What's Plan B For Jobs?

That’s the big question after the Republicans, true to their word, killed President Obama’s $447 billion jobs proposal.

In response, the president has pledged to break up his plan, which is already too small to significantly reduce unemployment, into even smaller chunks that the Republicans might swallow. It’s hard to find anybody who believes that’s a serious plan to put a dent in unemployment.

The only job the president seems to have a clue about preserving is his own, continuing to raise campaign cash at a record-breaking pace, raising $70 million for his own and Democrats’ reelection.

Meanwhile Republicans pursue their own single-minded agenda to enhance corporate power and their own – destroy President Obama, reduce taxes and cripple government regulation.

Unfortunately for Republicans, when you look at the facts, regulations don’t turn out to be much of a threat to jobs after all

The only legislation the two parties agree on are a handful of NAFTA-style trade agreements that most Americans fear will only lead to more outsourcing.

Where does that leave the 99 percent?

Out in the street.

That’s where they’ll be across the country and the globe today, to register their frustration with a political and financial elite whose actions created persistently high unemployment, plummeting home values, social service cutbacks and a world of growing economic uncertainty.

As OccupyLA states on its web site, “We have been giving away our representation to people who do not deserve it …”

Check here for a list of demonstrations around the world.

 

 

Congress / D.C. Disconnect / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 10/15/2011

News Flash: Giving Banks Billions Won't Create Jobs

Last year, President Obama signed into law the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund as a way to stimulate job creation.

"It's going to speed relief to small businesses across the country right away," Obama said at the time.

It was supposed to help create 500,000 jobs.

Well, not so much.

Not only has the program been a dismal failure, with few banks applying to participate, but it turned into another giant taxpayer handout to bankers.

Only $4 billion was handed over to banks under the lending scheme. The bankers didn’t use it to boost small businesses, and it turned out they weren’t even required to. Instead the bankers used more than $2 billion to pay off their bailout debt to the Troubled Asset  Relief Program, according to a story in the October 12 Wall Street Journal (no link).

“It was basically a bailout for a 100-plus banks,” Giovanni Coratolo, vice-president of small-business policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the Journal.

None of this should come as a surprise. Bankers said at the time that the problem was not that they didn’t have enough money to lend, but that demand for loans was weak because of the continuing bad economy.

“Until you start to see the economy improve and job growth you won’t see lots of loan demand,” Thomas Dorr, chief financial officer of Bank of Birmingham in Michigan, which received $4.6 million from the program, told Bloomberg. “You can’t force banks to lend.”

The lending program was either just another veiled handout to the banks or another lame attempt at trickle-down stimulus. Either way it contributes to the strong impression that our political leaders aren’t actually working on solutions, they’re getting in our way.

Congress / D.C. Disconnect / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TARP - 10/13/2011

The Real "Entitlements"

For most of us, the Wall Street housing bubble popped in 2008, with painful consequences.

But for those at the top of the nation’s too big to fail banks, the party keeps rocking, even though their institutions are still in trouble and wouldn’t even exist without taxpayers’ generosity.

Take for example that wild and crazy region known as Bank of Americaland, where dwells one of the country’s biggest and sickest banks.

It’s basically never recovered from the financial collapse, which, in Bank of America’s case included a nasty hangover induced by swallowing up the king of sleazy subprime lending, Countrywide, as well as fallen investment banking titan Merrill Lynch (labeled in 2009 by the Wall Street Journal the “$50 billion deal from Hell – no link).

Here’s how Bank of America has squandered its share of the bailout: engaging in a pattern of improper foreclosures on military families and spending millions in campaign contributions and lobbying to fight regulation of its business. Most recently, the bank imposed a new $60 annual debit card on its customers.

After all, the bank’s president, Brian Moynihan, insisted, Bank of America “has a right make a profit,” which occasionally will have to be guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

The company is doing so poorly that it’s going to have lay off 30,000 of its employees, some of whom will spend their waning days training their lower paid, outsourced replacements. But the company isn't doing so poorly that it didn’t manage to tuck away $11 million to the ease of parting for two of its top executives.

After all, they’re executives of a floundering bank that’s made a series of poor business decisions. So they’re “entitled” to get even more money on top of their fat salaries.

Across the political spectrum, it’s become fashionable to belittle programs like Social Security and Medicaid as “entitlements,” turning that into a dirty word. But like so much about our current, out of touch with reality political debate, it’s completely upside down.

The way the debate has been framed by our political leaders and media, they’re only “entitlements” if they’re claimed by the 99 percent of Americans who have suffered in the collapse of the middle-class and economic meltdown.

We need a crackdown on “entitlements” all right, but on the real  entitlements, the ones claimed by the top 1 percent, like those Bank of America lays claim to, scooping up millions for its executives while gouging its customers and buying our political system through lobbying and campaign contributions.

But Bank of America won’t give up these entitlements without a fight, because the bankers believe that these are the benefits they’ have a right to, along with their profits.

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 10/13/2011

Tweet Charlie: Pop the Corporate Personhood Question

Now that Mitt Romney has taken a stand on corporate personhood, shouldn’t the rest of the Republican field?

Luckily, they have the perfect opportunity to all go on the record this Tuesday at their debate in New Hampshire.

They may need a little help. That’s why we’re tweeting the debate moderator, Charlie Rose, to remind him about this key issue and suggest he should pin the candidates down on their stance.

In case you missed it, Romney made his position clear at the Iowa State Fair in August, when he said, in response to an angry heckler, “Corporations are people, my friend.”

The only other Republican candidate who I found has taken a stand is Ron Paul, who came out strongly against the notion that corporations are people.

Rose also might want to follow up with Romney: if corporations are people for purposes of political contributions, why aren’t they people for the purposes of paying taxes, where they have an entirely separate set of laws that enable corporations to take advantage of all kinds of arcane loopholes, so that many of the largest companies, like General Electric, pay absolutely no taxes?

If Charlie wants to get beyond the rhetoric to the heart of the uneasy feeling most people are having about our political system, he should follow up with these questions:

Is it good for our country for corporate lobbyists to have unlimited access to our politicians to engineer trillions in no strings attached bailouts and other special treatment for their clients, while Americans without that access get screwed?

Is it OK for corporations to buy our politicians with lavish anonymous contributions, making a mockery of our democracy? 

Nothing shows the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country better than the U.S. Supreme Court’s terrible Citizen United decision last year, which defined corporations as people under the First Amendment for purposes of influencing elections and unleashed a tsunami of anonymous corporate donations to politicians and their PACs.

Isn’t the best way to fix the corporate dominance over our politics to pass a constitutional amendment, like the one we have proposed here, to undo Citizens United?

I’m sure I’m not the only American who’d like to hear the Republican candidates’ answers to these questions. I’m sure plenty of other Americans would like to hear the answers as well.

Tweet Charlie @charlieroseshow. Ask him in your own words or feel free to send him this post.

Go ahead, Charlie, pop the questions.

Citizens United / Martin Column - 10/07/2011

Government Under the Influence

While the media’s grand poobahs have been poopooing the Occupy movement as a bunch of clueless hippies, the occupiers themselves couldn’t be more focused on the source of their frustration.

It’s a political system addicted to corporate cash, with politicians willing to do and say anything to keep it coming.

The occupiers communicate a keen sense of just how outrageously we have been betrayed by a government captured by corporate campaign contributions, lobbyists and the cozy swinging door between government and big business.

Though the occupiers have been criticized for not arriving with a full legislative agenda in tow, the homemade cardboard signs they carry pithily describe the world that has been too often, until now, left out of the political debate between our two parties, which, just like other kinds of addicts, are unable to have an honest conversation about their substance abuse, or to acknowledge the damage it’s done.

The issue of corporate influence peddling has also been largely left out of the media’s horse race political coverage, which focuses on philosophical differences between left and right rather than what the occupiers are focused on – the corporate might that has overwhelmed our politics.

The occupiers know that at the root of our financial collapse, bank bailout, jobless recovery and continuing housing crisis is one root cause – the undue influence of bankers and corporate titans over our political system.


So it’s left to the youth camped out in parks across the country to pose the tough questions.

They’re picking up on the strong rhetoric Barack Obama himself used back when he was a candidate about the need for fundamental change in our political system. But the president abandoned that quest, and now he’s got to raise $1 billion dollars to fund his reelection ambitions.

The occupiers have also picked up on Obama’s call for civility, with their own devotion to process and making sure everybody gets heard. The cynics are having a blast mocking the occupiers’ general assembly meetings. But the atmosphere at the occupations is a world away from the toxic cable talking point battles that have gotten the country nowhere. Let’s see who has the last laugh.

Here at WheresOurMoney, we’re offering a powerful antidote to the toxic flow of corporate money that is poisoning our democracy: a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United ruling, which said that for purposes of political contributions, corporations are just like people. This terrible decision will only make a bad situation worse and we’ve got to start the fight against it now. You can read the amendment, get more background on Citizens United, and sign a petition here.

Citizens United / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/06/2011

Channel surfing at the White House

I went to the White House Friday week for a full day listening and talking back to top White House officials with about 100 Democratic activists and organizers from California, organized by the Courage Campaign.
The White House folks seemed to listen hard. Gathered in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, we heard from top staff including chief of staff Bill Daley, senior advisors David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett, EPA chief Lisa Jackson, and Labor secretary Hilda Solis, along with other staff on specific issues. They asked us not to offer specific quotes from people, but they didn't offer up any juicy secrets or stray from the administration talking points we've all heard before.
They got an earful of what they have certainly heard before as well: like many others across the country, we wanted the president to fight harder for bolder programs to reduce unemployment and address the foreclosure crisis.
There were a series of breakout sessions on a variety of issues: immigration, lesbian and gay rights, labor and environment. But the concerns were the same. Would the president fight harder? When would he compromise and how much would he give away? I was disappointed that the White House didn't offer a breakout session on a especially critical issue for Californians: the foreclosure crisis.
According to the White House, President Obama doesn't get credit for how he hard he has fought against tough foes and and an economic crisis he didn't create. They cited his recent, trip to the bridge between Rep. John Boehner's and Sen. Mitch McConnell's districts where he channeled former president Ronald Reagan, exhorting the Republican leaders, "Help us repair this bridge."
I keep wishing President Obama would channel FDR, who thought that government could actually work with people to solve problems, instead of Reagan, who preached that government was itself the problem, and that it should be starved, shrunk and gotten out of the way.
Channeling one of Reagan's pithy phrases might be OK, but we'll never reduce unemployment right now using the Gipper's approach.
For that, we'll need the fearless, positive, can-do approach of FDR, who knew that government could help when the private sector wouldn't. He never achieved his goal, according to William Leuchtenberg, in Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. That was to put ALL unemployed Americans in the Depression to work. His programs only created jobs about a third of them, but not for lack of trying.
Not all of his program was so simple, but some of it was. For example, he gave unemployed white-collar workers jobs teaching people to read.
While he didn't face the monolithic, intransigent opposition President Obama faces in Congress, he offered a bold and pragmatic vision that included vilifying the bankers whose wild speculation threw the country into Depression, and acknowledging that the country was a in a deep crisis that would require dramatic, sustained government action.
Measuring Obama's Jobs Act by the standard of what FDR was able to accomplish, you can see how his proposal falls short. If Republicans passed it whole, which is unlikely, it would create at most 1.9 million jobs, providing work for nowhere near one-third of the nation's unemployed.
Obama's plan appears to be motivated by fear - fear of failure, fear of Republican rejection, fear of alienating independent voters, when what we need is audacity.
It does not seem to be motivate by an audacious vision of government action that would actually get the country back to work.

The jobs plan still might not pass, but what people are hungry for, more than bipartisanship, is that audacious vision that Obama promised and FDR delivered.
Has President Obama been so busy channeling Reagan that he forgot what FDR said about fear?
Mr. President, tune in to the right channel!

Martin Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 09/26/2011

Going to the White House

I've been a politics geek since I was about 10 years old and I went from reading the sports page of the Detroit News to the front page. I've been reading about it, arguing about it, covering it on some level as a journalist, and some times writing about it as an advocate, ever since.
So getting invited to the White House as part of a delegation of California activists, organizers and bloggers, organized by the Courage Campaign, is a big deal. A lot of us have expressed frustration with the Obama administration for it’s unwillingness to focus on jobs and housing in a more effective way, for its embrace of the austerity agenda, and its failure to hold bankers accountable in any meaningful way for the financial collapse that the whole country is still suffering from.
I was ambivalent about going at first, because this administration has sometimes seemed so determined not to get to it, to prize elusive bipartisanship over a strong fight for what’s right, for its cluelessness about the depth of the unemployment and housing crisis that continues to cause so much misery across the country.
That cluelessness was on display again in the past few days, when the president proclaimed no deficit deal would be fair without “shared sacrifice” that would require hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes while the government cut Medicaid. Does the president really believe that the sacrifice is equivalent – millionaires having to get by on a little less while people who are dependent on the government for health care get less care?
Even in planning our visit, the White House doesn’t seem to get it. We’ll have break-out sessions on education reform, the new health care law, lesbian gay transgender bisexual issues, the environment and labor – but no session on the foreclosure crisis and housing. The administration’s efforts in this area, so crucial to California’s economy, have been particularly lame. Whether or not the president’s staff wants to focus on it, I’m sure they will get an earful.
What I will suggest to the president’s people is that he’s vulnerable because he hasn’t done enough to reduce unemployment or to address the foreclosure crisis, and because too often he has accepted the Radical Republicans’ and the deficit hawks’ terms of the debate. When the president debates on those terms, he loses. We all lose.
Still, I don’t want to give up on the administration or the people who continue to put their faith in him. I’ll go in memory of my father, Irving Berg, who would be 90 this year. He saw great promise in Obama and wouldn’t allow frustration to cause me to give up on him, or fail to participate in some effort that might set Obama on a firmer course.
We meet with the president’s top staff on Friday all day. Any messages you want me to deliver?

Action / D.C. Disconnect / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 09/22/2011

Bottom Line on Fed Bailout is No Secret

Were the bankers and Federal Reserve trying to hide something in particular? Or were they just fighting Bloomberg’s lawsuit to reveal the details of the Fed’s sweetheart bailout loans out of habitual arrogance?

I’ve been wondering about this as I make my way through Bloomberg’s expose based on the data the news service forced the Fed to turn over after several years of litigation.

The Fed and the banks tried to scare the courts into keeping the data secret, warning that disclosure would stigmatize those who received the low interest loans and cause them irreparable harm.

Finally, the courts saw through all the Fed’s and the bank’s bogus arguments and ordered the data made public.

The numbers are all so mind-bogglingly huge that it’s easy to be overwhelmed, for the information to lose it’s meaning. But as Columbia Journalism Review’s The Audit pointed out, Bloomberg went straight to the heart of the issue, reminding us what kind of a bailout our politicians delivered, in which banks and other corporations got access to $1.2 trillion in low-interest loans – about the same amount U.S. homeowners are struggling with on 6.5 million delinquent or foreclosed mortgages.

But as RJ Eskow reminds us, we knew a lot of the grisly details before the latest data dump – like that the 10 largest banks got $667 billion in low-interest loans from the Fed.

What we didn’t know until now is how much of that money was an outright gift from taxpayers; Eskow estimates that it amounts to about $27 million on each $1 billion worth of loan, based on the difference between the usual 3.8 percent interest rate and the 1.1 sweetheart rate the Fed charged as part of its bailout. Because the Fed attached no strings to its generosity to the banks, the bankers never paid it forward to the rest of us, who saw our access to credit shrink. And it never occurred to the Fed that it might have stimulated the economy with a few well-placed low-interest loans to the rest of us.

The bottom line is that the Fed shouldn’t be handing out trillions of dollars without any accountability or transparency. Most Americans are not going to have wade through the details to confirm their gut feeling – we’re getting screwed.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 08/26/2011

This is Not What Real Democracy Looks Like

Why is the work of the so-called Super Congress deficit panel going to be conducted in secret as if its members were planning a covert military operation?

Do you buy the idea that these decisions its members have to make, which are supposed to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget over the next 10 years, are just so tough that if they do it in public they’ll just never get it done?

Do you think that secrecy is designed to protect your interests?

I don’t. The Super-Congress is just the latest example of the fear on steroids politics that our leaders have come to rely on when they shove something nasty down our throats. By now the formula is familiar: create a crisis, warn of dire consequences, limit information and debate.

Meanwhile behind the curtain the politicians can wheel and deal with the lobbyists and bankers who fund their careers. According to them, all theses issues are just too complicated for us common folk to contemplate.

The only thing this secrecy protects is the interests of the lobbyists and the politicians who want to cut their deals without the glare of publicity or the inconvenience of accountability when they sell out the interests of their constituents in favor of their corporate contributors.

The Super-Congress is a microcosm of all the issues raised by the infusion of massive corporate cash and influence into our politics, as well as the poisonous impact of the revolving door between Congress and the businesses that lobby it.

While the president has been railing about the influence of money in politics, his own party has made sure that their top fund-raisers have seats at the Super-Congress table, like Sen. Max Baucus (whose top fundraiser Jim Messina was so good Obama hired him away for his presidential campaign, and Sen. Patty Murray, who also happens to chair the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which means it up to her to lead the party’s fundraising efforts to maintain its Senate majority.

The Republicans have also deployed top money-getters like Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who’s vice-chair of the House financial services committees, a traditional money magnet, which has worked well for Hensarling, who since 2009 has snagged at least $35,000 from the giant auditing firm KPMG, another $35,000 from UBS bank and $32,500 from Bank of America.

Who do you think will have access to Baucus, Murray and Hensarling while the Super-Congress deliberates behind closed doors? Ordinary Americans, or those who can make significant contributions to Baucus and Murray’s fundraising efforts?

In response to these potential conflicts, the Project on Government Oversight and other open government groups wrote to congressional leaders urging maximum transparency.

As Bill Buzenberg summed it up in the Guardian, “Over the years, Washington has evolved into a highly oiled special-interest machine, plying candidates with money, on one hand, and grooming insiders to help close the deal, on the other. So far, this ethically corrupt system has proven extraordinarily resistant to reform.”

In response to these potential conflicts, the Project on Government Oversight and other open government groups wrote to congressional leaders urging maximum transparency so that the rest of us can see and read exactly what’s going on. Contact your representative and demand that the Super-Congress conduct our business in public view, the way democracy is supposed to work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congress / Martin Column / Outrage - 08/24/2011

Debt Wish

The most perplexing question that arises out of the S&P downgrade of the U.S. debt is why we’re still worrying about what they think, after all the credit rating agencies’ previous political shenanigans.

The credit rating agencies claim they are entitled to their opinions under the First Amendment, even if they are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

But anything that the S&P offers should be taken with a huge grain of salt. As James Kwak pointed out on Baseline Scenario, the S&P’s latest insights into our financial/economic/political mess weren’t exactly earth-shattering. Apparently S&P wanted us to know that they recognized we’re suffering from political gridlock in Washington.

Thank you, S&P.

If the rating agency really wanted to offer a public service, it might have pointed out that the big banks’ bundled mortgages were nothing but trash before the economy collapsed.

But of course, as we know should all know by now, S&P and the other credit rating agencies are no more interested in peddling public service any more than they are interested in offering accurate information or thorough analysis.

S&P and the others are interested in serving the interests of Wall Street, and right now Wall Street is interested in forcing its austerity agenda on the rest of us. S&P is just trying to do its small part to batter any resistance we might offer.

Like the too big to fail banks, S&P has perfected the kind of lack of shame which allows it to dispense its financial opinions with a straight face, demanding to be taken seriously even though it missed the fraud, sloppiness and greed that led up the financial collapse.

Come to think of it, there is a more perplexing question about S&P: how come a swarm of federal investigators hasn’t taken the agency down, following up on the earlier Senate investigation?

Jane Hamsher has an interesting take on that question at firedoglake, posing the theory that S&P’s thrashing of the U.S. credit rating is an effort to pay back Republicans for keeping the authorities off S&P’s back. In the bigger picture, S&P is just trying to play its part in efforts by leaders of both parties to slash Social Security and other programs that benefit the middle class under the guise of balancing the budget.

But the S&P tipped its political hand by favoring cuts to social programs over tax loophole-closing, revenue-raising, or real defense cuts. When Wall Street and its cronies need help, the credit rating agencies will always do their part.

 

 

 

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