Tell Mitt: Don't run campaign on drug money

Imagine if U.S. politicians took financial contributions skimmed from the ill-gotten gains of bloody Mexican drug cartels and terrorists.

Imagine further that those who profited off the drug gangs used their murder-tinged cash to lobby the U.S. Congress.

You don’t have to strain yourself, this is not some sordid fantasy concocted by Hollywood to horrify and entertain you. This is the reality created by Wall Street’s finest and our leading politicians.

The latest sorry chapter in Wall Street’s waltz with the drug-dealers is laid out in a report by the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. Officials of the British too big to fail bank HSBC acknowledged that despite repeated warnings, they failed to stop drug and terror-tainted deposits from moving through the bank.

According to the report, HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks with a strong U.S. presence, “exposed the U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls.”

In 2007 and 2008, the Senate committee found, HSBC moved $7 billion in bulk cash from Mexican to its U.S. operations, even though authorities warned that the money was proceeds from drug sales.

HSBC was doing a thriving business with well-known cash exchange businesses used by the drug cartels known as casas de cambio, despite repeat warnings that they were fronts. Years after other banks had cut them off, HSBC continued to do business with the casas de cambio.

Mexican drug cartels weren’t the only ones taking advantage of HSBC’s lax controls. Middle East bankers with links to Al Queda also found HSBC a hospitable environment in which to conduct business.

You might think that the authorities would have roast HSBC officials on a spit.

Far from it: in 2008, regulators rewarded HSBC with $3.5 billion from taxpayers in a backdoor bailout, in payments funneled to the bank’s U.S. subsidiary through AIG.

Now HSBC’s bankers have been humiliated at a public hearing and the company’s shareholders may be forced to pay as much as $1 billion in fines.

Still, from the bankers’ perspectives, you would have to say money laundering and bailouts have been very, very good to them. Even after they pay the fine, they’d have more than enough to pay for the $125,000 they’ve given to congressional candidates so far this election cycle, and the $5,700 they’ve doled out to Mitt Romney. The left-over laundered money will also help defray the costs of the $900,000 worth of lobbying the bank has done this year.

I’m confident now that the full extent of HSBC’s misdeeds has become known, Romney and the other politicians will want to have nothing to do with this dirty money and will be clamoring to give it to charity.

But just in case it slips their minds in the rush of doing the people’s business, we should help them out. Mitt can provide a good example by being the first to get rid of the drug and terror money.

 

 

 

Campaign contributions / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Too Big To Fail - 07/24/2012

Guide to congressional cosmetics

President Obama praised the STOCK Act when he signed it into law in April as a good first step to rid Congress of financial conflicts that undermine public confidence.

But it’s really no more than a fast makeup job to cover up the continuing blemishes on our democracy and give the president and members of Congress some talking points for the campaign trail.
The STOCK Act is supposed to prohibit legislators from profiting from the nonpublic information they get on the job. The STOCK Act also prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings unavailable to the public, and provides some additional public disclosure of congressional stock trading.
But we already know that members of Congress do better than civilians when they invest in the stock market. According to a 2011 study, investment portfolios of members of the House beat the market by about 6 percent annually, mimicking the performance of the stock portfolios of their Senate colleagues.
As an example, the Washington Post reported, four congressmen sitting on a committee investigating deceptive billing practices by video game makers sold their stock in the country’s biggest video game maker, GameStop, one of the companies under investigation.
One of the most egregious examples is Sen. Tom Coburn, the Republican Oklahoma senator who has made a name for himself preaching government austerity and self-righteously criticizing both parties for not having the courage to make the cuts needed to reduce the debt.
But austerity and sacrifice were apparently not on Sen. Coburn’s mind when he bought $25,000 in bonds in a genetic technology company at the same time he released a hold on legislation that the company supported. A hold is an informal Senate practice by which a senator can stall a piece of legislation. Coburn, meanwhile, cast one of the few votes against the STOCK Act, dismissing it as nothing more than a stunt.
One clue to just how innocuous the STOCK Act is: it was opposed by only two votes in the House and three in the Senate. This confirms my theory that whenever you see much ballyhooed-bipartisanship at work, you can be sure that members of Congress are either doing the bidding of the 1 percent, or covering their own butts.
The bottom line is that while members of Congress pass laws that prohibit other government officials from presiding over companies and industries in which they have a financial interest, Congress effectively exempts itself from such broad restrictions.
Writing on Yahoo Finance, Ron DeLegge outlines the STOCK Act’s major flaws and omissions: it still allows the sleazy, little-known practice of members selling “political intelligence” to lobbyists as well as continuing to allow members of Congress to own stock in industries over which they can exert influence.
The STOCK Act reminds us, when it comes to Congress, we shouldn’t be distracted by lame cover-ups or blather about bipartisanship, we should follow the money.
And we shouldn’t forget: it’s not their money.
It’s our money.

Bipartisanship / Congress / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/06/2012

King of the Hill

Though we need to wait until November to find out who the next president will be, we already know who the king is.

That would be JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who got the regal treatment from the Senate Finance Committee this week when he was called to testify about the disastrous trades that has cost his firm more than $3 billion so far and reduced the firm's market value by $27 billion.

You know, the trades that Dimon originally dismissed as a “tempest in a teapot.”

Which gives you some idea of the teapots that President Obama’s favorite banker can afford. President Obama has particularly close ties to the bank: JPMorgan’s PAC was one of the top donors to his 2008 campaign, offering more than $800,000, and the president’s former chief of staff, William Daley, was a top executive there.

Dimon is equally popular on Capitol Hill. Instead of a grilling him about his failure to take action for months after questions were raised about the strategy surrounding the failed trades, most of the senators treaded lightly.

Instead of scrutinizing the foreclosure fraud and failure that led to JPMorgan’s $5.3 billion share of a $26 billion settlement with state attorneys generals, several senators took the opportunity to offer Dimon a platform to continue his campaign against regulation of Wall Street, including modest reforms like the Volcker rule which many say could have prevented the JPMorgan loss – had it been in place.

For his part, Dimon denied that he knew anything, took some vague responsibility and minimized the losses as an isolated event.

The route to traditional royalty is through birth or marriage. Dimon won his political crown through another time-honored path – he bought it. Most of the senators he faced had benefited from the generosity of his bank’s campaign contributions. As the Nation’s George Zornick reported, the senators had received more than $522,000 from JPMorgan, about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

The staff of the Finance Committee and JPMorgan are connected through a web of revolving door contacts. The banking committee’s staff director is a former JPMorgan lobbyist, Dwight Fettig. One of the banks’ top lobbyists is a former staffer for banking committee member Sen. Chuck Schumer, while three of its outside lobbyists used to work for the committee or one of its members.

J.P. Morgan has pummeled Congress and regulators with more than $7.6 million worth of lobbying in an effort to get banking rules written to favor the bank.

The king’s appearance before his subjects on the Senate Finance Committee was a powerful demonstration, for those who still need it, of just how little of the spirit and the practice of real democracy remains in an institution that is supposed to embody it.

If our representatives were truly beholden to us, rather than to Dimon and others with large supplies of cash to dole out, his testimony would have had a starkly different tone.

He has a lot to answer for. So do those who let him off so easy.

And it’s not just Dimon that the senators have failed to oversee. While bankers’ profits are back, the banking system is still broke.

If those senators were serving us, rather than serving as lapdogs to bankers, Dimon and other Wall Street monarchs might be looking at prison cells, not red carpets.

 

Martin Column / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 06/14/2012

Main Street talks back

Inside the D.C. bubble, Wall Street’s titans continue to have their way.

Their Republican allies in the Senate helped the titans kill the Buffet Rule, which would have required those who made more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes, double what investors pay on capital gains income.

Wall Street has continued to stifle efforts to regulate risky derivatives like the ones that led to the financial collapse, while most of the Dodd-Frank financial reform enacted in the wake of the financial crisis has yet to be implemented.

In the Wall Street Journal (no link), columnist David Weidner asserted Wednesday that Wall Street has gotten some of its swagger back. “Big financial interests,” Weidner wrote, “are beating back every broadside with a vigor not seen since the financial-bubble days.”

But outside Washington it is a different story.

Voting for the first time on the CEO compensation of a too-big –to-fail bank, Citibank shareholders rejected a $14.9 million annual compensation for its top executive.  The “say on pay” vote, mandated as part of Dodd-Frank, is strictly advisory. Citibank officials can ignore it if they want.

For years, the company’s executives had promised that their pay would be strictly tied to performance. The CEO, Vikram Pandit, had been making $1 a year since the bailout during which time the bank performed miserably. But this year, the bank’s directors decided that Pandit deserved to get back on the gravy train with the rest of the industry’s CEOs.

The following day, shareholders at another smaller regional bank, FirstMeritCorp of Akron, Ohio, rejected the compensation package for their CEO in another “say on pay” vote. Directors of that bank wanted to raise the CEO’s pay $1 million to $6.4 million a year, after the bank’s stock had fallen 20 percent during the past year.

They’re just a couple of non-binding votes. But I found it striking that when Main Street voters had the opportunity to express their opinion directly on one aspect of Wall Street’s practices, the voters voiced disapproval.

Wall Street can’t dismiss their shareholders as a bunch of Occupy Wall Street types out to destroy the system, or marginalize their rejection as mere envy. These are hardnosed investors who would like nothing better than for Wall Street banks to get on solid footing and make money. But these voters realize that despite all the administration’s happy talk about how well the bailouts have worked, the banks still aren’t sound, and that the outrageous pay for top executives who haven’t delivered is a big part of the problem because it encourages focus on short-term profit, loading up on risk and relying on continuing government help to prop up their businesses.

According to Weidner, polls show that most voters have moved on from anger at Wall Street. That may be so. But if ordinary citizens, rather than Washington insiders beholden to Wall Street, were making decisions, I think they would coolly, calmly and rationally favor the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, and sensible regulation that would keep the titans from getting too carried away with themselves and their schemes.

 

Congress / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 04/20/2012

In new Hollywood role, former senator plays the heavy

Thanks to Hollywood lobbyist and former Senate banking chair Chris Dodd for telling it like it is.

Dodd warned that Hollywood’s big-money contributors, who have been very, very good to President Obama and his fellow Democrats, might withhold their cash after the president expressed reservations over a controversial Internet anti-piracy bill.

Who ever would have guessed it would be Dodd, who during his 21-year-long career in Washington collected more than $48 million in campaign contributions, much of it from the financial industry he was supposed to be overseeing, who would cut through all the lies and palaver to deliver the knockout punch to our Citizens United-poisoned political system?

“Candidly, those who count on quote  `Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,” Dodd told Fox News. “Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

But who better than Dodd to make clear what contributors expect for their cash.  He knows exactly how the system works, from both sides of the revolving door.

It was Dodd, after all, who made sure that AIG executives got their bonuses in 2009 while taxpayers were bailing out the firm at the heart of the subprime meltdown. It was no coincidence that AIG executives had showered Dodd with  $56,000 in contributions.

Nobody knows this terrain as well as Dodd.

He was a “friend of Angelo,” one of those elected officials who personally got sweet mortgage deals – at below market rates– from Angelo Mozilo, the head of the Countrywide, the mortgage company that nearly sank under the weight of its subprime trash loans until Bank of America rescued it. (His colleagues on the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed a complaint against him.)

While he and his colleague, Rep. Barney Frank (House Financial Services Committee?), oversaw the watering down of financial reform legislation in the wake of the financial crisis, Dodd played the role of beleaguered public servant, wringing his hands in frustration over the army of lobbyists against whom he was claimed he powerless.

But now that’s he moved from Washington to Hollywood, he’s got a new script that calls for tough, public, bare-knuckled threats to the president of the United States.

And whatever he owes the American public for his perfidy as an elected official, we owe him a debt of gratitude for it. Because he has exposed the political system and the money that dominates it for what it is.

As Dodd has illustrated so eloquently, the Supreme Court got it wrong in their infamous Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to dump unlimited, unreported cash into our political system.

Money is not free speech. I don’t know whether Bob Dylan had Congress in mind when he sang nearly 30 years ago, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears,” but he was prophetic.

The impact of money in politics has put a curse on our democracy, and it won’t be lifted until we throw the corporations and the billionaires’ money out.

As Dodd’s remarks demonstrate, big money campaign contributions are a blunt force instrument, which corporate interests and the wealthy can use to control the politicians who depend on them for their livelihoods, as Dodd did when he was playing the part of the distinguished U.S. senator.

Rest assured, the people who gave him $48 million knew his real role was so serve them, whatever lines he was required to utter for the scene he was playing at the time.

 

 

AIG / Citizens United / Congress / Executive Pay / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 02/01/2012

Mr. President, Keep Your Promise

President Obama got generally high marks earlier this month for “getting it” after he struck a populist tone in his speech at Osawatomie, the Kansas town where he evoked the progressive spirit of former president Teddy Roosevelt.

But if he really wants to do something about the economic pain Americans continue to suffer, the president could start by keeping a campaign promise he made – to lead a fight to reform bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgage loans in their courts.

Under heavy pressure from bankers, the Senate defeated such a proposal in 2009, while the president and his administration remained silent on the sidelines.

At the time, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said bitterly, referring to Congress, the big banks “frankly own the place.”

The administration’s refusal to address the foreclosure crisis remains one of the sorriest aspects of its consistent underestimation of the depth of the economic crisis.

Earlier this month, the non-profit investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica filled in the details on how the administration pooped out on the president’s campaign promise. It turns out that many on the president’s bank-friendly economic team were never enthusiastic about cram-down.

The idea behind judicial cram-downs is to treat mortgage debt the same as other debts which bankruptcy judges are permitted to reduce as part of a bankruptcy.

The impact would be to encourage bankers to reduce principal on mortgages before they ever got to bankruptcy court. Judicial cram-down would be far more effective than the Obama administration’s previous failed programs intended to address the foreclosure crisis, which offered banks insufficient incentives to voluntarily modify loans with inadequate government oversight.

Part of the reason the president can’t hammer the Republicans for their lack of any plan to address foreclosures is that he hasn’t come up with a decent plan of his own – and that he didn’t fight hard enough for a solution like cram-down, which lost by six votes in the Senate, including 12 members of the president’s own party.

In addition, 11 Republicans who represent states among the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis also voted against cram-down.

Couldn’t a tougher, savvier, more committed fight by the president come up with the seven or so votes needed to win this fight?

As the  president takes on the big banks. he may take encouragement from these words from the predecessor he evoked so successfully at Osawatomie:

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/28/2011

Rearranging the Deck Chairs Tonight

U.S. Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, thinks Republican and Democratic members of Congress should sit with each other, rather than separately by party, when President Obama makes his State of the Union speech tonight in the Capitol. In a letter to the leadership of the House and the Senate that has gotten a lot of attention in D.C., Udall said that “partisan seating arrangements at State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States…. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room – while the other side sits – is unbecoming of a serious institution.  And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the President is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.”

Udall is right about the symbolism of the tradition, which dates back two centuries, but his proposal is just more symbolism.

This isn’t one of those dinner parties where the hosts break up the married couples to inspire more lively conversation. Sitting next to each other isn’t going to stop the Democrats from applauding, or the Republicans from sitting on their hands or worse, like when a congressman from South Carolina screamed “you lie” during a health care speech by Obama to a joint session of Congress in 2009, or when at last year's State of the Union, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly disagreed when the President criticized one of the Roberts court’s more extreme examples of judicial activism. With differences so deep, putting congresspeople within reach of each other may not be a good idea at all.

So what exactly is the attraction of Udall’s proposal? As in every mass tragedy in recent years – from JFK’s assassination to 9/11 to the carnage in Arizona – there is a brief period in which people want to reach out, beyond politics, for reassurance that we are all, or at least most of us, still human beings. We’re still within that gauzy penumbra. Speaking in Tucson, Professor Obama got high marks from the opinionators and the public for pointing out that incivility cannot explain insanity – and thus smothering the debate over the name-calling and extreme partisan politics of our era. But is that really the problem in America today?

True, the majority of Americans probably are uncomfortable with the current decibel level. We remember wistfully an America when things were better all around – or perhaps merely seemed so. But there is, without any question, plenty of reason to be angry right now. Not since the Depression have so many people suffered while so few prosper. Our American spirit has been shaken, maybe shattered. We have been betrayed by those we entrusted to protect us.

I don’t agree with many of the loudest, angriest people, but I don’t blame them for being loud or angry.

Sometimes that’s the only way you get things done.

Addressing another exercise in symbolism – a new non-profit political organization called “No Labels” dedicated to “bipartisanship” – New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently made the point: “The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation.”

When you look at what has happened to this country, the dire conditions at home and the dangers we face abroad, and what we have to do to make sure our kids have some measure of the security and prosperity we enjoyed, talking about where members of Congress sit is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Congress / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 01/25/2011

Lame Ducks, Bogus Excuses

Sen. Chris Dodd brought the big banks back to Capitol Hill Tuesday to hear more about the foreclosure mess.

By the end of the day Dodd, who is retiring from the Senate after presiding over the watering down of financial reform, had a novel response: he called for an investigation.

By now nearly federal agency as well as every state attorney general is already investigating the scandal, after banks disclosed the shoddy record-keeping they were using in the foreclosure process.

How hard any of these investigations is really digging is an open question. But the more the merrier, according to Dodd. He suggested it would be a first test for the systemic risk council, which was set up under the financial reform law that bears his name, along with his House colleague Barney Frank.

The systemic risk council will be made up of members of the Obama administration, led by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. The administration has already brushed off the foreclosure scandal, so it’s highly unlikely the council would come back later and reverse its assessment.

Meanwhile the congressional bailout monitor, now headed by former Delaware senator Ted Kaufman, issued a stern warning about the consequences of the foreclosure scandal in its monthly report. “If document irregularities prove to be pervasive and, more importantly, throw into question ownership of not only foreclosed properties but also pooled mortgages, the result could be significant harm to the financial stability,” the monitor wrote.

Not to worry, the big banks keep reassuring us. It’s just a matter of some sloppy paperwork.

The big banks’ credibility, to put it politely, is not so hot. For example, Bank of America insists that they would be doing better modifying mortgages if not for the investors standing in the way. So the investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica took a look and found out their explanation was bogus.

Around the Web / Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 11/17/2010

The Lawyer With the Dragon Tattoo

This year’s most fearsome movie heroine is Lisbeth Sander, the hacker vigilante who outwits corporate and political evildoers with her superior investigatory skills, not to mention some kickboxing and the deft use of a taser. “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” smashes and hacks her way through the government officials, business executives and journalists that comprise Sweden’s lazy and corrupt Establishment. They do everything they can to stop her, but – I’m about to give away the ending – Sander ultimately triumphs, exposing decades-long corporate and government conspiracies.

Elizabeth Warren shares none of Sanders’ characteristics – except an exceptional intellect – ­but when it comes to inspiring fear and loathing among the denizens of Washington and Wall Street, she is every inch as frightening, as has been pointed out over the last few days in profiles and posts across the mediascape.

Warren, a bankruptcy professor at Harvard Law, long criticized the practices of America’s banks and credit card companies in law reviews and academic pieces. In 2005, when the financial industry was lobbying Congress to make it harder for the average American to declare bankruptcy, Warren penned a landmark analysis that concluded that most Americans sought bankruptcy protection not because they were freeloaders but because they could no longer afford to pay their medical bills. Long before the current crash, Warren proposed the establishment of a federal agency to protect consumers against credit card tricks and other financial abuses.

In November 2008, in a rare example of a perfect congressional appointment, Senate President Harry Reid put her in charge of the congressional task force monitoring how the $700 billion in taxpayers' bailout money was spent. She has demanded answers to the same question we ask here: “where did the money go?”  The results of her investigations, which can be found here, pull no punches.

Back in 2008, no one could have expected that Congress would create a financial consumer watchdog agency of the kind Warren advocated for years.  But her powerful and outspoken performance as chair of the bailout oversight panel has made her the obvious and only credible candidate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the otherwise innocuous financial “reform” legislation Congress passed a few weeks ago.

Which, of course, has got Wall Street fired up, members of Congress tied in knots and the White House cornered. Unlike the Byzantine complexities of the financial swindles and the ostensible legislative “solutions,” none of which garnered public attention much less support, the question of whether the President will appoint a skilled lawyer/consumer advocate to protect consumers, or whether he will instead choose a Wall Street insider as he did when he appointed Treasury Secretary Geithner and White House economic advisor Larry Summers, is one the public and press can easily grasp.

The appointment raises the kind of simple and straightforward “whose side is he really on?” question that Obama has so far been able to soft peddle, though he unceremoniously surrendered on the public option in the health care bill and on “too big to fail” banks in the financial reform bill, to name just a few instances of his unilateral disarmament.

Make no mistake: Warren is a highly sophisticated lawyer that knows all the tricks of the financial industry and how to use the powers of government to stop them. This expertise will be essential. I wrote a ballot proposition, approved by California voters in 1988, that regulates the insurance industry. Having spent the last twenty-two years defending it against incessant lawsuits by industry lawyers and not infrequent efforts of elected state officials to hobble it, I can tell you that few decision-makers in the federal government have the technical skills and expertise to go head to head against the battalions of lawyering orcs deployed by big financial firms. Warren does.

Which brings us back to the fascinating spectacle of the hypocritical Washington establishment trying to grapple with her candidacy. She is, literally, made for the job, and a spontaneous grassroots campaign for her appointment is mounting around the country. But the politicians, obeying their paymasters on Wall Street, are trying to figure out a strategy to sabotage her nomination. It’s almost comic to behold. Republicans should be hailing Warren as a savior of beleaguered taxpayers, but one of their Senate leaders said that her tenure as chair of the bailout watchdog was “marked with ‘controversy”” and implied that Warren doesn’t have the necessary qualifications.

It’s the same for some Dems: Senate Finance Committee Chair Chris Dodd, who had never met a financial “innovation” (or industry lobbyist) he didn’t embrace until the whole rotten system collapsed two years ago, damned Warren with faint praise, then suggested she couldn’t be confirmed. He floated the name of FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, but she said no thanks.

Nor has the Obama administrationt been particularly supportive. Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner was forced to dispel rumors that he is opposed to Warren by mouthing some platitudes about how “capable” and “effective” she would be in the post. A White House spokesperson told reporters, “We’ve got many good candidates. I know that the president will look at this job and the several other jobs that are created as part of this legislation and make an announcement.”

Warren’s appointment could be one of the few meaningful victories for consumers in the aftermath of the Wall Street deregulation disaster. She is not your typical accommodating political appointee. She does not appear likely to “play ball” with Team Obama or anyone else inside the Beltway when it comes to protecting consumers against the pillaging financial industry. The White House is well aware that once appointed, she would be very hard to fire, especially for doing her job with the zeal it requires. Having never served in such a position, Warren has not yet been tested, so my assessment of her political spine is partly speculation. But if I’m right, she's at least as threatening as Lisbeth Sander.

Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 08/07/2010

Around the Web: Tweak Show

Rather than providing a terrifying wakeup call to reshape our financial system, the economic meltdown turned out to be a boon to bank lobbyists.

The fight for financial reform looks like it will be a long war.

Who won the first battle? The too-big-to-fail bankers, who spared no expense in protecting their interests. Now they’re stronger than ever, and the job of regulating them has largely been turned over to the same regulators who failed to protect the country from the recent debacle.

House and Senate conferees are still haggling over the final details. In the latest “compromise” to emerge, Rep. Barney Frank has given up fighting for an independent consumer financial protection agency, agreeing with the Senate proposal to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve.

It hasn’t helped that the man who was supposed to lead the charge  – President Obama – ­ has largely been missing in action. An independent consumer financial agency was once a linchpin of President Obama’s financial reform package. But it’s gone the way of other provisions that the big banks opposed. The president also once threatened to veto reform if it didn’t contain strong derivatives regulation, now the administration is actually working to undermine it.

One of the most articulate advocates of a stronger overhaul of the financial system isn’t waiting around to see the final bill to declare a verdict. Baseline Scenario’s Simon Johnson declares the reform effort a failure. Rather than joining with a handful of congressman and senators fighting for a more robust overhaul, Johnson concludes that the White House “punted, repeatedly, and elected instead for a veneer of superficial tweaking.”

Now the focus of financial industry lobbying will shift to the regulators, who will have the task of writing the new rules the administration and Congress balked at providing. The conference committee is televising its proceedings. It’s not a pretty picture, as when Texas Republican congressman Jeb Hensarling argued to gut some controls on bankers’ compensation out of concern that the federal government would be setting bank tellers’ pay.

If you have a strong stomach, you can view the remaining sessions here. The Democrats want the negotiations wrapped up by July 4.

Around the Web / Martin Column - 06/21/2010