January 2010 - Represent Consumers

Urgent Challenges, Modest Responses

The good thing about President Obama’s state of the union speech is that he acknowledged the public’s anger over the financial crisis.

The bad thing is that he appears to reject it. “Look,” he said. “I’m not interested in punishing banks.”

As expected, the president put the rhetorical focus on jobs and the economy in his state of the union. But the actual proposals, a combination of tax cuts and subsidies were relatively modest. But the combination of his proposed freeze on most discretionary spending and continuing Republican opposition make the possibility of dramatic improvement in jobs and the economy unlikely. The speech didn’t contain the kind of dramatic response that 18 percent real unemployment and a continuing foreclosure crisis demand.

President Obama insisted he would veto any financial reform that wasn’t real. But he didn’t spell out what that might mean. Does that mean he’ll veto financial reform that doesn’t contain a Consumer Financial Protection Agency or meaningful derivatives regulation? The president didn’t say. He also didn’t pledge to fight for any specific reforms in Congress. The only specific he mentioned was his proposed bank fee to recoup costs of the bailouts.

President Obama blames his legislative frustrations on his own inability to fully explain his policies. But the president who has repeatedly promised no more business as usual remains afraid to tap into, and act on, the public’s honest passion for real change.

Obama's 'Hostage' Crisis

Tonight’s state of the union speech will be the least important of President Barack Obama's political career. No doubt it will be a dazzling performance, as the president pivots from pugilistic to professorial, from left to right. We know the president comes through with the rhetoric in the clutch. But the true test of his presidency is no longer what he says he will do or how he says it.

The test is whether Obama and his team wage a credible and effective fight for financial reform and economy recovery for Main Street, with the same vigor and urgency they threw into the Wall Street bailout. That will take more than a speech or even a series of speeches. It will take a real self-critical assessment of the president's strategy up til now and a tough, savvy and sustained political battle plan in the face of significant obstacles.

Both have been lacking in the president's approach so far. That’s the real pivot he needs to make now, and it has only partly to do with oratorical skills.

Obama’s credibility is suffering because he and his team keep suggesting that they have overseen a recovery that most people aren’t enjoying. They helped engineer a bailout that they say was absolutely necessary that helped the financial sector but left out the rest of us. Obama and his team don’t have credibility because they’re working Capitol Hill as hard as they can, not to create jobs for millions of out of work Americans, but to save the job of one of the few Americans who could have helped forestall both the financial crisis and the Wall Street –friendly bailout but didn’t, Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve.

Sen. Tom Harkin summed up what many people are feeling in reacting to comments from Tim Geithner, Obama’s treasury secretary who had warned that the stock market would tumble if Bernanke were not confirmed.

Geithner was just acting as a messenger boy for Wall Street, Harkin suggested. “How long will our economic policy be held hostage to Wall Street who threaten us that there’ll be total collapse if we don’t do everything they want? Wall Street wants Bernanke,” Harkin said. “They’re sending all these signals there’ll be this total collapse if he’s not approved. You know, I’m tired of being held hostage by Wall Street.”

Wall Street doesn’t like key planks of the president’s financial reform plan, like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and his recently announced plan to separate some of the largest bank’s risky business from its more traditional functions. The Senate’s banking committee chair, Christopher Dodd has signaled he’s ready to surrender on the consumer protection agency. Will the president announce tonight how he and his team plan to win that fight when congressional leaders are giving up? Or will the president treat the consumer protection agency and bank size as just details that should be left up to Congress, as he did in the battle over crucial aspects of health care reform?

A different kind of hostage crisis helped bring down a previous Democratic president. All Jimmy Carter had to grapple with were a bunch of Iranian revolutionaries holding 53 Americans in an embassy in Tehran. President Obama’s challenge is much tougher – 250 million people and our entire political process held hostage by some of the world’s wealthiest corporations and individuals. Carter’s hands were tied. Are Obama’s?

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/27/2010

Fed Up: Down With Bernanke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama, Meet Gray Davis

The Massachusetts Massacre rocked the D.C. establishment. But when it comes to political earthquakes, there’s no place like California. A look back at the Golden State’s electricity crisis, when a cautious governor let the state’s taxpayers bear the financial brunt of deregulation and was later ousted, suggests that last Tuesday’s vote was merely a foreshock of what lies ahead unless President Obama and congressional Democrats step up.

Nine years ago, Wall Street energy traders took advantage of California’s newly deregulated electricity market to do what Wall Street always does. By gaming the system, buying and selling electricity contracts multiple times, sending power out of state and ultimately shutting down their power plants to create blackouts, the speculators drove the price of electricity through the roof, until the state’s utilities collapsed and the California economy seized up. It was a massive windfall for Wall Street.

Although deregulation had been signed into law by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, it didn’t take full effect for several years. By the time deregulation proved to be the disaster myself and other consumer advocates predicted it would be, the Governor of California was Gray Davis, a moderate Democrat who was on the short list of contenders for the Presidency in 2004.

Then the lights went off – in middle of January, when consumption in California is at its lowest of the year. The energy industry said its plants were down for maintenance. The Bush Administration blamed California for not building enough power plants. But anyone not on the industry’s payroll or blinded by worship of the free market could figure out that California was being scammed, big time, by an artificial shortage.

With traffic signals dark and businesses shutting down, we called upon Governor Davis to send in the National Guard, seize control of the power plants, and turn the juice back on.

Davis didn’t know what to do. Deregulation wasn’t his idea, but it melted down on his watch. We later heard that representatives of the California Public Utilities Commission and some of the state’s utility companies had privately urged him to use the power of eminent domain to take over the plants. But Davis declined.

Instead, he brought in Wall Street advisors from firms like the Blackstone Group to guide him. At that point, the state’s utility companies had run out of money to pay for electricity. The energy companies refused to generate any more electricity unless the state of California – the taxpayers – stepped in. The Wall Street rating agencies piled on, threatening to downgrade the state’s credit rating if Sacramento didn’t agree. It was “blackout blackmail,” but Davis’s Wall Street advisors convinced him that it was the only solution, and he capitulated.

California borrowed tens of billions of dollars to pay the energy companies their vastly inflated prices for electricity. Our electricity bills will reflect that debt for another 20 years. Meanwhile, Wall Street firms reaped billions of dollars – from the phony crisis, and from the bonds that were floated to pay for it.

The lights came back on. But California voters never forgot how Gray Davis handled the confrontation between Wall Street and Main Street. And when an action figure from the movies gave them an opportunity, they terminated Davis’s political career.

Similar forces were at work in the Massachusetts election. Bay State voters were simply the first in 2010 to have the opportunity to express their dismay at how Washington has handled the financial crash that Wall Street engineered.

Like Davis, President Obama wasn’t even on the scene when Congress and federal regulators dismantled the Depression era safeguards that protected us against a speculation-driven collapse. But when confronted with an unprecedented crisis, President Obama, like Governor Davis, choked.

Instead of using every measure of his presidential authority to stop the speculation, punish the perpetrators, reform the financial system and relieve struggling Americans, Obama brought in a cadre of Wall Street players whose advice was, not surprisingly, to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the banks, credit card companies and hedge funds, and let Wall Street go back to business as usual with barely a slap on the wrist. The hundreds of millions of Americans who didn’t qualify for a federal bailout were left empty-handed.

Like Davis, Obama will have a couple of years to turn this political and personal debacle around.

Putting a cap on the interest rates we pay to borrow our own money from banks and credit card firms would help millions of consumers weather the coming months and get the economy going again. Replacing Geithner, Summers and others who used to work for the industry with a few Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz who warned of the coming collapse would be good for the White House, now trapped in its own pro-Wall Street bubble. Last week, Obama proposed breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, which would prevent more reckless speculation and future crash/bailouts. But Americans now wonder if the President will follow his words with deeds, or surrender to the industry lobbyists without a fight, as he did before.

Whether Obama will find the courage that eluded Gray Davis remains to be seen.

Harvey Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 01/25/2010

All Nader is Saying is Give Super-Rich a Chance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That part is probably true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Column - 01/23/2010

Finding Opportunity Among Democrats' Troubles

It’s the bankers, stupid!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Angelides, Which Side Are You On?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s what Sen. Christopher Dodd found out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Apology Accepted, Captain Needa"

It’s not about “sorry” anymore.

Even before the Wall Street titans were sworn in last week, it appeared as if the goal of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s chair, Californian Phil Angelides, was to wring an apology from the men whose companies led the nation into an economic abyss. Whereas most Americans, let me venture, would like to wring their necks.

About twenty-five years ago, I wrote about “inseki jishoku,” the Japanese tradition of accepting responsibility for one’s actions and resigning one’s position as penitence. “These social balancing mechanisms are powerfully ingrained within the Japanese culture. In business activity, they create by necessity a ‘state of intimacy’ among management and employees,” William Ouchi, a management expert, told me at the time. I suggested that there would be less corporate crime in this country if American CEOs embraced a similar approach.

That never happened.

So what would be the point of a symbolic apology from the titans of the Money Industry – assuming they would be willing to offer one (they tried hard not to, in the event)?

No amount of apology is going to salve the grievous wound in the American psyche as the banks’ profits and bonuses break records.

Like most Americans, I am having a hard time getting my head around how these companies can claim to be earning a “profit” and their executives billions of dollars in extra compensation after American taxpayers were forced to pitch in trillions of dollars to keep the companies afloat.

The truth is that they were able to get away with it because no one in Washington ever imposed any kind of quid pro quo for the bailout.

No cap on the exorbitant interest rates we now pay to borrow our own money from the credit card companies, for example.

No relief for people trying to keep up with their mortgages and pay the rest of the bills.

If symbolism is what this is all about, I say we’ve moved beyond the “apology” stage. How about sending some of these people to jail for twenty years? Or is it "legal" to destroy an economy and cost Americans their life savings and jobs? I had hoped the Angelides investigation would be the beginning of an intensive investigation that, like the Watergate hearings, would lead to holding people criminally accountable for their actions. Not so far, at least.

As I watched the politicians and the leaders of Goldman Sachs, Chase and Bank of America sashay around an apology at the witness table, it reminded me of a scene from the Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo and the Millenium Falcon have just managed to elude Darth Vader’s entire fleet of starships. Informed that Vader wants an update on the search, Captain Needa replies, “I shall assume full responsibility for losing them, and apologize to Lord Vader.” Vader, using the Force, strangles him. “Apology accepted, Captain Needa.”

Executive Pay / Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Harvey Column - 01/18/2010

Angelides Panel Day 2: Bair, But No Flair

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

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

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

I’m not buying it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angelides Commission: All Puff, No Punch

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

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

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

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

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