Goldman-Sachs - Represent Consumers

Three signs that the fiscal cliff deal is malarkey

Remember the beleaguered middle class? Our political leaders don’t seem to.

Reeling from the fiscal cliff fiasco and hurtling toward the debt ceiling debacle, Washington has forgotten all of its election-year promises to focus on the best way to create jobs and enhance economic security for the 99 percent.

One of the most amazing aspects of the whole fiscal cliff/debt ceiling fiasco is the continuing ability of the political and media class to manufacture phony economic crises while ignoring the concerns that affect the majority of Americans every day.

High unemployment and rising health and elder care costs? Gnawing uncertainty about the future? Declining wages and disappearing pensions? Income inequality?

We haven’t heard much about them since Election Day.

Meanwhile our media elite cover every micro-twitch of the Washington insiders as they pose and posture their way through the debate, while smothering in ridicule anybody who dares question the prevailing deficit hysteria.

One piece of wisdom did surface briefly masquerading as a whacko proposal – having the government create a trillion-dollar platinum coin. Though this scheme was nixed by the Treasury, it did have the virtue of pointing up an important fact usually ignored in mainstream bloviating about the deficit – the government is not a family. The U.S. government can create money and does, except recently it’s been printing money only to hand it over to big banks with no strings attached, rather than using it to pay down the deficit, create jobs or fix bridges.

And how about that dramatic last-minute deal that averted the fiscal cliff? To paraphrase Vice-President Joe Biden (when he was dismissing Paul Ryan’s dismal budget plan), the whole thing is a load of malarkey.

Except this time Biden and his boss, President Obama weren’t blasting it, they were touting it as a great achievement.

If you’re not familiar with the term, Miriam-Webster defines malarkey as “insincere or foolish talk.”

The first tipoff that the deal constitutes malarkey is the whole dispute over whether it actually reduces the deficit at all.

The Congressional Budget Office contends the deal will increase the deficit nearly $4 trillion over 10 years, while the president, using a different starting for his calculation, argues that it will raise $620 billion over that time period. If you’re confused, you should be. The difference is not trivial, and makes the whole process stink. As the New York said, “How do you agree on what needs to be done going forward if you can’t agree where you are?”

When it comes to deficits, I’m from the Dick Cheney school. The former vice-president, in a rare moment of candor, said: “Deficits don’t matter.”

Except when politicians want to beat their opponents over the heads with them. Most recently, the deficit soared not primarily because of out of control government spending, but because the economy went in the toilet, and the government came to the rescue of our fellow citizens with jobless benefits, food stamps and stimulus spending.

Of course, Cheney was also trying to help out his boss, President George W. Bush, who wanted to give rich people a mammoth tax break and put two wars on the government’s tab, thereby running up the deficit.

What he meant was that Republicans don’t care about deficits when the money goes to support spending they like – like military contracts. What they oppose is spending money on social programs that they would just as soon dismantle.

The second sign that the recent fiscal cliff deal is malarkey is what the politicians did to the payroll tax cut, which was enacted in 2010 and put more than $1,000 a year back into the bank accounts of average Americans.

In spite of all President Obama’s promises not to increase the economic burdens already weighing down the middle class, our leaders allowed this relatively small but significant tax cut to expire. As a result, 125 million Americans who couldn’t afford to hire lobbyists saw their paychecks decrease in January. Since the payroll tax helps pay for Social Security, some applauded the demise of the payroll tax cut.

But the end of the payroll tax cut is just the latest example of our leaders solving budget problems on the backs of those who can afford it least.

In addition, the president had insisted, going in to the fiscal cliff negotiations, that he would get $50 billion in new stimulus money in the deal. But those funds never materialized.

The third red flag buried in the fiscal cliff deal is an item that neither of the parties mentioned in their press conferences announcing it. But it’s the surest way to tell that the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling, which are supposed to be about this massive crisis, are just the latest chapter in Washington business as usual: major corporations using the cover of a manufactured crisis to get their hands on more goodies.

As reported by Matt Stoller, the deal contains eight separate giveaways to individual businesses or industries, including Goldman-Sachs, Hollywood movie studios, NASCAR, coal mine operators and asparagus growers.

Of particular interest was the extension of the tax exempt financing of something called Liberty Zone in New York, funds which were supposed to be designated to help business in the city recover from 9/11. But rather than going to small businesses, big corporations like Goldman-Sachs got the breaks. Goldman-Sachs has gotten $1.6 billion in tax-empt bonds to help defray the costs of building? its new $2.1 billion headquarters.

So while the politicians have been posturing in public vowing to protect the middle-crisis and wringing their hands over the dire state of the government’s finances, they’ve been working overtime in private doling out expensive favors to their corporate donors.

The biggest threat to our future is not the deficit, not by a long shot. The far greater danger remains the largely unchecked and hidden power of corporations to control our government.

Muppets v. Goldman

It’s been a rough couple of months for the Muppets. First Fox News anchor Eric Bolling denounces their new movie as dangerous left-wing propaganda because it portrays a villainous oil company executive.

Then Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith quits his job and discloses in a scathing hatchet job of the firm’s culture that his fellow bailed-out bankers refer to their clients in a derogatory way as Muppets.

And what do they mean by that?

Hmmm. Maybe they think Muppets are puppets that are manipulated by their handlers. Maybe Goldman Sachs bankers imagine us to be lifeless sacks of cloth and yarn without spirit and voice, but we’re not.

And no self-respecting Muppet would put up with the shenanigans of Goldman Sachs (though I suppose their corporate owners, the Walt Disney Co., might).

The Muppets have always had a strong populist streak – they articulate sharp critiques of the Greed-is-Good Wall Street culture that Goldman appears proud to embody.

Check out the song “Money,” co-written by comedian Stan Freberg and Ruby Raskin. Performed by Dr. Teeth, it ridicules the rampant desire for more, more, more money at the expense of everything and everyone else.

At the end of the song, Dr. Teeth yanks a slot-machine handle on the side of his piano – which pays off.

If you have any doubt about whether the Muppets would side with the 1 percent or the 99 percent, check out their version of a “A Christmas Carol.”

In his farewell exposé—beyond his Muppet revelation— Smith merely confirms what we’ve already known: Goldman Sachs and the other powerful too-big-fail institutions believe they can get away with screwing their clients by protecting themselves with high-level political clout, bought with political contributions and cemented with interlocking relationships between the government and the firms.

As Robert Scheer points out, it was just a day before Smith unloaded on Goldman that a former top aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Jake Siewert, became the managing director and global head of Goldman’s corporate communications. Siewert is just the latest of a long line of public officials to cash in at the big banks.

How perfect that a high-level member of the Obama administration, which has chosen to align itself with the interests of the big banks time and time again, will now be the one to design Goldman’s defense against the bad publicity stemming from Smith’s oped.

Scheer, along with Matt Taibbi—another astute reporter/commentator on the financial collapse and its aftermath—are full of praise for Smith’s stepping out so publicly.

For myself, I wish that Smith had been willing to step up and connect Goldman’s policies to the financial collapse, not to mention the role Goldman has continued to play in rigging our political system to escape the consequences of its devastating greed and fraud.

That may be too much to ask of somebody on his first day out of the protective Goldman bubble. Make no mistake, it’s not just clients the firm has manipulated for its own gain.

Goldman and the other to-big-to-fail banks have turned us all into puppets, holding over our heads the specter of fear, and pulling the strings to secure a hefty back-door bailout for themselves.

As for the Muppets, I’m sure they’ll weather their current troubles with aplomb. Hopefully their creators are busy at work on a scheme for revenge.

I’ve never seen a Muppet either shut up or stand still while someone ties her hands behind her back. It’s the rest of us I’m worried about.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 03/17/2012

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

The Marx Brothers' Guide to Financial Reform

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” asks brother Chico in the madcap classic “Duck Soup.”

It’s the middle of the night in the imaginary European nation of Freedonia. Chico has disguised himself in a scheme to convince a skeptical wealthy widow, the country’s major creditor, that he’s actually the country’s newly elected president (Groucho) to get her to hand over Freedonia’s top secret war plans.

The trouble is Chico’s Italian accent.

And Harpo. He’s disguised himself as Groucho too. And of course there’s Groucho. Three Grouchos. Who’s the real one?

Chico’s line reminds me of the not so funny antics of the Obama administration and our political leadership in their various efforts to convince us that financial system should be left intact and that reform should just be left up to the same regulators who colluded in creating the economic crisis and protecting big bankers’ interests.

That’s essentially what our leaders have proposed, wrapping themselves in the disguise of real reformers.

We may have been blinded for a while by the riches the bankers were offering us, but we can see clearly now what they were: a gaudy mirage.

If we didn’t get it when the economy crashed, we get it now, after we toted up the bill from the unsavory wreckage of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, as well as the expense from the equally unappealing survival of Goldman-Sachs.

It’s plain to see that if any bank presidents lost their jobs they were handsomely compensated. None have been forced to face foreclosure or have had their unemployment or health insurance cut off.

The rest of us have a choice: believe our leaders or own eyes.

We understand what happened: the bankers got too big and powerful, got rid of all the rules, got greedy and brought the economy down – except for the part that kept churning out gargantuan bonuses to the financial titans.

We understand what we need to do, too: break up the big banks, curtail their power and wall off their gambling games from the economy the rest of us have to live in.

But the leadership that’s trying to control the debate seems hopelessly out of step with the country.

Not all the politicians are as clueless as the leaders. In fact, more than a dozen senators have signed on to what not long ago would have been considered a radical proposal – to audit the Federal Reserve. It already passed through the House by a wide margin.

This terrifies the administration, which doesn’t want any more details leaking out about the favors the Fed has been granting the big banks at public expense.

So the president’s chief of staff, former investment banker Rahm Emanuel, is working the phones. If the administration favored real reform, they’d be stiffening the politicians’ resolve against the massive bank lobbying intended to gut strong regulation. But instead, the president has sent Emanuel out to do the regulators’ bidding, to dissuade senators from voting for a Fed audit.

In the Senate, a handful of senators have proposed a stronger dose of reform than the administration and Democratic leadership have prescribed. But the Senate’s Democratic leaders are squeamish about even allowing their colleagues to debate these more robust proposals.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership seems to be getting inspiration from the same Marx Brothers’ movie they’ve been glued to since Obama got elected – “Horse Feathers.” Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell may not have any ideas of their own but they’ve managed to perfectly capture the spirit of the lead character, Samuel Quincy Wagstaffe (played by Groucho) in his opening number, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.”

The Marx Brothers’ wit and wisdom never go out of style but they’re especially timely now. They began their film careers satirizing the hysteria surrounding a real estate bubble: the Florida land boom in “Cocoanuts” in 1929. “You can get any kind of a house you want,” Groucho assures prospective buyers as he auctions off some land of dubious value. “You can even get stucco. Oh, how you can get stuck-o.”

While he poked fun at speculative investing, in real life Groucho was also a victim. He lost his savings in the 1929 crash. “Some of the people I know lost millions,” he quipped bitterly in his autobiography. “I was luckier. All I lost was two hundred and forty thousand dollars. I would have lost more, but that was all the money I had.”

Federal Reserve / Goldman-Sachs / Lehman / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 05/05/2010

F**king Grandmothers, Widows and Orphans

“They’re fucking taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?”
"Yeah, Grandma Millie man. But she’s the one who couldn’t figure out how to fucking vote on the butterfly ballot."[Laughing from both sides]
"Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

– Transcript of two Enron traders discussing the blackouts in California caused by the company’s manipulation of electricity prices in 2000.

“I’ve managed to sell a few Abacus bonds to widows and orphans that I ran into at the airport….”

– Email from Fabrice Tourre, Goldman Sachs trader, joking about derivatives he was selling that later proved worthless.

I have a job I really love – fighting injustice – so I always thought that being a Wall Street trader was just about as boring and inconsequential a job as you could think of. I mean, how enjoyable could it be to sit in front of a computer all day, doing nothing but moving an artificial construct around – “a ‘thing,’ which has no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual and highly theoretical and which nobody knows how to price'" as the Goldman dealer described the derivatives he was peddling.

But it seems these guys were able to have a few laughs after all. Turns out the money ain’t bad either.

It would all be very amusing if their antics – “God’s work,” as Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein described it not long ago – hadn’t cost the country trillions of dollars, and many Americans their jobs, homes and pensions.

Not so funny.

Something is seriously wrong when the pursuit of wealth unabashedly becomes the preeminent aspiration of a culture. And when those who succeed in obtaining vast riches and privilege have nothing but disdain for the rest of the nation, and aren’t a bit embarrassed to say so.

The financial collapse was not an isolated, once in a century deviation. During the 1990’s, Enron and other energy companies, California’s public utilities and the Chamber of Commerce got together and, with the aid of a few million dollars in campaign contributions, got the California Legislature to deregulate electricity rates. Wall Street loved the idea. As soon as the law took effect, in late 2000, the traders jumped in and engineered phony shortages that ultimately cost California taxpayers $70 billion. We’ll be paying off the debt from that debacle for another twenty years.

With hindsight, it is clear that the California energy crisis was merely a forerunner of the current financial collapse. And I’ve noted the disturbing similarities between how Governor Gray Davis and President Obama responded to an emergency not of their own making. As I pointed out in “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” an action movie figure is the Governor of California today as a result.

Two crises in the same decade. Both the product of avarice. How could we let that happen?

9/11 had something to do with it. For most of the years that followed, the American people were told that our greatest enemy lived in a cave half way around the world. That was wrong, as it was eighty years ago, when in the midst of the Great Depression President Franklin Roosevelt told Americans, “our enemies of today are the forces of privilege and greed within our own borders.”

We now know that the enemies of American consumers and taxpayers were sitting in front of multiple computer screens by day, living in palaces and yachts and on their own private islands. Their weapons were pieces of paper that were backed by other pieces of paper that were backed by packages of mortgages, student loans and credit card debt, the complexity and value of which no one understood.

The people who were supposed to defend us against financial mayhem were overtly or covertly working for our enemies. They betrayed us, as we have painfully documented, and whether it was a few million to California lawmakers or $5 billion over ten years to Washington, it all came down to money.

The Republicans rail against the Democrats. The Tea Partiers rail against both. But where's the debate over the culture of greed that is eroding our values, not to mention our strength as a nation? When will our universities and religious institutions weigh in? When the Times of London asked Goldman’s Blankfein if it were “possible to make too much money,” he replied: ““Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” My answer to those questions is “yes.” What's your answer?

Goldman-Sachs / Harvey Column / Outrage - 05/04/2010

Giving Toxic Waste a Bad Name

Face it, if we found out that a Vegas casino was run like our banking system, the worst strung out addict wouldn’t gamble there.

Even they wouldn’t be able to stand the stench.

Casino operators know you have to provide at least the appearance that the games aren’t crooked.

Casino operators know they can’t force people to spend their hard-earned money gambling on a toxic waste dump.

But the bankers and their political cronies who have been playing us for suckers forced us to pay to clean up the shambles, as well as the continuing costs of the broken economy.

Now the casino operators are trying to assure us that everything is hunky-dory, but that same foul scent is still wafting from their dumpsite. Goldman Sachs shrugs off the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud charges, hiring the president’s former lawyer to fight them, while it rakes in eye-popping profits that beat even the most optimistic projections.

The man we hoped would clean up the mess, President Obama, appears at long last to be taking a more nimble, hands-on approach to financial reform than he did on health insurance reform. But the plans endorsed by him and the Democratic leadership contain too little actual reform and too much reshuffling of the same weak hand regulators have been bringing to the casino.

We’ll never win against the sharks the way the game is rigged now.

That’s the bitter lesson brought home by the revelations of the last month, from probes into the tragic bank follies of the Lehman and Washington Mutual collapses, and the SEC lawsuit charging Goldman-Sachs with fraud.

As we learn more details of each of these debacles, they provide potent weapons in the fight to overhaul the system that led to the financial meltdown.

Far from being an unforeseeable natural disaster, it was a predictable consequence of the system we still have in place today. In each case, the financial giants rigged the game with fraudulent bookkeeping and lack of disclosure while regulators looked the other way. And far from being isolated instances of improper conduct, the Lehman, WAMU and Goldman fiascoes are prime examples of how far the financial industry has fallen in common sense and ethical standards.

But the Democrat leadership has squandered its credibility on financial reform, offering legislation that largely preserves the status quo.

Rather than galvanizing public outrage against Wall Street into support for fundamental change to rebuild a financial system that truly serves our economy, the president and the Democratic leadership are caving in to Wall Street lobbyists and Republican obstructionists who pay lip service to reform while they block and dilute it.

Meanwhile, we’re treated to the truly disgraceful spectacle of each party accusing the other of having taken more campaign cash from Goldman-Sachs and the other major casino operators than the other.

The truth is they’re both beholden to the cash generated by the toxic dump of our financial system. The Democrats may be ahead in the fundraising game right now, but the Republicans are working hard to curry favor from Wall Street and catch up.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left on the sidelines.

Fortunately we don’t have to stay there.
Several other Democratic senators have proposed amendments worthy of support.

Among the most articulate voices for a stronger version of reform is Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware. Along with senators Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, Carl Levin D-MI, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kaufman has proposed a bill that moves toward rebuilding the wall that used to separate traditional, federally guaranteed banking activities from high-risk speculative gambling. That wall was torn down when the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act was repealed during the Clinton Administration. In addition, a conservative Democrat who faces a tough reelection fight, Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas, has proposed derivatives regulation that is substantially tougher than that which has been proposed by the Obama Administration.

Now is the time to clean up the casino. We have to channel our genuine, justified anger into action to push our politicians to do the right thing, whether they want to or not.

Action / Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 04/20/2010

Around the Web: SEC Takes a Bite of Squid

So is it just coincidence that the SEC brings it first major fraud case against “a too big to fail” Wall Street bank just as the president and the Democrats gear up for battle over financial reform in the Senate?

I don’t think so. Not any more than it’s an accident that a Senate committee was holding a continuing series of tough hearings on the Washington Mutual collapse putting WAMU’s lame leadership and regulators under the harsh glare of the spotlight. Story here, documents here.

Last year, journalist Matt Taibbi immortalized Goldman in Rolling Stone as the “world’s most powerful investment bank…a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

That may have sounded like colorful hyperbole at the time. But now with what we know about how Goldman functioned in Greece, California and other places, it turns out to be a factual statement.

The SEC has charged Goldman with deceiving investors who bought collateralized debt obligations tied to the performance of residential mortgage-back securities. The press release is here; complaint here. The investment bank failed to tell the investors that a hedge fund that had played a major role in selecting the collection of mortgages that went into the CDO was also taking a short position against the CDO, according to the SEC complaint. Meaning Goldman and the hedge fund knew the mortgages stunk but peddled it to investors anyway. Nice.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” said Robert Khuzami, the director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

Also charged is a 31-year old Goldman senior VP, Fabrice Tourre, the author of the following 2007 email to a friend, quoted in the SEC complaint, which should become an especially potent weapon in the fight to bolster financial reform as it moves through the Senate in the coming weeks.

“More and more leverage in the system, The whole building is about to collapse anytime now...Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre]...standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!”

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 04/16/2010

Good Riddance to a Bipartisan

Let's take a closer look at one of the most overhyped buzzwords in politicspeak: bipartisanship.

Especially as it relates to the battle for financial reform, the call for bipartisanship threatens to drown the entire debate in meaningless twaddle.

Take for example the retirement announcement by Evan Bayh, who said he was calling it quits because he just couldn’t take how politically divided the Senate had become. Nearly the entirely Washington establishment, including the press corps went into a mad swoon over Bayh, lamenting the sad lack of bipartisanship.

I shed no tears for Bayh, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who was MIA in the debate over financial reform, and was among those moderate Democrats who was expected to oppose one of the most important proposals: creation of a stand-alone financial consumer protection agency.

Bayh did lead a group of Democrats whose idea of leadership was compromising with Republicans during the Bush Administration. What really got Bayh’s juices going was fiscal discipline and budget-cutting. Now that the Republicans have shown that they have no interest in reciprocating Bayh’s spirit of compromise, he’s got no one to play with in the Senate.

It was left to the astute cable TV comedian, Bill Maher, and a lone blogger on the Huffington Post to identify Bayh, for what he really is: A Democrat who represents corporate interests in the U.S. Senate.

During his 20-year political career, Bayh was a fundraising juggernaut. As far as I can tell, no one in the mainstream media dwelled on the $26.6 million in campaign contributions Bayh garnered, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics. His top contributor was not from Indiana. That would be the financial giant Goldman-Sachs, which ponied up more than $165,000, edging out the drug company Eli Lily for the top spot. The third top contributor was Indiana-based Conseco Inc. an insurance company. Another bailout beneficiary, Morgan Stanley, was right up there too, with more than $81,000 in contributions.

Finance and securities was the second largest industry in contributions to Bayh, outdone only by corporate law firms.

Freed from the constraints of politics, Bayh’s first act after announcing he wouldn’t run again was to stick up for one of his beleaguered constituents – the student loan industry. The administration is proposing to stop subsidizing that industry and loan directly to students. Bayh’s against that, concerned that Indiana-based student loan servicer Sallie Mae will lose jobs.

If this is bipartisanship, it’s exactly what’s wrong with the Senate, where health care and financial reform are now gasping for life, in the stranglehold of supposed centrists like Bayh and another retiring Democratic senator, Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Dodd is also a top recipient of contributions from the financial sector. You have to wonder whether Bayh and Dodd’s next stop will be top lobbying firms, where they can continue to earn top dollar from Wall Street.

We don’t need more compromise with Goldman-Sachs and Sallie Mae under the guise of bipartisanship. Let’s retire all the blather about it along with Bayh. We don’t need more senators like him who do Goldman Sach’s bidding and then piously whine about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. We need real reform and we shouldn’t settle for politicians who don’t have the guts to fight for it.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column - 02/19/2010

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

Stuck in the Fog

One thing is clear: Citigroup executives thought they had a deal with the government to pay back their bailout money so they could pay themselves as much as they wanted.

Then it all started to unravel. The Washington Post disclosed that the IRS granted Citigroup huge tax breaks (meaning billions) as part of the exit strategy the "too big too fail" bank worked out with Treasury officials.

After that the stock market rejected the government and Citigroup’s assessment of the bank’s health and the deal fell through.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/17/2009