Debt Wish

The most perplexing question that arises out of the S&P downgrade of the U.S. debt is why we’re still worrying about what they think, after all the credit rating agencies’ previous political shenanigans.

The credit rating agencies claim they are entitled to their opinions under the First Amendment, even if they are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

But anything that the S&P offers should be taken with a huge grain of salt. As James Kwak pointed out on Baseline Scenario, the S&P’s latest insights into our financial/economic/political mess weren’t exactly earth-shattering. Apparently S&P wanted us to know that they recognized we’re suffering from political gridlock in Washington.

Thank you, S&P.

If the rating agency really wanted to offer a public service, it might have pointed out that the big banks’ bundled mortgages were nothing but trash before the economy collapsed.

But of course, as we know should all know by now, S&P and the other credit rating agencies are no more interested in peddling public service any more than they are interested in offering accurate information or thorough analysis.

S&P and the others are interested in serving the interests of Wall Street, and right now Wall Street is interested in forcing its austerity agenda on the rest of us. S&P is just trying to do its small part to batter any resistance we might offer.

Like the too big to fail banks, S&P has perfected the kind of lack of shame which allows it to dispense its financial opinions with a straight face, demanding to be taken seriously even though it missed the fraud, sloppiness and greed that led up the financial collapse.

Come to think of it, there is a more perplexing question about S&P: how come a swarm of federal investigators hasn’t taken the agency down, following up on the earlier Senate investigation?

Jane Hamsher has an interesting take on that question at firedoglake, posing the theory that S&P’s thrashing of the U.S. credit rating is an effort to pay back Republicans for keeping the authorities off S&P’s back. In the bigger picture, S&P is just trying to play its part in efforts by leaders of both parties to slash Social Security and other programs that benefit the middle class under the guise of balancing the budget.

But the S&P tipped its political hand by favoring cuts to social programs over tax loophole-closing, revenue-raising, or real defense cuts. When Wall Street and its cronies need help, the credit rating agencies will always do their part.

 

 

 

Around the Web / Congress / Martin Column - 08/07/2011

Around the Web: Tweak Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Top 10 Reasons Not to Call Your Senator Now

I’m in beautiful Glenwood Springs, Colorado with wife Stacie and dog Billie in front of the fireplace in the lobby of the historic Hotel Colorado, which Teddy Roosevelt used as his western White House. There’s the Roosevelt Suite on the second floor, leading out to the grand balcony from which he addressed the masses.  Pictures and cartoons of him line the hallways.

I wish our president was more inspired by TR. He tackled the economic powers of his day—the railroads—with tough regulation, using existing antitrust laws to bust them up. Our political leaders don’t have the stomach for tough regulations or antitrust crackdown on too-big-to-fail financial institutions, let alone insisting on accountability for those bankers and politicians whose greed and carelessness actually caused the crash.

There’s wireless Internet, in the lobby of the Hotel Colorado. Barely. It’s so slow that I imagine overworked employees at Google receiving my page request, then sifting through voluminous files to find the page, then ambling back to their desks, where they stuff it into a pneumatic tube to my Macbook.

We’ve been talking to people who are weathering the economic storm. One waitress told us tourists used to line up four-deep at local bars. They’re still at the bars, but they’re not coming in the crowds they used to. Not a biggie for her: She’s third-generation Coloradoan. People here are used to a boom-and-bust economy: There was a silver crash in 1893; nearly a hundred years later, Black Sunday, May 2, 1982, Exxon pulled out and took a big chunk of the state’s economy with it.  She says her people are ranchers and live within their means: They save, pay cash and know how to live lean, when they have to.

The battle over financial reform is hot and heavy in the U.S. Senate. Looks like the best we’re going to get out of this president and Congress is a series of baby steps—as “Baseline Scenario’s” Simon Johnson describes them—that leave the status quo in place. But even these baby steps are better than the alternative: giving the bankers and their lobbyists a complete victory.

Contact your senators. Tell them you’re paying attention to financial reform. You’re keeping track of how they vote. Tell them not to water down financial reform any more. Ask them to support the Merkley-Levin amendment, the Volcker rule and Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives reform plan.

Unless, of course, you believe the following top-ten reasons for apathy, in which case, do nothing, and things will stay exactly as they are now:

One. You like it when banks gouge you on credit card and bank fees.

Two. You think the poor banks have suffered enough.

Three. You believe the banks’ propaganda that new proposals to rein in credit card fees will cost them $5 billion and cause them to extend less credit.

Four. You believe that the Obama administration’s toothless foreclosure prevention program has been a whopping success.

Five. You’re convinced that banks do need to continue the secret high-risk trading that caused disaster for the economy.

Six. You agree with the bailed-out bankers that their bonuses are none of our business.

Seven. You agree with the Federal Reserve that their secret handouts to banks shouldn’t be any of your business.

Eight. You agree with the bankers that they can protect consumers’ interests just fine without interference from any regulators.

Nine. You agree that the bailout really did work well for Main Street as well as Wall Street.

Ten. You’re convinced Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual did nothing wrong when they cooked their books to hide their bad loans from investors and the public.

Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 05/20/2010

Around the Web: Typos and Tired Arguments

Did a typo or a technical glitch cause “a moment of uncontrolled selling” aggravating an already skittish stock market into a full-blown plunge? The old gray lady diplomatically labels it “an errant trade.”  But CNBC calls it a typo.

Meanwhile the fight over financial reform goes on. If some of it sounds hauntingly familiar, that’s because…it is.

Unearthing old arguments against corporate reforms of the past, columnist Michael Hiltzik finds opponents trotted out the same lame doomsday scenarios 75 years ago they’re offering today.

In 1933, writes Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times, the American Bankers Association urged members to “fight…to the last ditch” an “unsound, unscientific, unjust and dangerous” proposal Congress was considering.

What kind of dangerous radical thing could those congressional crazies have been up to?

Federal deposit insurance.

Just like financial reforms of the 1930s, most corporate reforms, Hiltzik reminds us, almost always turn out to be positive for their industries.

At Baseline Scenario, James Kwak does a good job dismantling the arguments against auditing the Fed, the proposal which appears to have been the subject of a Senate compromise Thursday that would allow a substantial audit to go forward.

The Obama administration has been fighting the proposed audit arguing that it will “politicize” the Fed and that the ordinary flawed mortals who inhabit Congress don’t have the intellectual chops to oversee the Fed’s monetary titans. “The idea that monetary policy is too technical for Congress to understand, and therefore should be done in secret, I don’t buy,” Kwak writes. “So is, say, climate policy. That’s a complex scientific topic, of crucial importance to the future of our nation (and the human race), that is clearly beyond the ability of Congress to understand and discuss responsibly. But we don’t exempt the EPA from Congressional oversight.”

Around the Web - 05/07/2010