What About The Rest of Us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•                13 would have income below the poverty level.

•                14 members would be receiving food stamps.

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

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

•                74 members would not have college degrees.

•                20 would not have graduated high school.

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Martin Column - 05/17/2011

The Never-Ending Bailout

Even though banks' super-charged profits and eye-popping bonuses are back, they want you to keep paying the costs of their foreclosures.

In California, where the foreclosure crisis has hit with brutal force, it will cost communities between $600 billion and $1 trillion in lost property value, almost $4 billion in lost property tax revenue, and over $17 billion in local government costs between 2008 and 2012, according to Ellen Reese, a University of California Riverside sociologist and Jan Breidenbach, who teaches housing policy at USC, writing in the San Bernardino Sun.

That amounts to be about $20,000 per foreclosure that local governments [meaning you] have to pay every time a bank forecloses on a home.

One California legislator has made a modest suggestion: have banks pay those costs at the time of the foreclosure, so taxpayers don’t have to absorb them later.

The way the banks have responded, you would think that the legislators had proposed seizing the banks and distributing the bankers’ money on Main Street.

The mortgage bankers’ association, in best fear-mongering fashion, told its members that making the banks pay the costs of their failed loans would dry up all future home lending in the state.

In her April 6 letter to her membership, the association’s president, Pam Sosa, doesn’t offer any suggestion how the costs banks are currently passing on to you and me could be mitigated.

Meanwhile the California Bankers’ Association says if the bill becomes law, they’ll simply pass the cost on to their customers.

Why should the banks have to pay when they’ve done such a stellar job convincing the politicians that you won’t mind picking up the tab for the bankers’ losses?

If you thought that the financial collapse would curtail the banks sense of entitlement to write their own rules for their business, you would be wrong.

If you thought that the financial collapse would have made the banks think twice before demanding that we pay the costs when their business goes south, their reaction to AB 935, sponsored by San Fernando Valley Democrat Bob Blumenfield, demonstrates that you would be wrong.

Of course, the real purpose behind AB 935 is not to get the banks’ money. It is provide more of a financial incentive to the banks to work out sustainable modifications that would allow homeowners to remain in their homes. The Obama administration’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program has had little success in encouraging banks to modify loans because in part, the incentives it offers to the banks are too small But the banks find it tough to make their case on the merits. They can’t argue they don’t have enough money to pay their own way. Instead they rely on fear tactics and the inside game, which has served them so well in getting legislators and regulators to water down efforts to crack down in the wake of the financial collapse. In the depths of the recession in California, at the same time bankers were collecting billions in bailout, they were spending $70 million in lobbying fees and campaign contributions to thwart or weaken legislation that would have protected homeowners in the foreclosure process.

Testifying earlier this week on behalf of AB 935, economist and blogger Mike Konczal described foreclosures as a “lose-lose situation.” A foreclosure fee that accurately covers the real costs the community will have to pay will encourage more sustainable modifications, he said. He also debunked the mortgage bankers’ argument that it would have an impact on new lending, because it will only be applied to already existing loans. Citing recent Federal Reserve statistics, Konczal said relatively few homeowners are actually walking away from their “under water” homes, “and are willing to pay to do right by their communities and their promises. It would be great to have a financial system that met them halfway."

But the banks disagreed. They fought back hard on AB 935. Late Tuesday, Peggy Mears of Alliance of Californians for Community Protection sent around an email to say that the legislation appeared to be dead for the year, stuck in legislative committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Foreclosure / Martin Column - 04/26/2011

Government of Honeywell, By Honeywell, For Honeywell

 

Of all the corporate big shots offering the rest of us stern lectures about the sacrifices we’re going to have to make, is there any more infuriating than Honeywell’s CEO’s, David Cote?

Cote, who was paid $20 million last year, has been a particularly outspoken member of President Obama’s deficit commission, with a special kind of shameless gall to be able, with a straight face, to warn the rest of us that we will have to get by with less retirement and health care if the country is going to deal with its deficit.

I’d like to propose a new rule: before the president hands somebody like Cote [pronounced Ko-tay] a billion-dollar megaphone, that person and his company should demonstrate that they are following generally accepted rules of good citizenship.

In the case of Honeywell, the company makes the rules it has to live by. And why shouldn’t it? One of the largest contractors to the federal contractors, it’s also one of the heaviest hitters when it comes to lobbying, spending $6.5 million last year. Among manufacturing firms, only General Electric spent more.

But when it comes to political contributions, Honeywell far outstrips GE, with $2.3 million spent in the 2009-2010 election cycle compared to GE’s $1.4 million.

And Honeywell doesn’t just rely on high-paid lobbyists, when the bailout faced a skeptical public in 2008, Cote (who sits on the board of J.P. Morgan Chase) wrote to his employees to suggest they get out and support the bailout.

But in every set of rules that the government sets  related to Honeywell, those millions spent influencing the government turn out to be very solid investments.

For example, taxes. Cote’s Honeywell doesn’t pay any, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice.

It’s all perfectly legal in the rigged world of the U.S. tax code, where corporations like Honeywell use the political access that only money can buy to write the rules they have to live by.

How rigged is the U.S. tax code?

Well, for example, look at the plight of homeowners who lose their home to foreclosure. Even after those poor saps lose their homes, if the lender forgives some of the mortgage debt because the house sells for less than the homeowner owed, the IRS could still come after them.

I know, I know, those homeowners should have had the foresight to hire more lobbyists and increase their contributions to political campaigns.

Taxes are hardly the only place where Honeywell falls short on the standards of good citizenship.

Honeywell has major contracts in Iran, and despite U.S. sanctions against that country, the company has taken a somewhat relaxed view toward compliance, agreeing that it wouldn’t take on any new work in Iran while it closes out its current work.

Because you wouldn’t want sanctions to be too disruptive to Honeywell’s ability to make profits.

Back home in the U.S., Cotes’ Honeywell has been especially good at squeezing sacrifices from other people, like its workers and the communities who live near its facilities.

Dirt Diggers Digest has compiled a useful summary of Honeywell’s actions at the Illinois plant that is the sole facility in the country where uranium ore is converted into the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the production of both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, a risky process using highly toxic materials.

Last year workers at the plant balked when the company sought to eliminate retiree health benefits, reduce pensions for new hires, cap severance pay and contract out maintenance. So Honeywell locked them out and brought in replacement workers.

After an explosion at the plant, Honeywell was cited by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for improperly coaching replacement workers during investigations by federal inspectors, while the Environmental Protection Agency fined the company $11.8 million for illegally storing hazardous waste – only the latest in more than $650 million in fines for misconduct, according to the Project on Government Oversight.

But the federal contracts keep pouring in, because in Honeywell’s world, misconduct is just part of doing business, and doesn’t have real world consequences. And apparently that misconduct doesn’t give David Cote any qualms about telling the rest of us what we need to do.

Do you have candidates for most infuriating corporate bigwig? Let WheresOurMoney.org know.

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Pay / Financial Crisis / Martin Column / Outrage / Social Security / TARP - 04/16/2011

Quotable-Finley Peter Dunne

"High finance isn't burglary or obtaining money by false pretenses, but rather a judicious selection from the best features of those fine arts."

Finley Peter Dunne, Chicago author, 1867-1936


Financial Crisis / Quotable - 04/15/2011

Top 4 Lesson Big Bankers Can Teach Us

America’s bankers have been extraordinarily effective in responding to a financial crisis that they created. They’ve worked hard to make sure that the response to the crisis didn’t threaten their fat bonuses or their awesome political power.

They succeeded in gutting the toughest aspects of financial reform. Then they started lobbying the regulators who will have the enforcement power.

Now they’re toiling to undermine a proposed settlement with authorities over widespread abuses in the foreclosure process, and demonizing consumer champion Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the process.

Of course they’re getting plenty of help from their government enablers. As Gretchen Morgenstern reported in the New York Times, the 50 state attorney generals who are supposed to be spearheading the investigation into the foreclosures aren’t doing any actual investigating.

This puts them at a definite disadvantage when they sit down to negotiate with the banks.

Those of us who aren’t bankers and would like to see a different outcome could learn a few things from the bankers.

How do the bankers do it?

  1. They’re relentless. They don’t take no for an answer and they don’t know the meaning of defeat. They have lots of money and they’re not afraid to spend it on campaign contributions and lobbying. While we may not be able to match their cash, there’s no reason we can’t be as relentless as the big bankers. They wouldn’t still be in business, let alone raking in billions in bonuses, if we hadn’t bailed them out.
  2. They have no illusions about loyalty. They spent big to elect President Obama. But when it looked like they could get more from the Republicans, they switched sides. Nobody can take their support for granted.
  3. They have no shame. They never apologized for all the risk and fraud that created the collapse. They never offered to tighten their belts or pick up part of the tab. They just kept fighting for their selfish interests.
  4. They maintained their sense of humor. How else do you explain their carping about how anti-business the president is, while Obama’s team does whatever it can to prop up the “too big to fail banks” while wringing its hands that it just can’t do any more to help the unemployed or distressed homeowners?

 

Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Foreclosure / Martin Column / Outrage - 03/19/2011

From Memphis to Madison

Last month I wrote about Martin Luther King’s last campaign, joining with Memphis sanitation workers to support their right to organize.

King was brought to Memphis by a local of the same union targeted more than 30 years later by Wisconsin’s governor, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. That’s where he died, murdered by an assassin’s bullet.

Amy Goodman, writing in Truthdig, suggested King’s spirit hovers over the demonstrations in Madison, which were sparked by the Wisconsin governor’s efforts to take away public workers’ collective bargaining rights.

The parallel is a potent one: both the mayor of Memphis and the governor of Wisconsin gained notoriety taking a tough line, refusing to negotiate.

One of the most striking aspects of the coverage of the demonstrations is the stark contrast between how the mainstream media talk about the showdown in Madison and how the demonstrators in the street talk about it. The media talks about budget deficits, politics and pension costs.

Ask the demonstrators why they’re in the street and they talk about fundamental unfairness – how workers and poor people have to sacrifice to solve the state’s budget crises while bankers who caused the financial crises that led to the state budget crisis continue to thrive without ever being asked to sacrifice.

Jane Hamsher, in Firedoglake, reminds us again how differently contracts that impact bankers are treated from those that impact working people. Remember those outrageous bankers’ bonuses? Those couldn’t be changed, we were told, because we are “a country of laws.”

But pensions for workers? Hey, we have a budget deficit to deal with!

Lots of people don’t have much connection or sympathy for unions, though the battles of union members contributed strongly to the development of the American middle class. Most people no longer have a grasp of that history.

That’s less true in Wisconsin, with its own long history of bitter labor struggles, full of many zigs and zags, ups and downs. The people there have less trouble connecting the struggles of labor unions to the well-being of the middle class.

More than 100 years ago, mill owners in Oshkosh crushed a strike and then had the leaders of the strike charged with conspiracy in an effort to crush the union. The workers brought in the famed firebrand trial lawyer Clarence Darrow to defend them.

In his closing statement, Darrow unleashed his full rhetorical arsenal. But his statement resonates with King’s Memphis campaign as much as it does in Madison, and helps put them in perspective. The case, Darrow insisted, was “but an episode in the great battle for human liberty, a battle which was commenced when the tyranny and oppression of man first caused him to impose upon his fellows and which will not end so long as the children of one father shall be compelled to toil to support the children of another in luxury and ease.”

Financial Crisis / Martin Column - 02/25/2011

Going Without Heat For Goldman-Sachs

With all the trillions tossed around in the government’s efforts to prop up the big banks, a $2.9 billion taxpayer-funded windfall to Goldman-Sachs might not sound like that big a deal.

But imagine if we still had that $2.9 billion, if it was still in the federal coffers and not in the pockets of Goldman bankers.

Maybe President Obama wouldn’t feel the need to cut off aid for poor people to help pay for heating oil through the cold winter – that $2.9 billion would more than pay for the proposed cuts.

Maybe you’re not in favor of helping poor people stay warm in the winter.

How about space travel?

That $2.9 billion could pay for nearly a year’s worth of research on manned space travel, which is also under threat.

But what did we taxpayers get from this generosity to Goldman Sachs?

Absolutely nothing. Worse than that, we rewarded extremely bad behavior.

The $2.9 billion payment was arranged by federal authorities as part of what they have described as their emergency efforts to salvage the financial system in the wake of the financial collapse brought on by the bankers’ greed, recklessness and fraud, enabled by regulators’ laxity.

The Federal Reserve, which was supposed to be overseeing this massive giveaway to the banks, contends it didn’t intend to give the windfall to Goldman-Sachs bankers. It was just $2.9 billion that got away from them in their hurry to fill the bankers’ pockets with our cash- I mean- save the economy. McClatchy News Service, using bland journalism-speak, calls it a “potentially huge regulatory omission.”

Goldman hit the jackpot on our bailout of AIG, in which taxpayers compensated the firm 100 cents on the dollar for bad proprietary trades. That means Goldman gambled with its own money, which it is entirely entitled to do.

But when they lose their money, as the old blues song says, they should “learn to lose.”

Lucky for Goldman, we’re there to pick them up, dust them off and wish them well, no questions asked.

Just how much longer are we going to allow our public officials, Republican and Democrat, to use our money to foot the bill for these deadbeats’ bad gambling debts?

Just how many people are going to have to go cold before we cut Goldman off?

AIG / Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Financial Crisis / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 02/18/2011

Night on Fantasy Island

As a snapshot of the wildly dysfunctional state of our political union, last night’s festivities were a smashing success. All sides were serving up plenty of mom, apple pie and platitudes while ignoring what’s actually left on plates of millions of Americans –nothing.

I did find at least something to agree with in what each of the speakers said. Who can quarrel with President Obama when he calls on us to “win the future?” And I want my government as lean and mean as Paul Ryan and the Republicans do, without any wasteful subsidies that boost corporate tycoons and their overseas expansion rather than creating decent-paying jobs here at home.

It’s true that the tea party’s spokeswoman, Rep. Michele Bachman of Minnesota, looked like aliens had captured her brain and were speaking through her. Maybe we would have been better off if the aliens had captured Obama and Ryan too. At least Bachman briefly took note of the high unemployment rate before she went off to into her own rhetorical fantasyland.

That’s more than you can say for President Obama, who was pitching us his hallucination that his new pals from the Chamber of Commerce are going to beat their corporate profits into ploughshares in partnership with government, in an effort to foster new technologies and growth that we all share. Forgive me if I can’t get too worked up about this. Didn’t we try this government-corporate partnership recently? Wasn’t that what the bailout was?

Back here on Planet Earth, that didn’t work out so well for a lot of us, though it does seem to have worked well for the president’s friends at General Electric and JPMorgan Chase.

Both Ryan and Bachman aren’t interested in any partnerships; they want to dismantle government altogether so that GE, JPMorgan and the rest of the corporatariat can run the show without any interference at all. The only difference is that Bachman would like to do it faster, with less nice talk, than Ryan.

Neither the president, Ryan, or Bachman could focus on reality long enough to mention the long, steep decline of the middle class or the on-going foreclosure crisis, or offer any specific ideas on addressing those very real issues.

Back here on Planet Earth, we’re going to have to harness all of our ingenuity, strength and diversity just to wrestle our political system back from these leaders and their corporate backers before they plunder what’s left of it.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Foreclosures / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/26/2011

Death by a Thousand "Buts"

After two years in office, President Obama has decided it's time to fix one of the colossal mistakes of his predecessor: too much federal regulation.

I don't remember George W. Bush as a consumer advocate who, in his zeal to regulate corporations, got carried away. But last week President Obama announced a new priority for his administration. Federal regulations “sometimes have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs,” the President explained, implying that it was in fact the government that crippled our economy, just like pro-corporate conservatives have been saying.

Faced with this threat to our national security, there was only one thing to do, and Obama stepped up. He commanded the entire federal government to review every regulation on the books and get rid of “outdated” rules and “unnecessary paperwork.” In a rousing call to arms, the President concluded: “This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary.”

Obama didn’t invent the cost/benefit approach to regulation. That was concocted by big business-funded think tanks and adopted by President Ronald Reagan, who issued Executive Order 12291 immediately after taking office in 1981. Its preface is eerily similar to Obama’s, proposing “to reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations…”

Reagan demanded that any regulation that imposed costs on businesses that exceeded its "benefits" be eliminated. The problem is that cost/benefit analysis doesn’t always take into account certain intangible considerations or values that are difficult to quantify in dollars, such as the benefits of unpolluted water or the worth of a human being. In an infamous internal memo (PDF) uncovered in litigation over the now extinct Ford Pinto’s exploding gas tank, company executives compared the cost of fixing the vehicles ($137 million) versus what it would have to pay for expected deaths and injuries ($49.5 million) and decided that the cost of repairing each car - $11 dollars – exceeded the benefits.

Government is supposed to protect us against such reasoning, not use it as a guiding principle.

I was working at Public Citizen Congress Watch in Washington, D.C. at the time, and Reagan’s disdain for government regulation  became the centerpiece of his Administration agenda. James Watt, Reagan’s controversial appointee to the Interior Department, sacked the agency, turning it into a mouthpiece for oil, mining and other industries supposedly regulated by the agency. The Reagan Administration’s deregulation of savings banks led to reckless investments, fraud and corruption, necessitating a bailout – sound familiar? – that ultimately cost taxpayers about $124 billion.

Is history repeating itself? In a nod to those who supported him as a candidate because of his forceful speeches against special interests and corporate abuses, President Obama was careful to acknowledge the importance of “child labor laws,” “the Clean Air Act” and federal rules against “hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies.” In a nod to the elephant in a pink dress sitting on the divan in our living rooms, the President noted that “a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.” “Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps” in federal rules, Obama insisted.

It's painfully obvious that the President hoped his foray into Reagan-style anti-regulation rhetoric would curry favor with Wall Street, its wholly-owned subsidiary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and their toadies in Congress. They’ve been very, very mad at the President ever since he had the temerity to sign a toothless financial reform bill that left the financial industry free to revert to its pre-bailout speculative ways, not to mention the hopelessly compromised health care law that requires every American to buy health insurance from private insurance companies starting in 2014, but does not effectively regulate how much we have to pay them.

Obama went so far as to announce his new regulatory policy in a guest column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, where at least one attack on Obama is on the menu every day.

This latest gesture of appeasement didn’t work out as the President hoped, though. "Yes, but" was the nearly universal response from the intended recipients of the President’s largesse, as Associated Press reporter Tom Raum reported. For your convenience, I’ve highlighted the “but factor”:

“Obama’s action is ‘a positive first step,’ said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business organization. But, Donohue added, ‘a robust and globally competitive economy requires fundamental reform of our broken regulatory system.’ He called on Congress to 'reclaim some of the authority it has delegated to agencies.’"

“The National Association of Manufacturers said it ‘appreciated’ Obama’s call for a regulatory review, but called for Obama to demonstrate results by ‘delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs,’ listing the EPA’s proposals to regulate greenhouse gases as a prime example."

A “spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, called Obama’s review a welcome acknowledgment that government regulations have economic consequences. But he said the president should take bolder steps immediately.”

"David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, said in an interview that it was ‘fully appropriate to engage in a baseline review of existing federal regulations.’ But Walker, head of a balanced-budget advocacy group called Comeback America Initiative, questioned having the agencies themselves hunt for harmful regulations. ‘We need to have an independent review process that has transparency,” he said. Walker said many of today’s regulations date back to the 1950s and need to be revamped.”

For a little conjunctional variety, here's the response of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

“Obama’s executive order ‘shows that he heard the same message I did in the last election - that Americans are sick and tired of Washington’s excessive overreach and overspending.’ ‘While I applaud his efforts, we must go further,’ Kantor added. He proposed more aggressive steps to strike down ‘needless and burdensome’ regulations that plague businesses and stifle job growth.”

President Obama still doesn’t understand that his political opponents will never voluntarily support anything he does, short of a complete capitulation (and perhaps not even then). This is not just a matter of interest to the political class. If the White House spends the next two years trying to placate the implacable, the rules, regulations and legislation needed to restore the economy and protect the public health and safety are never going to see daylight.

A NOTE TO READERS: If you like what you read here, please share it with your friends on Facebook, Twitter etc. - click on the icons at the top of this column.

Congress / Financial Crisis / Financial Reform Legislation / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2011