Fed Up: Down With Bernanke

President Obama can’t credibly rail against Wall Street fat cats while fighting for their chief enabler.

Here’s all you need to know right now to decipher the confusing messages from the White House and the Democratic leadership:

Ignore the faux populist rhetoric and keep your eyes on the contentious U.S. Senate vote on confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve.

If Obama and Democrats want to show they now “get it” on why people are so angry over the mishandling of the bailout and the economy, they should dump Bernanke without delay.

But the White House and Democratic leadership, including senators Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, continue to strongly support Bernanke. Other Democratic senators, like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, as well as Republicans such as senators Richard Shelby and John McCain, oppose him.

The prime reason Bernanke deserves to be dumped is that he is not a reformer or strong regulator during a time of reform and increased regulation. The crisis hasn’t caused him to reconsider. Bernanke even opposes a key plank in President Obama’s reform proposal – the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He may nod reassuringly in the direction of Main Street but he’s an insider of the Wall Street elite whose prevailing philosophy is a combination of “What’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S.A” and “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Some observers credit Bernanke with keeping the country from slipping into another Great Depression.

The country managed to avoid an economic fiasco on the scale of the depression. But why should Bernanke get the credit?

Everything the Fed does is cloaked in a secrecy and doublespeak that mocks the president’s promise of the most transparent administration in history.

What we know for sure about the Fed’s response is that it shoveled cash and cheap credit in the direction of its favored Wall Street targets. Bernanke and the Fed have resisted disclosure of any facts and figures about what they did. When the details do emerge, they smell fishy.

For example, Reuters reported on emails that were obtained through subpoena by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, who is investigating the role of the Fed in the AIG bailout.

What Reuters found was that the Fed, under Bernanke’s direction, along with the SEC, wanted to protect the details of the AIG bailout with a level of secrecy usually reserved for matters of national security.  In the emails, Bernanke’s staff ridicules the clamor for more public disclosure about the bailout.

At issue are payments the Fed made to firms that carried insurance with AIG on bed bets those firms had made on investments. Those firms, called counterparties, included the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Fed paid off AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar on their bad bets: extremely unusual with companies in such deep distress relying on the kindness of taxpayers not to take some losses.

Just what do Bernanke and the Fed have to hide? Whose interests are being protected?  We need to get to the bottom of those questions, not reward those keeping us from the answers to them.

Even if Bernanke did get credit for his role in the bailout, that wouldn’t be enough reason to confirm him for another term. He missed the housing bubble before the meltdown and has shown no indication he would recognize another bubble when it occurs. He has also misread the impact of the economic stimulus.

In addition, the Fed under Bernanke's watch failed at on one of its cores missions – reducing unemployment. Bernanke is more afraid of increasing inflation than he is of increasing unemployment. It’s time for the Fed to shed its cloak of secrecy and elitism and push for an economy that benefits everybody, not just Wall Street. That transformation will be challenging; Bernanke has shown he’s not the kind of leader for these times.

Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trying out the old scare tactics, threatening that the markets will fall if Bernanke loses his job. But these are the same kinds of scare tactics that a previous administration used on Congress to forestall debate in its haste to push a poorly considered bailout scheme. We may have expected such tactics from the Bush Administration, but President Obama set higher standards for his administration. Now is the time for him to live up to them.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know too.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/25/2010

All Nader is Saying is Give Super-Rich a Chance

Having spent the last half century showing ordinary citizens how they could  fight corporate power, legendary crusader and presidential candidate Ralph Nader has taken on a new project.

Now he wants the wealthy, more specifically, the wealthiest of the wealthy, to confront the country’s problems.

In undertaking the project, Nader didn’t call a teleconference, issue a manifesto in the New York Times or send an email to George Soros.

He toiled for 5 years on Underwood typewriters to write his target audience an eccentric 733-page work of fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.” Nader describes it as a  “practical utopia.”

And Nader says the super-rich have to read the whole thing in order to get the message because it’s a “blueprint for action.”

“I talked to Ted Turner the other day,” Nader told me by phone. “He said he’d  gotten through 100 pages.”

A character based on Turner, named Ted Turner, plays a starring role in the book, along with 16 other characters based on the super-rich and celebrities, including Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Warren Beatty. The story follows the super-rich and a parrot in their collaborative effort to turn the country around.

Yoko Ono plays a key role in the novel, inventing a logo that causes people to discard their apathy. Warren Buffet gets the ball rolling, inspired by a visit to post-Katrina New Orleans. Sol Price, the founder of Costco, eulogized on WheresOurMoney.org several weeks ago, leads a successful campaign to unionize Wal-Mart. Warren Beatty runs for governor against Schwarzenegger – and wins.  The group of wealthy do-gooders call themselves the Meliorists.  They push for universal health care and a cleaner environment, start a new political party and infiltrate corporate boards.

Nader lugs his message through his fantasy world, in which the rich and famous attend a series of meetings, conferences, conference calls, press conferences and other gatherings delivering policy briefs and stump speeches.

“I’m trying to get the rich to think differently,” Nader said. “They’re good at building business but at making change, they’re amateurs.

Nader says proudly: “There’s never been a book like it written in the history of the country.”

That part is probably true.

Wealthy people have always supported social causes, from abolition to the NAACP and women’s movement, Nader explains. What he’s proposing is that the wealthy take it the next level, and create a movement for themselves.

If the super-rich ponied up a mere $1 billion, that could fund a successful fight against insurance and pharmaceutical companies blocking single-payer health care that a majority of the people in the country support, Nader said. “Money brings money, money brings knowledge and knowledge is power,” he says.

And the super-rich wouldn’t even miss the money, Nader added.

I suggested to Nader that even those eager to pick a 733-page tome might be reluctant to pick up his, in particular, because they’re still mad at him over the 2000 election.

Nader was unbowed and unapologetic. Far from costing Gore the election, Nader says that the former vice-president only did as well as he did because Nader’s campaign forced him to take stronger positions. “Tell them to call Al Gore,” Nader said. “I actually made his campaign better.  He was too namby-pamby. Wherever he took more populist positions he did better.”

Nader has little good to say about the current occupant of the White House, who he calls a Wall-Street funded phony. Scanning the political landscape, all is not lost. Nader sees one politician who could have stepped out of the pages of “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us:” Michael Bloomerg, who has taken on transfat and tobacco. “He’s doing what I’m writing. It’s non-deductible philanthropy. It takes on power and shifts it.”

Martin Column - 01/23/2010

Finding Opportunity Among Democrats' Troubles

It’s the bankers, stupid!

President Obama, fresh from a stinging defeat in Massachusetts, came out swinging Thursday against the banks, promising a return to the spirit of Glass-Steagall.

The rhetoric was strong but the details were a little vague. It sounds like he’s suggesting limiting the size of banks as well as their ability to gamble with taxpayer backing. You can be sure the finance lobby will fight to block whatever new initiative the president offers.

Obama’s rhetoric is a year late but does provide opportunity nonetheless. The key thing is that Obama and the Democrats’ problems put real financial reform back on the table.

The debate over breaking up the banks has been fraught with fear-mongering and propaganda: supporters of the big banks argue business won’t have the resources to make big deals. Even smart people say dumb things in the debate, as Dean Baker points out. Broken-up banks will still be huge by any standard, just not quite so capable of taking the entire economy with them when they crash.

The obstacles to reform remain the same as they have been:

1.) a financial industry with unlimited resources for the fight

2.) politicians squeamish to take on their contributors in that industry, and only too willing to let bankers squiggle out of regulation in the legislative fine print

But Obama and other Democratic leaders have felt the sharp prick of the pitchforks in their rear ends.

They know that the public is aware of their clueless response to the financial crisis, shoveling billions to the titans of finance while failing to stem rising unemployment and foreclosures.

One step Obama didn’t take this morning was to scrap his entire financial team, the engineers of his too-comfy relationship to Wall Street and timid response to the crisis that has afflicted Main Street.

Except for 80-year-old Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief who has been born again as a reformer, they should all be fired.

On Thursday, Obama insisted he wasn’t afraid of a fight with the bankers. Certainly none of his team except Volcker have shown any inclination for doing or saying anything that would upset the bankers, let alone a brawl.

The current Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is also feeling the chill from Massachusetts. Roll Call  is reporting that his confirmation for another term may be in peril, while The Hill reports that Senate Majority Harry Reid has “serious concerns” about how Bernanke, who has strong backing from Obama, plans to deal with the economy.

Now is the time to hold the president to his word. By all means contact Obama and applaud his tough speech Thursday. Contact your congressperson and senator and remind them that you’re paying attention to the reform battle and aren’t about to be fooled. Check out my open letters to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein for my bottom line on real reform.

We  need to tell the president and Congress that we won’t settle for phony reform that lacks transparency or a piddling tax on banks that represents just a fraction of their revenues. We need to tell them that we won’t settle for legislation alone – we need an antitrust crackdown to break the power of the big banks.

If you need ammunition for your phone calls and emails, here’s a study that shows how the financial industry has managed to thwart meaningful reform so far: it spent $344 million lobbying Congress – just in the first three quarters of 2009!

Meanwhile, Goldman-Sachs announced record profits last year, while it doled a mere $16.2 billion for bonuses.

Time will tell whether Obama is capable of delivering the fight he promised to back up his newfound populist punch. But let’s not give the president, or Congress, any excuse to back off or get distracted. Only relentless jabs from you and others will keep them from getting cozy again with their financial industry cronies.

The question right now is not whether Obama is up for the fight. The question is: can we turn our anger and frustration into a political force?

Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/21/2010

Mr. Angelides, Which Side Are You On?

While I was watching the hearings into the financial crisis last week, a haunting old song got into my head and wouldn’t leave.

It was “Which Side Are You On?” from the 1930s out of the coalfields of Harlan County, Kentucky.

Coal miners faced brutally harsh living and working conditions, under strict control by the coal barons who had complete power over the miners and their communities. The miners and their families waged a tough struggle to win recognition for their union and concessions from the bosses.

The lyrics describe how at a certain point in the fight, the population of Harlan County had to take sides.

They simply couldn’t remain neutral any more. They either had to stand with the miners and their families or with the coal barons and the thugs who enforced their rule.

I wanted to ask Angelides: which side are you on?

Are you on the side of the people who are suffering in the worst economic calamity since the Depression? Or on the side of the bankers  and the politicians and regulators who did nothing to halt the crisis and whose response has only made it worse?

Lots of people admire Angelides. He’s a former real estate developer who built a reputation as a reformer while California Treasurer, then ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2006.

I found him an odd choice. Previous high-profile investigations have featured lawyers with not only great intellectual chops but who were skilled storytellers and fearless to boot.

Angelides is a bright guy who has some understanding of high finance, but without any of the characteristics that distinguished previous investigators. Far from being a courageous outsider, he’s a Democratic Party insider who has grubbed for political contributions.

He’s bright enough to get training and surround himself with people with those skills.

So why were the hearings so lacking in urgency to get to the bottom of the financial crisis, hold people accountable and offer material support for real reform?

Because Angelides doesn’t understand that at this point, there simply are no more neutrals. If you understand the public’s anger and the mishandling of the financial crisis, then you have an obligation to take a strong stance, and show you are on the side of really fixing the problems.

That’s what Sen. Christopher Dodd found out.

For years the Connecticut Democrat was a darling of the financial industry. Then came the crisis and the bailout. He tried to refashion himself as a reformer but he had no credibility with his constituents after having taken millions in campaign contributions from the financial sector over the years.

The voters in Connecticut weren’t buying the new image. They were threatening to throw him out, so Dodd retired. Since his announcement, he’s showed his true colors, doing his contributors’ bidding by dropping his push for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Unlike Dodd, Angelides is not running for office, at least not now. But he’s wearing the mantle of public protector, and the public is in no mood for phonies.

People don’t want an arbitrator, they want a fighter.

They also don’t have a burning need for another investigation. Several very thorough investigations have already been conducted, including one by the Consumer Education Foundation that you can find here.

Mr. Angelides, we know what happened. What we want to know is, what are you going to do about it? You can still set this commission straight. But you have to bring a sense of passion for the fight that has been missing so far. And you’ve got to know which side you’re on.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 01/20/2010

Angelides Panel Day 2: Bair, But No Flair

The first two days of the long-awaited Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearings have been largely rambling and listless, with commissioners leading witnesses around the same debates and issues that even casual observers of the meltdown and bailout have heard many times.

Those with patience were rewarded Thursday with some nuggets of straight talk from FDIC’s Sheila Bair and state regulators skeptical of the benefits of financial innovation.

Phil Angelides is getting some raves for his clash with the head of Goldman-Sachs Wednesday and his knowledge of how the financial system works. Angelides compared Goldman to a used car salesman selling vehicles with bad brakes, and chided the firm’s chairman for describing the financial meltdown as a natural disaster like a hurricane.

I’m not buying it.

One dustup in the middle of two days of hearings did nothing to illuminate the meltdown. Goldman’s thick-skinned and well-paid Blankfein has already stared down the president of the United States and Congress. I doubt he’s going to change course after Angelides’ comments.

Angelides, his vice-chair Bill Thomas and the other commissioners seem to have no sense of urgency or flair for how to hold a public hearing. Angelides and company are either unprepared or appear not to have the stomach to bring out the story in a compelling way or hold bankers and regulators publicly accountable.

We have a long, proud history in this country of public hearings that focused on key issues, electrified the country, and galvanized political change, starting with the hearings on which the current panel is based, the 1930s Senate probe into the financial shenanigans preceeding the stock market crash, headed by Ferdinand Pecora.

Michael A. Perino, a professor specializing in securities regulation at St. John's University School of Law who's writing a book about Pecora, told "Bill Moyers Journal" that Pecora took complex financial transactions and turned them into simple morality plays. “Pecora was, if nothing else, a brilliant lawyer. He knew how to ask questions. He was a pit bull. He would not let people get away with hemming and hawing and hedging their answers. And he would go after them, politely, of course. But he would go after them until he got the answer he wanted.”

In the early 1950s Sen. Estes Kefauver went after organized crime. Later in the decade, Sen. Robert Kennedy targeted corrupt union bosses.  In the 1970s, the country was riveted by the Senate hearings into the Watergate scandal, led by a superb lawyer named Sam Dash.

Each of those hearings, from Pecora to Watergate, was characterized by relentless preparation, tenacious questioning and savvy stage managing.

Dash unfolded the Watergate story like an episode of the old courtroom drama Perry Mason. It’s worth quoting Dash’s method at length for the stark contrast with Angelides.

“Having been a trial lawyer, I know that you begin a trial by starting at the very beginning,” Dash told NPR’s “On the Media” in 2003.  “It's like a detective story. In this particular case, there was the Watergate burglary; there were the cops that arrested the burglars. And then I would bring in a number of accusers like John Dean who had been counsel to the president who was pointing the finger at the president and [H.R.] Haldeman and [John] Erlichman, and so I was setting up this tension of the police work, the work of the people who were involved as co-conspirators, who were accusing, and then ultimately bring the accused – Haldeman, [John] Mitchell, and Ehrlichman – and in order to make sure that our story would be told in a consecutive and interesting fashion, every witness that I called had been prior called, before an executive committee.

“In other words I knew exactly what my questions were going to be and I knew exactly what the answers were going to be so that I could put it in a form that this would come out like a story, and I think it, it succeeded in the sense that the American people were glued to their television sets waiting for the next episode.”

In Thursday’s session we got the attorney general, Eric Holder, touting his successful prosecution of Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff and other cases that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. His office continues to investigate 2,800 mortgage fraud cases, Holder said.

No commissioner asked Holder any follow-ups about the recent failed prosecution of Bear Stearns hedge fund managers who were acquitted of lying to their clients about the funds’ mortgage investments, or lessons that the Justice Department might have learned from that embarrassing defeat.

Nor did the commissioners ask SEC chief Mary Schapiro, seated close by Holder, about the SEC’s colossal failure in ignoring repeated warnings about Madoff’s crooked deals.

What’s particularly frustrating is that Angelides appears to have the seeds of a theme: how banks and regulators ignored warnings of trouble prior to the meltdown. He has asked a couple of times about a 2004 FBI report that warned of a looming explosion of mortgage fraud. Surprisingly, though Angelides had raised it Wednesday with the bankers, when Angelides asked Holder about it Thursday, Holder replied that he wasn’t familiar with the warning but said, “We’ll look into that.”

That’s some indication of just how seriously the country’s top law enforcement officer is taking the hearings.

The commission’s second day of hearings focused on regulatory efforts of the SEC and FDIC as well as state efforts at financial regulation.

Amid strong lobbying by the big banks, state regulators have been largely pre-empted from financial regulation. Whether or not to give states back that authority is a key point of contention in on-going debate over financial reform; financial institutions continue to bitterly oppose it.

Sheila Bair, FDIC chair, whose strong voice for reform has sometimes been drowned out by those of other members of the Obama economic team, got a chance Thursday to reiterate her view of the failures that contributed to the crisis.

“Not only did market discipline fail to prevent the excesses of the last few years, but the regulatory system also failed in its responsibilities,” Bair said. Record profits across the banking sector, Bair added, also served to limit “second-guessing” among the regulatory community.

The Texas securities commissioner, Denise Crawford, also offered a sharp perspective not usually heard either on Wall Street or in Washington. “The great minds of Wall Street are probably right now coming up with new securitization products,” she told the commissioners. “It's not just mortgages. It's the entire structure of Wall Street and the super-wealthy that create the demand for new speculative products.”

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 01/14/2010

Angelides Commission: All Puff, No Punch

Here are some early reactions to the the first hearing, now underway, of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington, D..C and televised on CSPAN 2.

Three hours into the FCICs much-hyped first public hearing, what’s being said is less important than what is not being said.

The bankers, beleaguered as they may like to appear, have little to fear if the questioning continues as it began.

So far, this is no Pecora Commission, the Depression-era investigation into the cause of the financial crash that led to landmark reforms including the Glass-Steagall Act and creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 01/13/2010

Open Letters to Sens. Feinstein and Boxer

NO COMPROMISE TOP 10

As the debate over financial reform moves to the Senate I’ve written a couple of open letters to my senators. I’m not endorsing any particular legislative proposals but I do outline the items that shouldn’t be compromised.

Feel free to borrow my ideas for letters to your own senators, or to disagree. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d like to hear what you think.

What’s your bottom line on what financial reform should contain?

OPEN LETTER TO SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Dear Sen. Feinstein:

Throughout the economic crisis, you have continued to raise serious questions about whether the bailout was protecting the financial industry or the public. Now is the time to turn that skepticism into constructive action.

Sen. Feinstein, voters are counting on your continuing leadership to make sure Congress provides real financial reform to prevent future meltdowns and bailouts stemming from reckless practices and lack of government oversight.

Though you voted for the bailout, at the time, in September 2008, you compared the  preparations for the so-called financial rescue to the build-up to the war in Iraq. "There is a great deal of cynicism among those of us who have to live with having voted to go into Iraq based on misinformation and intelligence that later turned out not to be truthful," you said.

On March 23 of this year, you were among a group of senators who met with President Obama to express concern that his administration’s proposals didn’t go far enough, and that his economic advisers were many of the same people who oversaw the deregulatory fever that played such a key role in our financial crisis.

Unfortunately, Sen. Feinstein, your concerns have been borne out.

Financial reform as passed by the House of Representatives is filled with loopholes. Lobbyists from financial firms recently rescued from ruin by taxpayers have mounted a fierce campaign to maintain a system in which “too big to fail” institutions” can manipulate the regulatory system.

The good news is that Sen. Chris. Dodd has proposed much stronger legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009.  By all accounts, his proposal faces a bruising battle as the financial industry gathers all its forces to protect its interests. Sen. Dodd has indicated that compromise is inevitable.

But Sen. Feinstein, the stakes are too high to compromise on the most important aspects of reform. Some of these are contained in Sen. Dodd’s proposal. Others are contained in other legislative proposals under consideration in the session about to begin.

Please help make sure that these key elements of reform are not the victims of compromise:

• Vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to another term as Federal Reserve chair. He was at the center of the bubbles before the meltdown and also helped engineer a bailout that profited Wall Street while Main Street suffered.

•Reinstate a modern-day form of Glass-Steagal, as proposed by Sens. McCain and Cantwell.

•Audit the Federal Reserve, as proposed in legislation sponsored by Reps. Paul and Grayson, which would open up the operations of the institution to public scrutiny for the first time.

•Reconsider and approve judicial cram-downs, which would give bankruptcy judges the power to lower mortgage payments. This would put real teeth in the Obama Administration’s anti-foreclosure efforts.

In the Dodd bill:

• Support creation of a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, with regulatory oversight of the Community Reinvestment Act (not provided in the House bill)

•Support creation of a an Agency for Financial Stability, responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large complex companies and their products, with the authority to break up firms if they pose a threat to the financial stability of the country

• Remove exemptions (contained in the House reform bill) for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion – about 98 percent of deposit-taking institutions in the country.

• Bar pre-emption (also allowed in the House bill), which would let states, if they choose, to pass tougher financial regulations for nationally chartered banks.

• Don’t exempt other consumer-financial businesses,  such as auto dealers from oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (as the House bill does.)

• Give two agencies, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission broad authority to force derivatives markets onto exchanges where they pose less risk.

I’m urging you to put everything you’ve got behind this fight to protect consumers and homeowners. Voters put their trust and faith in you to see that their interests are protected, not compromised away. We’re relying on you to convince your colleagues to put the public’s interests ahead of the private profits and the power of the financial giants.

Sen. Feinstein, your skeptical instincts have been right since the Bush administration tried ramrod through a 3-page $700 bailout. Now everyone in the country can plainly see how that bailout benefited the large financial institutions but did little for small business, consumers and  homeowners. Thank you for your raising the right questions in the past. Thank you for helping us get back on the right track now.

Sincerely,

Martin Berg

Editor

WheresOurMoney.org

AN OPEN LETTER TO SEN. BARBARA BOXER

Dear Sen. Boxer:

Voters are counting on your continuing leadership to make sure the promise of real fundamental financial reform becomes a reality.

In 1989, you were one of a handful of senators to vote against repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that had kept banks’ traditional business separate from their riskier speculative business.

Though you were in the small minority opposing the deregulatory fever sweeping Washington, your vote showed tremendous leadership, courage and prescience.

You withstood the pressures from financial industry lobbyists and contributors as well as the demands of your own party. As you know, then-President Clinton and his economic advisers, after initially opposing the repeal, eventually made a deal to sign off on the dismantling of Glass-Steagall.

We all know what happened over the last decade – record profits for financial institutions while the economic foundation for American families has gotten increasingly shaky. Voters have watched with dismay as the massive federal bailout has helped create even fewer financial institutions, with even greater wealth and wielding even more political power.

Neither the Obama administration’s proposals nor the bill passed by the House of Representatives offer sweeping reform, nor do they do anything to break up the power of the “too big to fail” institutions. They also don’t do enough to ease the threat these banks continue to pose to the rest of the economy.

Now Sen. Christopher Dodd has proposed much stronger legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability.  By all accounts, his proposal faces a bruising battle as the financial industry gathers all its forces to protect its interests. Sen. Dodd has indicated that compromise is inevitable.

But Sen. Boxer, the stakes are too high to compromise on the most important aspects of reform. Some of these are contained in Sen. Dodd’s proposal. Others are contained in other legislative proposals under consideration in the session about to begin.

Please help make sure that these key elements of reform are not the victims of compromise:

• Vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke to another term as Federal Reserve chair. He was at the center of the bubbles before the meltdown, helped engineer a bailout that profited Wall Street while Main Street suffered, and has fought increased transparency in the financial system.

• Reinstate a modern-day form of Glass-Steagall, proposed by Sens. McCain and Cantwell.

• Audit the Federal Reserve, as suggested in the proposal by Reps. Paul and Grayson, which would open up the operations of the institution to public scrutiny for the first time.

• Reconsider and approve judicial cram-downs, which would give bankruptcy judges the power to lower mortgage payments. This would put real teeth in the Obama Administration’s anti-foreclosure efforts.

In the Dodd bill:

• Support creation of a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, with regulatory oversight of the Community Reinvestment Act (not provided in the House bill).

• Support creation of a an Agency for Financial Stability, responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large complex companies and their products, with the authority to break up firms if they pose a threat to the financial stability of the country.

• Remove exemptions (contained in the House reform bill) for banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 billion – about 98 percent of deposit-taking institutions in the country.

• Bar pre-emption (also allowed in the House bill), which would let states, if they choose, to pass tougher financial regulations for nationally chartered banks.

• Don’t exempt other consumer-financial businesses,  such as auto dealers from oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (as the House bill does).

• Give two agencies, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission broad authority to force derivatives markets onto exchanges where they pose less risk.

I’m urging you to put everything you’ve got behind this fight to protect consumers and homeowners. Voters put their trust and faith in you to see that their interests are protected, not compromised away. We’re relying on you to convince your colleagues to put the public’s interests ahead of the private profits and the power of the financial giants.

Sen. Boxer, you were right in 1989 when you were in the minority. Now everyone in the country can plainly see the wreckage from the great deregulatory experiment you opposed. Thank you for your vision. Thank you for helping us get back on the right track now.

Sincerely,

Martin Berg

Editor

WheresOurMoney.org

Action / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 01/10/2010

Stuck in the Fog

One thing is clear: Citigroup executives thought they had a deal with the government to pay back their bailout money so they could pay themselves as much as they wanted.

Then it all started to unravel. The Washington Post disclosed that the IRS granted Citigroup huge tax breaks (meaning billions) as part of the exit strategy the "too big too fail" bank worked out with Treasury officials.

After that the stock market rejected the government and Citigroup’s assessment of the bank’s health and the deal fell through.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/17/2009

Loopholes and Lumps of Coal

While the financial industry got a stocking stuffer, we got stiffed.

House Democrats passed something they called reform and handed  it over to the Senate.

But the bill is laden with loopholes, put there by Blue Dogs and New Democrats doing the bidding of the financial institutions.

Democratic leaders, from President Obama to Rep. Barney Frank have demonstrated that they are at best ineffectual in spearheading efforts to win real reform that puts consumers and taxpayers’ interests first. At worst, they're undermining those efforts.

The resilience shown by the financial industry in blunting efforts at sensible regulation has been nothing short of breathtaking.

Despite these setbacks, the battle may not be lost.

Glass-Steagel / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/15/2009