doesn - Represent Consumers

Left, right and left out

On so many issues related to the state of our economic recovery, current notions of liberal and conservative don’t seem to apply.

For example, should we allow a real free market to work in our financial system?

Should we crack down hard on those Wall Street bankers who broke the law?

Should companies that want to foreclose on property have to follow the law?

If you’re in favor of real financial free market, tough law enforcement and following the law, are you conservative or liberal, left or right?

What you are is in the majority, and the most important political designation in the U.S. in 2012 – left out.

Your views are reflected only rarely in the political debate at all and never in the presidential debate. Sure, President Obama has repeatedly promised to get tough on Wall Street, most recently in the state of the union in January, but based on the results, those promises have little credibility. President Obama preaches for an activist role for government with the occasional populist flourish, but that impulse wilts if Republicans or campaign funders show the least resistance.

His opponent, Mitt Romney, considers any crackdown on Wall Street an affront to the beloved job creators to whom we should all be bowing down – even if they don’t actually use their wealth to create any decent jobs.

What we get instead of a real debate on how to get an economy that works for ordinary folks is a faux argument over the role of venture capitalist tycoons, between the candidate who used to be one and our president, who has relied on them a key source of campaign funding as much as Romney has.

What we get is the fiscal cliff drama about whether or not to shut down the government.

What we get is each side offering scary versions of what the other will do.

What we get are Mitt Romney’s assurances that if we just get the regulators out of the way, the wealthy job creators will get to work, regardless of whether anybody can afford to buy their products.

What we get is the president’s half-measures and handwringing. But it’s all political theater that doesn’t replace real jobs, real plans to revive housing and keep people in their homes and real accountability for bankers. It doesn’t replace a real debate about the role of big money in overshadowing those issues in our elections. Right now, both sides have left those out of their campaigns.

Politics is a team activity and our natural tendency is to root for our guy, downplay his flaws, and point out how much worse the other guy would be. But this election should not just be rooting for our team and beating the other guy. It should not be about rooting for our guy we’re so hyped up about how scary the other guy is.

It should be about who is willing to confront the big money, not bend to it.

It should be about who can really get people back to work, keep us in our homes, guide an economic recovery that’s not just for the wealthiest.

We should demand that we’re more than just a rooting section for our team, that our bread and butter concerns are not left out.

No Lobbyist Left Behind

If we forced CNN commentators to wear the names of their clients on their sleeves like NASCAR drivers we might have a deeper, more honest debate over what’s going on in Washington.

Unless you live under a rock without any form of media, it’s hard to miss the nonstop frenzy over dumb comments made by CNN commentator Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney.

Rosen said Romney never worked a day in her life, which made her unqualified to comment on the economy. Republicans then attacked Rosen as another in a long line of Democratic elitists who have no respect for women who work in the home.

When she comments on CNN, the network labels Rosen a “Democratic strategist,” though they don’t disclose any particular strategy that she’s come up with.

CNN doesn’t mention her work representing many high-profile clients in Washington, D.C. with interests across a wide range of issues. Her firm, SKDKnickerbocker is filled with former government employees cashing in on their contacts on behalf of their corporate clients. The firm, which includes President Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn as managing director, isn’t required to disclose clients because it doesn’t acknowledge that what it does is lobbying. In Washington-speak the firm is “political consulting and public relations firm.”

Last year, Bloomberg Business week reported that the firm coordinated an army of lobbyists unleashed by a coalition led by Google, Apple and Cisco pushing for a tax holiday.

The Republic Report compiled a partial list of clients, including big railroads, agricultural interests, PepsiCo and General Mills and for-profit education companies.

In addition, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Dunn pitched SKDKnickerbocker’s services as part of a team that offered to restore hedge funds’ sullied reputations, though apparently nobody swung.

Rosen’s poke at Ann Romney may have stirred up media frenzy, offering just the excuse for a jive revival of jive working mom v. stay-at-home brawl that sheds no light and offers no insight to anybody.

It’s also not the kind of controversy that’s likely to upset Rosen’s clients, who will recognize it for the sideshow it is compared to their free-flowing access to the White House. It’s more likely that it will provide Rosen with an opportunity for some good-natured self-deprecating humor to grease her way as she makes the rounds through the corridors of power.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about how it holds itself to a higher standard by not taking money from lobbyists. But that doesn’t mean lobbyists don’t have a strong presence in the White House, as the New York Times reported Saturday. “Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits,” the Times reported.

Several years ago, GOOD magazine came up with the idea of making politicians wear suits with the names of their biggest contributors, like NASCAR drivers advertise their sponsors. Politicians have been reluctant to embrace the idea. They’re perfectly happy to keep us focused on the sideshow provided by Rosen and those like her, who babble phony nonsense on TV but profit from their access to the real game off-screen.

Lobbying / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/17/2012

How Mitt Could Win

Why doesn’t Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s free-market gospel include a ringing call to break up the too big to fail banks?

Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute blog, James Pethokoukis suggests Romney could benefit if he did just that.

After all, this is no longer a position favored only by Occupy Wall Street.

All kinds of establishment figures now acknowledge that breaking up the big banks is needed to heal our financial system, and that as long as we don’t, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout.

The most recent public official to reach this conclusion is none other than Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve, who last week issued a report in which he concluded: “The too big to fail institutions that amplified and prolonged the recent financial crisis remain a hindrance to full economic recovery and to the very ideal of American capitalism.”

This should be catnip for Romney, who professes to be all about ending government interference in the free market.

What the Dallas Fed’s report makes clear is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and the policies of the Obama administration haven’t lessened the power of the too big to fail banks, or made them healthier – it’s helped them gain market share while doing little to force them to reduce the same risky business practices that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

While Dodd-Frank theoretically sets up a process to deal with too big to fail institutions when they get in trouble, our politicians and regulators by their actions have signaled to the big banks that they don’t have the guts to break them up or get them to change how they do business.

For a politician in Romney’s position, staking out a position against the big banks would give him the high ground against the president, who claims to be reining in the banks’ bad behavior but isn’t.

It would help him with the Tea Party activists, who rail against the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. Promising tough action on the banks would also help him with independents who understandably don’t trust all the political double-talk they hear.

But Romney doesn’t have the guts to do it. His free market rhetoric stops right at the bankers’ door, where he must appear meekly with hat in hand, asking for donations, just like the president of the United States, from bankers who continue to prosper only because of the trillions of dollars worth of favors done for them by politicians using taxpayers’ money.

The top 5 donors to Romney’s campaign are people associated with bailed out banks, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. The president raised an unprecedented $15.8 million from the financial sector in 2008, while his administration was in the midst of bailing them out. Though Romney has the edge in Wall Street fundraising now, the president has vowed to fight back – including a pledge not to demonize Wall Street.

The big media and the politicians all talk about these policies as though they’re great intellectual debates about clashing views of the role of government. But when it comes to the too big to fail banks, all Romney’s free market preaching is just so much hot air.

This is the dishonest heart of our politics. What neither Romney nor the president, nor apparently the American Enterprise Institute, can acknowledge is that it’s all about the money.

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 03/30/2012

Too Big For Justice

The too big to fail banks are still in cahoots with their regulators. That’s the message coming loud and clear from the Justice Department’s highly touted $315 million deal with Bank of America to settle racial discriminatory lending charges.

The charges stem from the actions of Countrywide, the subprime lending giant, which was bought by Bank of America after the housing collapse.

The Justice Department’s publicity offensive, labeling the deal “historic” can’t hide the stink emanating from it. Shame on the New York Times for swallowing the Justice Department’s propaganda whole.

The Justice Department concluded that Countrywide charged 200,000 minority borrowers across the country higher rates and fees than white borrowers. Countrywide also steered 10,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime loans when similar white borrowers got traditional loans.

While $315 million sounds big in a headline, for the bankers, it’s just part of the cost of doing business, less a punishment than the latest favor in the bailout that doesn’t end.

Bank of America, which received $45 billion in bailout funds, admits no wrongdoing in the deal. Victims would get between $1,000 and $1,600 apiece under the deal.

The deal also allows Bank of America to hire its own monitor to keep track of whether the bankers live up to their Justice Department agreement.

Regulators typically whine that they just don’t have the resources to take on the banks at trial.

Regulators argue that they could never get their targets to settlements if they had to wring admissions of wrongdoing from their targets, because those admissions would be used against those targets by other litigants in future lawsuits.

Without the settlements, the crack Justice Department lawyers would be forced to, horror of horrors, try their case in court.

The reasonable response from taxpayers should be: So what? Life is hard. Do your job, which is to hold lawbreakers accountable, not make their lives easier.

The Bank of America deal is only the latest to highlight the lower standard of justice prosecutors have applied to banks. Prosecutors have become part of the government’s team whose main goal Is propping up the banks. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has yet to come up with a decent, functioning program to stem the ongoing fraud in foreclosures, or to help the substantial numbers of homeowners facing foreclosure.

According to news reports, the Justice Department has another six discriminatory lending investigations cooking. This agency would be a good target for future actions

The Bank of America deal also highlights why a strong Occupy movement is needed, outside the traditional political system: neither party, nor the president, will fight for one of the most basic notions of democracy: that lawbreakers, especially the most powerful, should not receive favorable treatment from authorities.

You can read a slightly more sympathetic rundown of the Bank of America deal here, a more skeptical take here.

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2011

Slamming the Door on Democracy

Revolving door just no longer cuts it to describe how large corporate interests have swallowed up the government officials that are supposed to be working in our interest.

First Street, a D.C. insiders’ guide to people, policy and influence peddling, recently published a guide to lobbyists. The highest paid lobbyists were former elected officials, with an average take of $178,000 a year, the next highest paid group was former staffers, with an average take of more than $144,000 a year. Both left the professional lobbyists far behind in their value to their clients.

In public, our corporate leaders use polite language describing themselves in glowing terms like “job creators.” Republicans wring their hands over regulations; Democrats weep crocodile tears over the plight of the middle class. Meanwhile the politicians feast at the public trough and prepare for lucrative payoffs, I mean careers, in the private sector.

Revolving door implies that these officials are somehow going back and forth between serving the public interest and the corporate interests that lobby them, pay for their campaigns if they’re elected, and then hire them when they’re ready to cash out.

But that’s not what’s happening.

The door doesn’t revolve, it only swings one way. And what’s happening to our government deserves much stronger language than the description of a door.

We have to face up to the fact that under our present system, election to public office, or appointment to key regulatory posts, is for the vast majority is the entryway into a world of legalized prostitution, where major corporations wield nearly absolute power over our government.

At WheresOurMoney.org we’ve proposed a constitutional amendment, 28A, to undo Citizens United, the awful U.S. Supreme Court ruling that unleashes even more unrestricted and unreported corporate money into our political system. That won’t curb lobbying. But rallying around the reversal of Citizens United will focus attention on the culture of legalized corruption that has overtaken our government.

Citizens United / Congress / Martin Column - 12/20/2011

What About The Rest of Us?

In one of the most appalling aspects of our current politics, our elites – elected officials, media lords and corporate chieftains, have swept the opinions and concerns of most Americans off the table to pursue their own agenda.

So we’re stuck with sterile political games focused on the national debt, even while a majority of Americans favor higher taxes on the rich and more aggressive action to reduce unemployment.

We get the highly touted insider trading conviction of a hedge fund billionaire while the Justice Department doesn’t pursue its own FBI’s massive evidence of the too big to fail bank’s fraud at the heart of the financial collapse.

It’s clear that whoever is setting priorities is not us. Take for example President Obama’s deficit commission, which has worked hard to legitimize the austerity agenda embraced by most of both parties. Not only was it stacked with well-known deficit hawks, It was made up of a collection of lifetime politicians, bureaucrats, with a CEO thrown in – because we wouldn’t want the CEOs to feel left out of any big idea brainstorming.

But what about the rest of us? Over at Campaign For America’s Future, Dave Johnson has been asking some intriguing, relevant questions.

For one, what would the deficit commission have looked like if it truly reflected the population of the country, rather than the backroom.

If a 100-person deficit panel truly reflected the country, it would present a stark contrast to the gang the president relied on:

• 19 people on the commission would receive some form of Social Security benefits, 12 of those as retirees. And on this deficit commission they get to talk when the ones making over $250K propose cutting Social Security.

• 43 of the commission members would have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. 27 of those less than $1,000.

• 98 of the 100 members would make less than $250,000 a year.

• 50 of the members would come from households in which the total income of all wage-earners is less than $52,029.

• 13 would have income below the poverty level.

• 14 members would be receiving food stamps.

• 16.6% of the commission members would be un- or underemployed, and would be wondering why they are on a deficit commission at all instead of a jobs commission.

• The commission would include the right proportion of factory and construction workers, and people who work in a kitchen, and work waiting tables, and teaching, and nursing, and installing tires, and all the other things that people do except, apparently, those on DC elite commissions. (People who do hard, manual labor get an extra vote each on what the retirement age should be.)

• 74 members would not have college degrees.

• 20 would not have graduated high school.

• 18 would speak a language other than English at home.

Under present circumstances it’s highly unlikely that the president would appoint a commission to consider the deficit or anything else for that matter that wasn’t stacked with wealthy insiders intent on slashing government services for anybody who is not like them. But highlighting the disconnect does point out in a particularly graphic way why those at the top have managed to get left out when its time to divide up the sacrifices.

Financial Crisis / Martin Column - 05/17/2011

Will Afghan Bailout Trump U.S. Homeowners?

At least you know where the Tea Party stands. If it’s a government program, they want to end it.

The Democrats are murkier. They propose tepid solutions to serious problems like the foreclosure crisis, then when their programs don’t work it, ends up reinforcing the Tea Party’s arguments that government doesn’t work.

So the Tea Party-driven Republicans come along and want to whack the Obama administration’s failed foreclosure prevention scheme known as the Home Affordable Modification program. They would probably want to whack it even if it was working, but that’s another subject.

The Tea Party doesn’t offer anything in its place. Homeowners are pretty much on their own at the mercy of the banks.

So much for the American Dream.

Many people have pointed out that the HAMP program is something between an abject failure and a scam that rips off already beleaguered homeowners.

The Obama administration doesn’t offer so much of an argument in its defense as a hapless shrug. In this video, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledges that the foreclosure prevention program amounts to a “tragic, terrible mess.”

But hey, the administration says, it’s better than nothing.

Meanwhile, the foreclosures continue while authorities investigate massive fraud by the banks in the foreclosure process.

This is not a debate calculated to offer much confidence that our public officials can deal effectively with the problems that afflict those of us who live in the reality-based community.

I was reflecting on this tawdry spectacle while reading about the latest developments in the latest “too big to fail” bank bailout to strike at U.S. taxpayers – this one in Kabul, Afghanistan. My colleague Harvey Rosenfield warned about this brewing fiasco several weeks ago.

Apparently the wildly corrupt officials and their cronies used the bank as their private piggy bank, and the bank’s imminent collapse is now a greater threat to Afghanistan’s security than the Taliban.

As recently as last September, officials were offering assurances that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay for a bailout. Now apparently if we don’t cough up $1 billion the war and the country will be lost and all the previous billions we’ve squandered there will have been wasted.

So we can’t afford a dime to help homeowners in this country but we must spend $1 billion to bail out the Afghans.

I don’t expect the Democrats to put up much of a fight against such an outrage.

I hope the Tea Party stands strong on this one.

Around the Web / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / Too Big To Fail - 03/02/2011

D.C. Disconnect: Revolving Door Edition

When it comes to shaping the Obama administration’s economic policies, only those with tight connections to the nation’s too big to fail banks need apply.

The latest example is the new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew.

He spent most of his career working in government and academia, with one significant exception – a stint as chief operating officer of Citibank’s Alternative Investments Division, which manages about $7 billion in investments in developing countries. Lew was one of those banking executives whose huge post-bailout bonus enraged the public.

In Washington, the issue barely surfaced in Lew’s confirmation hearings. Lew suggested he was too busy running Citibank to notice that the place was drowning in toxic collateralized debt obligations that nobody even understood.

Meanwhile, the guy Lew replaced, Peter Orzag, is headed for a high-paying banking post of his own – at Citibank.

Lew and Orzag were among the large, bipartisan banking-friendly crowd who apparently failed to comprehend or question what was going on around and beneath them in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis.

During that time, one of the places where Orzag and Lew would gather was the Hamilton Project, a high-powered D.C.-based think tank within the Brookings Institute where Democratic Party politicians and bankers could get together to drink in the wisdom of the project’s founder, Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, a major proponent of banking deregulation, mentor to current top Obama financial advisers Tim Geithner and Larry Summers – and then, the president of Citibank.

The Hamilton Project has been described as a “bastion of the fiscally moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” But it would be more precisely described as the home of the increasingly influential too big to fail bank wing of the Democratic Party.

And who showed up to welcome the launch of the project in 2006?

None other than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who told the assembled crowd, “I would love just to sit here with these folks and listen because you have on this panel and in this room some of the most innovative, thoughtful policymakers, people who have both ideas but also ways of implementing them into action. Our country owes a great debt to a number of people who are in this room because they helped put us on a pathway of prosperity that we are still enjoying, despite the best efforts of some.” (Watch it here.)

This door swinging jovially back and forth between Wall Street and Washington is so common that it registers as a non-event, and makes a mockery of the Kabuki theater of the supposed hostility between Obama and the financial titans.

Ira Stoll at The Future of Capitalism reminds us, in case we forgot, of other members of the Obama economic team who cashed in on Wall Street before it melted down and they joined the administration, like top economic adviser Laurence Summers and $5.2 million a year, one day a week job at the D.E. Shaw hedge fund, and former chief of staff and Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, who got paid $16.2 million for working for a year and a half at the investment banking firm Wasserstein Perella.

As for Orzag, his departure for Citibank created a faint stir in the mainstream media, where Ezra Klein of the Washington Post notes that Orzag doesn’t appear to be in it for the money, since he’s “fairly wealthy” already, and “his lifetime of public service positions does not suggest a man particularly motivated by income.”

But at the Atlantic’s blog, James Fallow viewed Orzag’s move as an example of Washington’s structural corruption. His comments strike me as stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone who lives and works outside the opaque world of Washington. “The idea that someone would help plan, advocate, and carry out an economic policy that played such a crucial role in the survival of a financial institution – and then, less than two years after his administration took office, would take a job that (a) exemplifies the growing disparities the administration says it's trying to correct and (b) unavoidably will call on knowledge and contacts Orszag developed while in recent public service – this says something bad about what is taken for granted in American public life.

For Baseline Scenario’s James Kwak, it’s also more than a straightforward conflict of interest. Why does a young, highly educated energetic member of the elite, who presumably doesn’t need a Wall Street paycheck, want to work at Citibank?

“Orszag wanting to work at a megabank — instead of starting a new company, or joining a foundation, or joining an NGO, or becoming an executive at a struggling manufacturing company that makes things, or even being a consultant to countries with sovereign debt problems — is the same as an engineer from a top school going to Goldman instead of a real company. It’s not his fault, but it’s a symptom of something that’s bad for our country.”

Around the Web / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2010

What Have You Done For General Electric Lately?

With your help, the company founded by Thomas Edison, the genius inventor, survived the nation’s worst recession in 80 years.

But billions in taxpayer-funded bailout relief and subsidies and paying zero federal taxes was not enough for General Electric.

The company wants more from you.

They want more subsidies, more dubious government contracts and more political power.

Business was terrible for a while, and GE’s credit division dragged the whole company down.

As result, 19,000 of the GE employees who had a job at the beginning of 2009 didn’t have one when the year ended. They joined the 4,000 GE employees who lost jobs the year before. For workers that still had jobs, the average salary was about $32,000 a year.

Things were tough at the top too.

CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to give up his bonus for the second year in a row, and was forced to limp along just on his annual compensation of nearly $10 million.

In 2008, Forbes magazine named Immelt one the U.S.’ 5 most overpaid bosses. For the past 6 years he’d been averaging $15 million a year.

Of course, before the economy crashed, CEO pay was through the roof in general. Getting on that most overpaid list wasn’t easy. Competition was stiff. Two of the other guys on the Forbes list made millions running their financial firms, Countrywide and Indymac, into the ground.

Taxpayers’ generosity helped ease the GE titans’ pain, allowing the company to take advantage of billions in subsidized loans and loan guarantees at such favorable interest rates that they amount to a massive government subsidy.

The company managed to eke out $11 billion in profits on $157 billion in revenue.

That’s when the Internal Revenue Service stepped in to ease GE’s burden. By the time the lawyers and accountants were done, you probably paid more taxes than GE did – unless you also happen to be Exxon.

GE didn’t issue a press release about most of those subsidies. Neither did the federal government. In fact, the Federal Reserve has fought to keep its subsidies of GE and other major corporations confidential. But they were forced to disclose the subsidies under the terms of the financial reform passed earlier this year.

It might have been made the Federal Reserve and GE uncomfortable if the public had known that GE’s CEO was sitting on the Fed’s board of governors while they were doling out low-interest loans to his company, an apparent and outrageous conflict of interest.

But your generosity to GE doesn’t stop with bailout and tax giveaways. As part of the 2009 stimulus package, the company got $24.9 million toward retooling an appliance factory in Kentucky, one of four plants GE is retooling in the government’s green technology initiative.

Like Immelt, the workers will have to adjust to lower pay. They’ll no longer make $20 an hour. Now they’ll be paid $13 an hour.

The company is returning to its roots in making appliances.

But the retooling comes too late for GE’s light bulb business, which was once a source of good jobs in Ohio. While it was borrowing taxpayers’ money in 2009, it was closing one such plant in Niles, Ohio – the fifteenth to close in the state since 1980. The new more energy efficient bulbs will be made in China.

As GE and others American firms were busy chasing short-term profits from the fancy financial products that eventually blew up the economy, they neglected the kinds of innovation that might have saved those jobs.

But General Electric has moved on, staking a big chunk of its future on a costly jet engine that the Defense Department says is wasteful and that it doesn’t want. So General Electric has been lobbying Congress to override the Defense Department. Maybe those that worked in the light bulb factories of Ohio could move to Washington and get jobs as lobbyists. GE’s spending on lobbying has skyrocketed: from $4.54 million in the first quarter a year ago to $7.14 million in the first quarter of this year.

Meanwhile, while GE dukes it out in D.C., the company has informed the state of Massachusetts that if it expects GE to limit layoffs of those working at an aircraft factory there, the state’s taxpayers are going to pay.

At the same time the state is facing a series of devastating budget cuts, GE is seeking a $25 million tax credit to help with the retooling of it plant in Lynn, which employs 3,000 people. The company’s already cut 600 jobs at the plant, without the tax credit, GE says, it will cut more. Usually states give tax credits for companies to create new jobs, not as a payoff to keep them from cutting existing jobs.

So here’s the latest innovation from GE. It has nothing to do with creating better, more energy-efficient products. GE has come up with a new way to put the squeeze on taxpayers.

Executive Pay / Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 12/19/2010

SEC TO Mozilo: Fraud Pays

The SEC is at it again. They’re bragging that the agency nailed the largest penalty of its kind in history against the king of the subprime lenders for defrauding his shareholders.

And no doubt, $65 million dollars sounds like a lot of money.

But when you remember how much money Angelo Mozilo raked in during his reign, and when you break down the details of the SEC fine, it doesn’t add up.

It certainly doesn’t add up to much in the way of punishing Mozilo.

As usual when the SEC settles the civil charges it files, Mozilo and his two former colleagues admitted no wrongdoing as part of their settlement.

The SEC accused Mozilo, the butcher’s son who rose to be the president of Countrywide, of keeping from shareholders his fears that his collection of subprime loans was trash while reassuring his stockholders that everything was hunky-dory.

Federal prosecutors are still poking around in the ashes of Countrywide, and maybe they will come up with something.

But so far here’s the scorecard on Mozilo: the SEC said he received $141.7 million as a result of fraud and insider trading. They fined him $22.5 million.

As the Center for Public Integrity points out, that means he has give back just 16 cents of every ill-gotten dollar he got.

In addition, the SEC touts the $45 million that Mozilo will have to turn over to Bank of America shareholders, though that money won’t come out of Mozilo’s very deep pockets. That will come from his insurer and the company that bought Countrywide, Bank of America.

The fines seem even slighter when you contemplate what Mozilo was paid in his days as master of the universe.

In his time as executive chairman of Countrywide between 1999 and 2008, he was paid a total of $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock options.

In 2007, when the company’s stock tanked, dropping from $40 to under $10, Mozilo had an off-year too. He was only paid $10.8 million.

In perspective, this doesn’t seem like much for the SEC to brag about. Sixteen cents on the dollar certainly isn’t going to strike fear into the heart of any business titan.

Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 10/19/2010