the weak Dodd-Frank version of financial reform, Dimon’s statements are the most aggressive public challenge yet to any attempts to rein in the big banks.

What’s unclear is why the president is not meeting this assault on one of his proudest achievements (Wall Street reform) head on, despite the Republicans’ and bankers’ clear signals that they have no intention to compromise. Rather than mounting a strong public case for Warren, for example, the White House continues to float alternative, less qualified, nominees. Obama seems to be laboring under the illusion that there is somebody else who satisfy the Republicans. What’s baffling is that he has no reason to think so: the Republicans haven’t exactly been ambiguous. The bankers are also taking off the gloves, with only a few lonely voices in Washington to make the case for stronger reform.

When will our president get the message?

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 06/10/2011

Top 4 Lesson Big Bankers Can Teach Us

America’s bankers have been extraordinarily effective in responding to a financial crisis that they created. They’ve worked hard to make sure that the response to the crisis didn’t threaten their fat bonuses or their awesome political power.

They succeeded in gutting the toughest aspects of financial reform. Then they started lobbying the regulators who will have the enforcement power.

Now they’re toiling to undermine a proposed settlement with authorities over widespread abuses in the foreclosure process, and demonizing consumer champion Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the process.

Of course they’re getting plenty of help from their government enablers. As Gretchen Morgenstern reported in the New York Times, the 50 state attorney generals who are supposed to be spearheading the investigation into the foreclosures aren’t doing any actual investigating.

This puts them at a definite disadvantage when they sit down to negotiate with the banks.

Those of us who aren’t bankers and would like to see a different outcome could learn a few things from the bankers.

How do the bankers do it?

They’re relentless. They don’t take no for an answer and they don’t know the meaning of defeat. They have lots of money and they’re not afraid to spend it on campaign contributions and lobbying. While we may not be able to match their cash, there’s no reason we can’t be as relentless as the big bankers. They wouldn’t still be in business, let alone raking in billions in bonuses, if we hadn’t bailed them out.
They have no illusions about loyalty. They spent big to elect President Obama. But when it looked like they could get more from the Republicans, they switched sides. Nobody can take their support for granted.
They have no shame. They never apologized for all the risk and fraud that created the collapse. They never offered to tighten their belts or pick up part of the tab. They just kept fighting for their selfish interests.
They maintained their sense of humor. How else do you explain their carping about how anti-business the president is, while Obama’s team does whatever it can to prop up the “too big to fail banks” while wringing its hands that it just can’t do any more to help the unemployed or distressed homeowners?

Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Foreclosure / Martin Column / Outrage - 03/19/2011

Phony Moderates, Real Power

Beware wolves dressed in moderates’ clothing.

Especially the “fresh thinking” as gussied up by the group calling itself “Third Way,” which tries to put a genteel, highbrow facade on its advocacy for increasing austerity and financial insecurity for the majority of Americans.

Digging beneath the sunny platitudes about promoting growth, you will find that the organization is chock full of high finance types and their political servants, so it’s no surprise that they’re more interested in rethinking what they like to belittle as entitlements and boosting too big-to fail banks than they are in raising questions about the financial system.

And they’re not laying down these proposals just to hear themselves talk.

These people have real power to set the terms of the debate and strongly influence decision-makers.

The most obvious example is President Obama’s new chief of staff, Bill Daley, the former top official of J.P. Morgan who sits on Third Way’s board.

He’s just the latest in a string of bad appointments the president has made to oversee the nation's economy, from Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to Gene Sperling, the Goldman-Sachs alum who fought for financial deregulation in the Clinton White House, who was recently appointed to replace Summers on the Council of Economic Advisers. Then there's Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s CEO the outsourcing, plant-shutting ace who Obama put in charge of reducing the unemployment rate.

For his part, Daley seems to have earned his job as the president’s chief adviser by fighting against financial reform, especially from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The mainstream media has worked hard to foster the idea of centrism, with Third Way as a prime proponent of “moderate ideas.”

But there’s nothing moderate about the continuing unhealthy influence of corporate America over our political process, fostering policies that are turning us into something more like a Third World country polarized between haves and have nots than the land of opportunity for all.

There’s nothing moderate about the fear-driven wealth and power grab, otherwise known as the federal bailout, that entrenched the wealth built for a select few in the years of the bubble economy, while it increased economic insecurity for the rest of us. As Neil Barofsky, TARP’s inspector-general, pointed out in his most recent report, it also entrenched the political and financial clout of “too big to fail” financial institutions.

There’s nothing moderate about the austerity agenda of shared sacrifice which consists of cuts to Social Security, Medicare and education.

There’s nothing moderate about the attack on the economic system that was built in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, which combined the power of the free market with a system of regulation and safety nets. That attack, with its intellectual underpinnings in the work of the economist Milton Friedman, was launched in the 1980s and has been carried forward by politicians of both parties.

Meanwhile, two of the most impassioned politicians standing up to that attack, from opposite ends of the spectrum, would probably be characterized by the mainstream media as extremist: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, and Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian from Texas. Those two men, who would probably find much to disagree on, worked together to pass a bill to audit the highly secretive activities of the Federal Reserve during the bailout.

You may or may not agree with Sanders or Paul either, but they aren’t afraid to challenge a status quo which props up the powerful while undermining the powerless.

You can scour Third Way’s materials and you won’t find anything that challenges the risky practices of financial institutions that wrecked our economy. You won’t find anything that challenges the power equation that props up the status quo. Behind its rhetoric of moderation, Third Way knows which side it’s on.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / President Barack Obama - 02/08/2011

Death by a Thousand "Buts"

After two years in office, President Obama has decided it's time to fix one of the colossal mistakes of his predecessor: too much federal regulation.

I don't remember George W. Bush as a consumer advocate who, in his zeal to regulate corporations, got carried away. But last week President Obama announced a new priority for his administration. Federal regulations “sometimes have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” the President explained, implying that it was in fact the government that crippled our economy, just like pro-corporate conservatives have been saying.

Faced with this threat to our national security, there was only one thing to do, and Obama stepped up. He commanded the entire federal government to review every regulation on the books and get rid of “outdated” rules and “unnecessary paperwork.” In a rousing call to arms, the President concluded: “This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary.”

Obama didn’t invent the cost/benefit approach to regulation. That was concocted by big business-funded think tanks and adopted by President Ronald Reagan, who issued Executive Order 12291 immediately after taking office in 1981. Its preface is eerily similar to Obama’s, proposing “to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations…”

Reagan demanded that any regulation that imposed costs on businesses that exceeded its "benefits" be eliminated. The problem is that cost/benefit analysis doesn’t always take into account certain intangible considerations or values that are difficult to quantify in dollars, such as the benefits of unpolluted water or the worth of a human being. In an infamous internal memo (PDF) uncovered in litigation over the now extinct Ford Pinto’s exploding gas tank, company executives compared the cost of fixing the vehicles ($137 million) versus what it would have to pay for expected deaths and injuries ($49.5 million) and decided that the cost of repairing each car - $11 dollars – exceeded the benefits.

Government is supposed to protect us against such reasoning, not use it as a guiding principle.

I was working at Public Citizen Congress Watch in Washington, D.C. at the time, and Reagan’s disdain for government regulation became the centerpiece of his Administration agenda. James Watt, Reagan’s controversial appointee to the Interior Department, sacked the agency, turning it into a mouthpiece for oil, mining and other industries supposedly regulated by the agency. The Reagan Administration’s deregulation of savings banks led to reckless investments, fraud and corruption, necessitating a bailout – sound familiar? – that ultimately cost taxpayers about $124 billion.

Is history repeating itself? In a nod to those who supported him as a candidate because of his forceful speeches against special interests and corporate abuses, President Obama was careful to acknowledge the importance of “child labor laws,” “the Clean Air Act” and federal rules against “hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies.” In a nod to the elephant in a pink dress sitting on the divan in our living rooms, the President noted that “a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.” “Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps” in federal rules, Obama insisted.

It's painfully obvious that the President hoped his foray into Reagan-style anti-regulation rhetoric would curry favor with Wall Street, its wholly-owned subsidiary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and their toadies in Congress. They’ve been very, very mad at the President ever since he had the temerity to sign a toothless financial reform bill that left the financial industry free to revert to its pre-bailout speculative ways, not to mention the hopelessly compromised health care law that requires every American to buy health insurance from private insurance companies starting in 2014, but does not effectively regulate how much we have to pay them.

Obama went so far as to announce his new regulatory policy in a guest column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, where at least one attack on Obama is on the menu every day.

This latest gesture of appeasement didn’t work out as the President hoped, though. "Yes, but" was the nearly universal response from the intended recipients of the President’s largesse, as Associated Press reporter Tom Raum reported. For your convenience, I’ve highlighted the “but factor”:

“Obama’s action is ‘a positive first step,’ said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business organization. But, Donohue added, ‘a robust and globally competitive economy requires fundamental reform of our broken regulatory system.’ He called on Congress to 'reclaim some of the authority it has delegated to agencies.’"

“The National Association of Manufacturers said it ‘appreciated’ Obama’s call for a regulatory review, but called for Obama to demonstrate results by ‘delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs,’ listing the EPA’s proposals to regulate greenhouse gases as a prime example."

A “spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, called Obama’s review a welcome acknowledgment that government regulations have economic consequences. But he said the president should take bolder steps immediately.”

"David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, said in an interview that it was ‘fully appropriate to engage in a baseline review of existing federal regulations.’ But Walker, head of a balanced-budget advocacy group called Comeback America Initiative, questioned having the agencies themselves hunt for harmful regulations. ‘We need to have an independent review process that has transparency,” he said. Walker said many of today’s regulations date back to the 1950s and need to be revamped.”

For a little conjunctional variety, here's the response of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

“Obama’s executive order ‘shows that he heard the same message I did in the last election - that Americans are sick and tired of Washington’s excessive overreach and overspending.’ ‘While I applaud his efforts, we must go further,’ Kantor added. He proposed more aggressive steps to strike down ‘needless and burdensome’ regulations that plague businesses and stifle job growth.”

President Obama still doesn’t understand that his political opponents will never voluntarily support anything he does, short of a complete capitulation (and perhaps not even then). This is not just a matter of interest to the political class. If the White House spends the next two years trying to placate the implacable, the rules, regulations and legislation needed to restore the economy and protect the public health and safety are never going to see daylight.

A NOTE TO READERS: If you like what you read here, please share it with your friends on Facebook, Twitter etc. - click on the icons at the top of this column.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2011

Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do. Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

Around the Web / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 06/30/2010

Bombing Ants in the Sausage Factory

The only aspect of the financial reform legislation that’s truly strong is the level of rhetorical nonsense that both parties have unleashed around it: Democrats and the media exaggerate when they praise it as “the toughest financial overhaul since the Great Depression.”

Not to be outdone, the Republican House minority leader, John Boehner, has weighed in, describing the proposal as a nuclear weapon being used to kill an ant.

Which would make the financial crisis the ant, I guess.

On Tuesday, the nuclear bomb had to go back to the, uh, sausage factory, for some more grinding after Sen. Robert Byrd’s death and the defection of a former Republican reform supporter left the Dems with less than the 60 votes they need to overcome the wall of Republican opposition.

One of the few chinks in that wall had been Sen. Scott Brown. But Brown balked after a $20 billion tax on hedge funds and banks was inserted into the legislation to pay for the costs of modest additional regulation. The Republican senator from Massachusetts said he opposed placing a greater burden on financial institutions and he feared the costs of the tax would be passed on to consumers. So the reform proposal is headed back to the conference committee.

Let’s be clear: overheated and mangled rhetoric aside, the financial reform proposal does nothing to reduce the risk posed by our “too-big to fail” banks or to prevent another crisis. The proposal leaves much of the details to regulators subject to lobbying by the very institutions they’re supposed to oversee.

Now legislators think they’ve found a better bet to fund their reform: you!

According to the New York Times, they’re considering ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program early and diverting about $11 billion in taxpayer funds.

The Times observed this leaves legislators with a couple of awkward choices. “So,” the Times concludes, “the choice becomes a tax that might be passed along to consumers, or a charge directly to American taxpayers.”

Is this the best they can do? I’m increasingly sympathetic to Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who is bucking his president and party, opposing reform because it doesn’t get the job done.

I would suggest that Boehner got it wrong, that the ant[s] are not the financial crisis; they’re the legislators scrambling around serving the banks’ interests when they’re supposed to be serving ours.

But that would give ants a bad name.

Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / TARP - 06/29/2010