interest - Represent Consumers

Geithner must go

Please, President Obama, fire Timothy Geithner today and hire a treasury secretary to fight for the U.S. economy as hard as Geithner fights to protect bankers’ profits.

I know you’re intensely loyal to Geithner and have resisted such calls in the past.

But Mr. President, times and circumstances have changed. For your own good and especially for the good of the country, you should reconsider. You’re in an especially close election and you need to cut yourself loose from the failed policies you’ve pursued for the past four years that have coddled the financial sector at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Your loyalties are with Geithner but his, Mr. President, are with the too big to fail banks, not with the public.

The most recent evidence comes from this Huffington Reports piece which details how Geithner, while president of the New York Fed responded when he heard about the big banks manipulating a key interest rate known as LIBOR when he was chair of the New York Federal Reserve in 2007.

Recently disclosed emails show that while Geithner expressed concerns over the integrity of the LIBOR, or London Interbank Offered Rate, he did little to investigate or stop the manipulation.

What he did to was cut and paste the bankers’ own proposals into his own proposal to the Bank of England about how to address the LIBOR concerns. It should have been an early warning sign of how Geithner and his big bank cronies spoke with one voice – theirs.

The public may not understand just how critical the integrity of LIBOR is, but you do, Mr. President. You know that it’s how it’s used as a benchmark for trillions worth of transactions every day, on everything from complex credit default swaps to credit cards.

You also shouldn’t underestimate the public’s ability to grasp what’s at the root of this LIBOR scandal, which is the same theme that’s underlying JP Morgan London Whale trading losses – that bankers have been manipulating the financial system for their own interests, with your administration either fully cooperating or looking the other way.

Don’t underestimate the ability of the ruthless and hypocritical Republican attack machine to clobber you with those policies even as the Republicans embrace more banker-friendly policies than you are.

They’ll get a good shot this week when Geithner testifies before the House Banking Committee over what he knew and what he did about banks.

The public may not be focused on the LIBOR in the middle of a hot summer, Mr. President, But the scandal is just beginning to wash up on the our shores after causing tremendous damage after it erupted in England, after Barclays Bank acknowledged its own LIBOR manipulation and cut a deal with regulators. Meanwhile the investigation into 16 U.S. banks and their LIBOR shenanigans is just getting cooking. It could be heating up at the same time as the presidential race.

Mr. President, you have another opportunity to do something that is good politics and good for the country too, and will distinguish your policy on the banks from your opponent’s do-nothing approach.

Get rid of Geithner and begin to chart a new course toward a system not rigged in favor of big bankers and their fat bonuses. We need a treasury secretary who doesn’t measure prosperity solely by the size of bankers’ wealth.

LIBOR / Martin Column - 07/16/2012

London calling – is anyone listening?

Here we go again.

The scandal over bank manipulation of a key interest rate is just the latest strong signal that bankers rigged the system to benefit themselves and screw everybody else.

Not that we need another signal.

The scandal stems from something called LIBOR – the London Interbank Offered Rate. It’s an integral part of the global banking system. LIBOR is supposed to reflect the interest rate at which banks loan money to each other. It’s also a benchmark rate for other transactions, everything from home mortgages and credit cards to complex derivatives.

That means that the cost of the mortgage loan is pegged to whatever LIBOR is. On a home mortgage loan, for example, the interest rate might be a few points above LIBOR. The Financial Times estimates that about $350 trillion worth of contracts are tied to LIBOR.

It turns out that British-based Barclays Bank was manipulating the rates to increase their own profits, and to disguise how the bank was performing – possibly with the collusion of their regulators. The conservative Economist calls it “the rotten heart of finance,” and cautions that it is about to go worldwide.

The scandal hit home in England first, causing Barclays’ Bank president to resign and pay a record fine, and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic promising to get to the bottom of it.

But there are strong suspicions that Barclays wasn’t alone, that other too big to fail banks might have also engaged in the same shenanigans. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 16 banks are under investigation, in three criminal and 10 civil probes.

It’s bad enough that Barclay traders have been caught discussing the manipulation in emails, referring to the rate manipulation as “the fixings” and requesting a particular rate as casually as if they were ordering a double latte.

What’s worse, the Financial Times started raising questions about the LIBOR-rigging five years ago and the Wall Street Journal cast doubt on the banks’ LIBOR practices in May 2008. 2008. So any regulator or prosecutor with an iota of curiosity could have been digging into LIBOR since then.

As we already know, curiosity about bankers’ malfeasance has been a rare commodity among the officials who are supposed to be scrutinizing their bank behavior. Remember President Obama’s repeated promises to get tough on bankers, most recently in his State of the Union speech in January?

Don’t expect Mitt Romney to make an issue of it – at least 15 of Barclay’s most senior U.S.-based bankers have donated the maximum $2,500 contribution to his presidential campaign. The CEO who resigned, Bob Diamond, had been among the co-hosts for a London fundraiser when Romney goes to London for the Olympics. (Barclays’ political action committee has also contributed significant amounts of cash to Democrats, though not the president, over the years.)

The LIBOR scandal rips the curtains away from one of the nastiest Big Lies on both sides of the 2012 presidential campaign: the president’s line that his Dodd-Frank reform has fixed the financial system, and Romney’s pitch that regulation is the problem and that we should leave bankers alone to run their business as they see fit.

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 07/09/2012

Bankers' gambles – now with a bailout guaranteed

After the 2008 banks bailout, we were promised that financial reform was going to prevent future bailouts.

Never again.

But as we approach the fourth anniversary of the financial collapse, we’re learning just how hollow those promises were.

The most recent example stems from reports that regulators have secretly designated derivatives clearinghouses too big to fail in a financial emergency.

That means that in a crisis, such clearinghouses, in which risky credit default swaps are traded, would be bailed out at taxpayer expense through secret access to cheap money at the Federal Reserve’s credit window.

That’s where the big banks and the rest of corporate America lined after the 2008 to borrow trillions at low interest – with no strings attached.

The Fed didn’t require the banks to share that low interest with consumers or homeowners. The Fed didn’t require that banks make some attempt to fix the foreclosure mess. The Fed didn’t require corporations hire the unemployed or lower outrageous CEO pay.

The Fed just shoveled out the cheap loans.

Now the Fed is planning to extend that generosity, as a matter of policy, to derivative clearinghouses – which puts taxpayers directly on the hook for Wall Street’s risky gambles, like the ones that recently cost J.P. Morgan Chase $2 billion.

While those trades didn’t threaten to sink the economy, it was the unraveling of those kinds of complex gambles that tanked the economy in 2008.

Nobody knows for sure how large the derivatives market is, but the estimates are truly mind-boggling. One derivatives expert estimates that there were $1.2 quadrillion in derivatives last year – 20 times the size of the world’s economy.

While requiring these derivatives to be traded on clearinghouses is supposed to increase transparency, that assumes regulators are aggressive, diligent and understand the trades.

But signaling that these derivatives should be eligible for a bailout is nothing short of insane, at least from the taxpayers’ perspective. From the bankers’ perspective, it’s a pretty good deal, and a reassuring indication that nothing much has changed since the financial crisis: the regulators are still deep in the bankers’ pocket.

Meanwhile, the real reforms that might have a shot at actually fixing the problems and protecting our economy from the big bankers’ addiction to risk get little or no consideration in what passes for political debate.

The best step we could take is to re-impose the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which creates walls between safe, vanilla, and consumer banking (which have traditionally been federally guaranteed, and riskier investment banking and derivatives trading But the bankers oppose Glass-Steagall, and for the present, they remain in control of both political parties and the regulators’ financial policies.

Federal Reserve / Glass-Steagel / Martin Column - 06/26/2012

What's the `worst CEO' worth?

Why did the nation’s largest pension fund take a strong stance against Citibank’s excessive CEO compensation, but then turn around and vote for Bank of America’s lesser, but still outrageous, pay plan?

The California pension fund, CalPERS, was among the 92 percent of shareholders who went along with Bank of America in an advisory vote on CEO compensation earlier this week. In Wednesday’s vote, CalPERs did vote for measures that would have required disclosure on B of A’s lobbying activities as well an independent review of the bank’s foreclosure actions.

While But Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan faced noisy protests and pointed questions at the bank’s annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C, both of those initiatives, like say on pay, were defeated.

In their nonbinding “say on pay” vote, Bank of America shareholders approved a $7 million 2011 pay package for Moynihan. Last month, 55 percent of Citibank’s shareholders, including CalPERS, voted against a 15 percent pay hike for their CEO, Vikram Pandit, who had been getting along on $1 a year in 2009 and 2010 while Citibank floundered.

CalPERS’ position this week is strangely at odds with its previous positions.

In the past, CalPERS has been has been particularly tough on Bank of America. In 2010, it cast an unusual vote against all of the bank’s directors, including then-CEO Ken Lewis.

Asked for comment on Wednesday’s Bank of America CalPERS vote, a spokesperson referred me to the pension board’s 79-page governing principles, specifically the provisions covering executive compensation. CalPERS declined to answer any questions about why the pension fund voted for Moynihan’s compensation fund, but against Citibank’s.

True, Moynihan’s pay is less ($7 million) than Pandit’s ($15 million), but that doesn’t make either of them acceptable, much less understandable, by anything but the tortured logic of the too big to fail, government-coddled banks.

To approve Moynihan’s pay, shareholders had to overlook mountains of evidence that the bank is on the wrong track. Back in October, the bank retreated on a scheme to soak its customers for a $5 a month fee on debit cards after President Obama blasted it. The bank, which Bloomberg News estimates received more than $1.5 billion in federal bailout aid, has repeatedly been the target of criticism for underperforming in voluntary government loan modification programs. Earlier this year, B of A was among the big banks that settled foreclosure fraud charges with the feds and states attorney general. Though it was touted as $25 billion settlement, it actually only cost the banks $5 billion. But the bank fraud it highlighted was real.

Richard Eskow of Campaign For America’s Future outlined Moynihan’s dark career trajectory, from B of A general counsel to head of its retail division to CEO, while the bank completed its disastrous $2.5 billion acquisition of slimy subprime lending king Countrywide. When Moynihan joined senior management the bank’s stock traded around $52 a share. Today it trades around $7 or $8 a share.

Tallying the eventual costs of the Countrywide acquisition, Eskow includes a massive $8.4 billion settlement with states over illegal behavior, $600 million to settle a class action suit, $335 million to settle a discrimination suit and $50 to $55 million for its part of lawsuits against Countrywide’s former CEO.

One bank analyst, Michael Mayo, recently ranked the worst CEOs. Moynihan was at the top of the list (with Citibank’s Pandit not far behind). Mayo cited the stock slide along with the debit card fee debacle and the bank’s failure to stem its foreclosure fraud and mortgage servicing problems.

Eskow hits the nail on the head when he asks: By what standard does Moynihan still have a job, let alone a multimillion-dollar salary?

And by what standard does he merit a vote of confidence by CalPERS, which less than a month earlier had taken a strong stand against excessive pay for another failed bank executive, Pandit?

Especially after the pension fund’s chief investment fund officer, Joe Dear, vowed after the Citibank vote to get even more activist. “Excessive CEO pay is not in the interest of the shareowners and not in the interest of companies,” Dear told CNNMoney.

CalPERS has long been an advocate for improved corporate governance, but its credibility has sagged after it suffered staggering losses in the financial collapse and was caught in its own sleazy “pay to play” scandal.

CalPERS’ Bank of America’s vote leaves unanswered questions about the pension fund’s claims to increased activism. Did CalPERS single out Citibank because that was the only too-big-to-fail bank to fail its latest government stress test, as U.S News and World Report suggested?

Or could the vote have something to do with the confidential settlement last November of a lawsuit CalPERS and 15 other institutional investors filed against Bank of America? Could CalPERS officials have agreed to back off their previous hard line against the Bank of America board as part of a secret deal the public will never see?

Of course, we don’t know details – the settlement is sealed.

Was Citibank a publicity-grabbing one-off, or did the pension fund give Bank of America a bye? We’ll have to wait and see just exactly what CalPERS means by activism when it comes to challenging the pampered, powerful titans of the nation’s too big to fail banks.

For now, all we can do is paraphrase the classic film portraying of the lack of accountability of corrupt power, `Chinatown’:

“Forget it Jake, it’s Wall Street.”

Bank of America (BoA) / CalPERS / Citibank / Executive Pay / Martin Column - 05/11/2012

Court vs. Court

I’ve been a lawyer for thirty-two years, and I’ve never read a judicial decision like the one that the Montana Supreme Court issued last December 30.

While every court in this country – from the lowest state court to the federal tribunals – sees its job as obeying the dictates of the United States Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court chose to obey the U.S. Constitution instead.

The bottom line: the Montana court refused to comply with the US Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down legal limits on how much corporations could spend on electing politicians or passing ballot measures. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to intervene and influence our democracy with cash. Spending money is a form of free speech, said five of the nine justices. And by that one vote majority, the United States Supreme Court made corporations more powerful than government, more powerful than human beings. The second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling sparked a day of national protest, as my colleague Marty Berg reports.

Like many states, Montana had strong campaign spending laws, including disclosure of campaign contributors and one that prohibits corporations from giving money directly to candidates for public office out of the company treasury. Instead, corporations that want to get involved in elections are required to set up a special fund that can receive donations from individual corporate employees or shareholders and use that money for gifts to politicians or political causes.

As the Montana opinion explains, a Colorado-based organization known as “Western Tradition Partnership” sued to invalidate Montana’s corporate campaign controls, saying they were unconstitutional under Citizens United. Now known as “American Tradition Partnership,” the organization’s supporters and funding are murky, but it’s views are clear: it is extremely anti-environment. The Montana Supreme Court described its purpose as “to act as a conduit of funds for persons and entities including corporations who want to spend money anonymously to influence Montana elections. WTP seeks to make unlimited expenditures in Montana elections from these anonymous funding sources. WTP’s operation is premised on the fact, or at least the assumption, that its independent expenditures have a determinative influence on the outcome of elections in Montana.”

Lots of states have dealt with Citizens United by repealing or rewriting their campaign spending laws. Not Montana.

The Montana Supreme Court decision begins by discussing how in the late 1800s, big mining interests used money to back or bribe elected officials in Montana to take control of state government. The corruption got so bad that many citizens of the state lost their faith in government. “This naked corporate manipulation of the very government (Governor and Legislature) of the State ultimately resulted in populist reforms that are still part of Montana law,” writes Montana Chief Justice Mike McGrath. Among the reforms: the initiative process, and, in 1912, the limits on corporate spending.

“The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did,” the Chief Justice writes. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections because the shadowy backers of WTP seek to promote their interests? Does a state have to repeal or invalidate its murder prohibition if the homicide rate declines? We think not.”

While the US Supreme Court justices saw no “compelling interest” in limiting corporate contributions, the Montana Supreme Court had a different view: “Montana has a clear interest in preserving the integrity of its electoral process”; “it also has an interest in encouraging the full participation of the Montana electorate”; and “a continuing and compelling interest in, and a constitutional right to, an independent, fair and impartial judiciary,” one that is not subject to being bought by corporations who elect friendly judges.

Concluding that “the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens,” the Montana Supreme Court refused to apply Citizens United and upheld the state’s campaign 100 year old reform law.

But that was only the majority opinion. Wait till you hear what the two dissenting justices had to say:

The first, Justice Beth Baker: “The value of disclosure in preventing corruption cannot be understated.” But, she continues, “I believe it is our unflagging obligation, in keeping with the courts’ duty to safeguard the rule of law, to honor the decisions of our nation’s highest Court.”

Justice James Nelson gets the last word, and it’s a doozy.

He writes:

“I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United…. I am deeply frustrated, as are many Americans, with the reach of Citizens United. The First Amendment has now been elevated to a vaunted and isolated position so as to endow corporations with extravagant rights of political speech and, with those rights, the exaggerated power to influence voters and elections….. In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s 'open marketplace' of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.”
“It defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads—put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate.”
“I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors.”
“Citizens United distorts the right to speech beyond recognition. Indeed, I am shocked that the Supreme Court did not balance the right to speech with the government’s compelling interest in preserving the fundamental right to vote in elections.”
“I am compelled to say something about corporate ‘personhood.’ While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law… I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

Having explained, in the most vivid terms, why Citizens United was decided wrongly, Justice Nelson concludes: “I must return to the central point of this Dissent. Regardless of my disagreement with the views of the Citizens United majority, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has spoken. It has interpreted the protections of the First Amendment vis-à-vis corporate political speech. Agree with its decision or not, Montana’s judiciary and elected officers are bound to accept and enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling….Citizens United is the law of the land, and this Court is duty-bound to follow it.”

Students of the law know that courts are always disagreeing with each other. Like the majority of the Montana Supreme Court, judges seek to “distinguish” the circumstances of one case from the facts in another in order to rule a different way. But rarely do the cases involve issues so fundamentally important to the nation; rarely are the stakes so great and rarely are the differences so stark. My guess is we're going to be seeing more of this gentle judicial civil disobedience as the present US Supreme Court ventures ever farther into the realm of re-writing the Constitution.

All the Montana justices seemed to agree that the United States Supreme Court had made a terrible decision in Citizens United. It’s most vehement critic on the Montana court, certain of that as he was, nevertheless felt bound to obey a higher principle – to obey the law of the land. If only the five justices in Washington had felt the same way.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Outrage / Supreme Court - 01/23/2012

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

9 For the 99 – Restoring the Real Economy

Remember how aggressively our leaders have talked about tackling unemployment and the housing crisis?

Remember all the strong action to make good on their promises?

Me neither.

Remember how all our leaders criticized each other for taking money from Wall Street and other powerful corporate interests?

Remember all the potent steps they took to rid our democracy of corporate money?

Me neither.

You’ve probably heard of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9-tax plan, the scheme he says will get the economy going. Do you think it will work?

Here’s our proposal to restore the real economy. Unlike the solutions proposed by our leaders, these proposals focus on the problems faced every day by most people, not bankers.

We’ll be offering it at OccupyLA in the next couple of days to complement their work.

Support 28A, constitutional amendment overturning U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling to stop the flood of toxic corporate cash poisoning our democracy
Prosecute Wall Street crime, not Wall Street protestors
Give citizens same right to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at the same low interest rates that Wall Street got in the bailout
Cap bank fees and interest rates
Offer real foreclosure relief: Require banks to provide principal reduction for underwater mortgages, including allowing judges to reduce home mortgage principal in bankruptcy court to encourage mortgage modifications
Repeal unnecessary tax loopholes and other corporate subsidies (overseas tax breaks, local & state tax bribes for moving jobs from one community to another, make corporations pay taxes) and transfer savings to taxpayers and small businesses in the form of tax cuts.
Repeal corporate-backed NAFTA-style trade deals, which export U.S. jobs overseas, reduce wages of American workers to that of laborers in foreign countries and weaken environmental regulation.
Restore traditional separations between federally guaranteed consumer banking from other, riskier, financial business.
Reform student debt, stop predatory practices.

For more information, check out http://www.wheresourmoney.org

On Facebook https://www.facebook.com/wheresourmoney

Twitter http://twitter.com/ - !/WheresOurMoney

Support 28A http://www.wheresourmoney.org/campaign-2011/

Action / Citizens United / Congress / Foreclosure / Martin Column / Supreme Court - 10/20/2011

Bottom Line on Fed Bailout is No Secret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 08/26/2011

D.C. Disconnect: Beltway Media Edition

The historic first ever Federal Reserve press conference delivered even less than the little that was expected.

That was in part because Fed chair Bernanke is good at making economic policy boring and opaque.

After all, that is his job.

But the reporters who cover the Fed have no such excuse.

At the press conference, they shared none of the outrage that continues to be expressed by the rabble outside Washington who are upset by the Fed’s bailout of big banks, and who fought to make the agency more transparent.

The whole thing had the flavor of a rote exercise, featuring people who appeared to be sleepwalking rather than covering the secretive agency that handed out trillions to the financial industry with no questions asked.

There was no skepticism, no appearance that the reporters had done their homework to challenge the Fed’s behavior in boosting banks while abandoning working people. There was none of the excitement that reporters worked up for the non-story of Obama’s birth certificate.

The press conference confirmed what we already knew: federal authorities, including Bernanke have abandoned the unemployed. They’ve moved on. Although employment is one of two of Bernanke’s mandates, he insists his hands are tied.

The reporters participating in this historic occasion treated the bailout as old news. Somehow they managed to miss that every time the Fed provides information about its actions in the bailout, it raises more questions than it answers.

Thankfully, not everybody in Washington shares this view. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, has been doing his best to dog the Fed.

A day before Bernanke held his press conference; Sanders released the results of a study he ordered from the Congressional Research Service of the Fed’s secret lending program. That study showed how the big banks gamed the bailout, profiting from investing the low interest loans the Fed gave them rather than loaning the money to businesses to get the economy going.

Sanders put out a press release with a catchy headline – “Banks Play Shell Game With Taxpayer Dollars.” This wasn’t enough to rouse the reporters who cover the Fed; nobody could be bothered to ask Bernanke about it as his press conference. According to the research service, the banks pocketed interest rates 12 percent greater than the low-interest emergency loans the Fed was giving them. The purpose of this emergency loan program had nothing to do with enriching bankers; it was justified only because we were told it was the only thing that would get the economy going.

It’s worth remembering that Bernanke and the Fed fought a losing battle against the release of any details about its secret lending program. You would have thought the reporters would have welcomed the opportunity to subject Bernanke’s decision-making to public scrutiny.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/28/2011

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