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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congress / Martin Column - 07/30/2011

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

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

Synthetic Tea

If you were looking for leadership of a real grass-roots movement for social change, Dick Armey might not be your first choice.

After he rose to become House Republican majority leader, he quit to cash in on his political connections with the top lobbying shop DLA Piper law firm. He’s also on the payroll of the Koch Brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity, one of the main sources of organizational backing of the Tea Party.

I’ve been critical of the Obama campaign’s hypocritical promises of a new kind of fundraising campaign that relies only on small donors, not fat cats, while he seeks donations from Wall Street.

But Obama’s nemeses in the Tea Party are no better, portraying themselves as a grassroots populist movement while relying on members of the Republican permanent government like Armey for leadership.

Armey actually had to quit his lobbying job because of his DLA  Piper clients favored Obama’s health care reform, after the president cut a deal to secure support from drug companies. The Tea Party, meanwhile, has been dead set against the Obama plan.

It’s not that somebody like Armey, with his vast knowledge gained from slithering through the corridors of power all these years, might not have something to offer an authentic grassroots movement. But wouldn’t he have to offer a renunciation of his past connections before he participate? Wouldn’t he have to acknowledge that he had been part of the problem before he could be part of the solution?

Whatever minor disagreements Armey’s former clients might have with the Tea Party agenda, their interests dovetail neatly. Demonizing government and railing against strong regulations will only mean fewer watchdogs for the drug companies and bankers DLA Piper serves, and fewer tools to hold them accountable.

 

Martin Column - 06/28/2011

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