In austerity fight, deceptions have just begun

Only time will tell how much of a boost Republican challenger Mitt Romney will get from his debate win over President Obama.

The president seemed flatfooted and unprepared to respond to Romney’s shift toward the center, even though Romney’s campaign had suggested that’s exactly what they would do  - use the Etch-a-Sketch to pivot away from the extreme right toward a more moderate stance during the general election campaign.

The debate felt like a replay of the scenario that has played out so often over the past four years: aggressive Republicans concealing their real motives and putting passive Democrats on the defensive.

Romney was acting every bit the CEO in charge, telling the customers what he thought they wanted to hear to make the sale; in this case, that his deficit reduction scheme wouldn’t favor the wealthy and damage the middle-class.

The contrast between CEO Romney talking to voters (customers) and CEO Romney talking to his big contributors (his board of directors) at a private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. in May couldn’t have been starker. In what he thought were private remarks that have now blown up, Romney, you recall, dismissed the 47 percent of the country that supports Obama as self-pitying moochers who need to be taken care by the government.

We know that all politicians say one thing in public and another in private.  That’s not a shock. But what’s striking is just how much contempt CEO Romney expressed for nearly half the voters when he was talking to the people who will hold real power in his administration: his board of directors.

Most CEOs wouldn’t let such feelings slip, even in private. But just as Romney told the Denver audience what he thought it wanted to hear at the debate, so too he was telling his contributors what he thought would please them.

Because make no mistake, plenty of the big money is preparing to work with whoever gets elected in November to launch a major offensive against Social Security and Medicare as well as to end tax breaks that favor the middle class, such as the mortgage interest tax break, under the guise of backing a new grand bargain to balance the budget.

For example, billionaire hedge fund executive Pete Peterson, who has also spent $458 million of his own money to push an austerity agenda, is now backing a bipartisan group known as Campaign to Fix the Debt. Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports that the initiative has raised $30 million so far, including $5 million from a single unnamed donor.

The operation has hired 25 to 30 staffers, with plans to double, Grim reports. Along with a paid-media campaign, aims to influence press coverage in 40 states with locally focused teams.

This “bipartisan” initiative is just the latest attempt by Wall Street and its allies to pass the costs of the government deficits created by the financial crisis on to the middle class and those who can least afford it.  Though President Obama has said he won’t let these programs be cut in a way that hurts the most vulnerable, to keep that promise he’ll have to grow backbone that was missing Monday night – and through much of his first term.

 

Lobbying / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Social Security - 10/05/2012

He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother

Loss. That’s what I felt when I watched the space shuttle land at LAX, carried to our City of Angels on the back of a close relative, the mighty Boeing 747 – twelve years older than the shuttle and, though aging, nearly as inspiring when you happen to see one. I recalled where I was when Challenger exploded – studying in a library for the California bar exam – and when Columbia burned up on re-entry – at a cottage in Idyllwild with my family. But I’m talking about a different kind of loss.

When I was a kid, growing up in the Sixties, America seemed to be the land of limitless possibilities. President Kennedy launched the space program in 1961, promising we would reach the Moon by the end of the decade and though incredible, no one doubted the USA would do it. In the more distant future described by Gene Roddenberry, a “replicator” would eliminate want of food or material possessions and humans would be freed to explore any part of the universe they chose.

Sure, there were serious problems right here on Earth, and in this country, but the War on Poverty, the civil rights movement and a bipartisan roster of widely respected – even revered – public officials seemed determined to get these matters in hand. We were working on them, and nothing seemed intractable. The cynical snicker about the Sixties now. But such was the energy and enthusiasm of the economic prosperity of post World War II United States, an era that is already gauzy like our refracted impressions of ancient Rome.

Just after three in the afternoon on July 20, 1969, my friends and I gathered around the clunky RCA television in our den, understanding that the rest of the planet was doing the same. I was seventeen. Like all kids who grew up in the era before cable TV, video games and the Internet, we had spent many late nights outdoors contemplating the Moon, which seemed to us as distant as adulthood.  Now we could barely discern the astronauts in the grainy black and white images as they walked on the lunar surface, but there was no mistaking the achievement of that day. And though it was America’s achievement, the whole world celebrated.

A few days from now, shuttle Endeavor will be drawn through the streets of Los Angeles– like a funeral caisson for a fallen soldier – by a magnificent technological beast. That journey, at 2 mph, will end at a museum twenty-four hours later. There it will rest much like the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, monuments to human will and imagination left to puzzle future generations. No ambitious program to explore the universe will succeed the shuttle.

That’s because there's no money left to pay for our aspirations. The last decade began with a speculation-induced economic recession in 2001. In California, once the home of aerospace, the collapse of the tech-bubble was compounded by the disastrous results of the deregulation of electricity by local lawmakers, which included a bailout for over-priced nuclear power plants that cost consumer ratepayers $28 billion. Then Enron and other Wall Street firms that bought the power plants covertly manipulated the supply of electricity to jack up prices, bankrupting utility companies and forcing the state to buy long term contracts for electricity from the manipulators – at the grossly inflated prices – to keep the lights on and businesses going. The deregulation debacle cost California $71 billion – and the local economy has never been the same.

Many Americans had not recovered from the 2001 recession when the Wall Street derivatives frenzy collapsed in the Fall of 2008. Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their savings. With incomes disappearing, Americans stopped spending. That hurt businesses, especially small businesses that could not borrow. And tax revenues declined. To pay Social Security and jobless benefits, and restart the economy, the federal government spent more than it took in in recent years.

This ignited the raging political debate over the federal government’s stimulus and deficit spending, though few Americans can claim to have been bailed out the way Wall Street was. After taxpayer cash infusions, subsidies, tax breaks and other favors estimated at between $9.7 trillion and $29 trillion, the Money Industry has emerged not merely intact but more profitable than ever.

Add $1.3 trillion for the Afghan and Iraq wars, and you can see why there won’t be a manned mission to Mars anytime soon, much less hyperdrive tours of the galaxy.

Our country paid a heavy price to save Wall Street. Consider that the cost of the getting to the Moon in today’s dollars would be about $26 billion less than taxpayers spent bailing out the insurance giant AIG – about $182 billion. And the Moon program was a massive stimulus program for America in the Sixties, and not just the defense industry. Its benefits included the research and development of a raft of technologies that led to enormous advance in computer, medicine and other industries – not to mention Velcro. Steve Jobs and his colleagues in Silicon Valley didn’t build the modern personal computer industry by themselves: you, the American taxpayer, helped.

Measuring the cost of government assistance to Wall Street versus to business innovators versus to Americans in need compartmentalizes the debate. What does it say about the country – and its future – that the average life expectancy of white Americans who did not graduate high school has dropped by four years, to where it was in the 1950s to Sixties?

Yet a majority of Americans – 54% –believe that the government should do less to solve our country’s problems… though there is a sharp partisan divide on the question, with 82% of Republicans saying less and 67% of Democrats saying more, according to Gallup.

There will be Americans in space in the near future, however. Using the technology and facilities taxpayers built, a number of private companies are developing plans to commercialize orbital space flight, the New York Times reports. And every American who wants to hitch a ride can do so – for somewhere between $50 million and $150 million a ticket, depending on your destination.

As the 747 and the shuttle swung low over Los Angeles, one of my favorite oldies from the Sixties came to mind:

The road is long, with many a winding turn,
That leads us to who knows where, who knows where.

So on we go. His welfare is of my concern.
No burden is he to bear - we'll get there.

For I know: he would not encumber me.
He ain't heavy: he's my brother.

I thought back to that humid afternoon in July, 1969, when Kennedy’s charge was fulfilled by Apollo 11. JFK was gone; along with his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King, struck down by hate, fear, madness.  At the time, they seemed to us pioneers in the still young and uncertain cause of Democracy, and had given their lives to better their fellow Americans and the Nation. The sense of  purpose, destiny, determination and sacrifice – shared by the nation – was inspiring. At least to a young guy from a Boston suburb.

 

Harvey Column - 10/01/2012

Three Major Issues The Presidential Candidates Are Ignoring

 

 What if they held an election but didn’t discuss the most important economic issues?

That’s what’s happening here in 2012.

Yes, taxes and the deficit are significant. But there are even more crucial issues that will determine whether the country continues to slide into wider income inequality and destroys what’s left of the middle class.

And these three crucial issues have been barely mentioned during a campaign obsessed with who pays what in taxes and who doesn’t.

Dean Baker, of the Center on Economic Policy Research, neatly summed up several of the left-out issues recently.

On one of the most critical economic issues, the so-called free trade pacts such as NAFTA and the more recent Korean trade agreement, both parties agree: they favor them.

The media cooperates in keeping this issue off the table by repeating the misleading claims of proponents of the agreements while omitting or marginalizing critics.

“Free trade” is really the big lie of our economy and our politics. As the critics point out, these agreements should be accurately labeled “corporate rights agreements” since they are much more concerned with that issue than with trade. Not only do they result in lower wages in the U.S. and devastated small farming in other countries, these agreements allow corporations to challenge environmental and labor protections in special courts in which the public has no voice.

Both parties crank up the rhetoric to promote the notion that the  “free trade” is the road to economic prosperity for everybody. But as Baker points out, the reality of “free trade” is far grimmer for those that work for wages to earn a living because it puts “downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-wage workers in the developing world.”

The absence of any discussion of these agreements in the political debate exposes a major fraud on the part of both parties. While the Democrats tout themselves as the party of the little guy, their support for “free trade” shows how closely they hew to the corporate agenda on issues that matter most. For the Republicans, their support for “free trade” agreements which, in the real world, prop up some corporations while punishing others shows they’re less interested in picking economic winners and losers than their free market rhetoric lets on.

And there’s a huge trade deal being secretly negotiated right now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which I previously wrote about here, calling it a Free Trade Frankenstein. Others have called it “NAFTA on steroids.” As with other trade negotiations, the public has been kept out while the corporate lobbyists have full access.

The only TPP issue on which the president and his challenger disagree is who could whip out his pen faster and sign the TPP once the secret negotiations are concluded.

The second major economic issue left out of this election is the deeply unpopular 2008 bailout of the financial sector and corporate America, including the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $16 trillion in cheap or free loans the Federal Reserve provided to corporate America in the wake of the financial collapse.

All this financial assistance was provided with little public debate and without any conditions imposed on the recipients.

The Obama administration dismisses all questions about the bailout by insisting that all the TARP money has been paid back. Case closed, the administration contends.

But could a different kind of bailout, one which imposed specific conditions on banks and corporations, helped more struggling Americans than the one we got, which propped up bank and corporate executives? Why did those portions of TARP that were targeted at ordinary Americans facing foreclosure fail so badly?

And how does this bailout, which picked winners and losers, jibe with the Republicans’ free market rhetoric? What about a belated bailout for the rest of us? Plenty of fodder for tough questions for the president and his challenger, if anybody cared to ask.

The third issue is one that the two parties have disagreed on: increasing the minimum wage.

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama promised to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 by 2011 but has taken no action to do so. For his part, Republican challenger Mitt Romney has said he favors tying the minimum wage to inflation, until the right wing of his party objected.

According to a recent paper by the Economic Policy Institute, phasing in the $9.80 minimum wage would raise the wages for 28 million workers, who would earn an additional $40 billion during the phase-in, while gross domestic product would increase by $25 billion and 100,000 new jobs would be created.

We need a robust debate on these issues in the remaining weeks of the presidential campaign that challenges the president and Mr. Romney on where they stand and what actions they’ll take, not just a stale rehash of the same old arguments on taxes. But we won’t get that debate unless we demand it.

 

Federal Reserve / Income inequality / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / TARP / TPP - 09/25/2012

Reality-based tax breaks

By now you’ve heard the bitter, widespread debate over whether giving the wealthiest Americans fat tax breaks will ever create jobs.

But everybody agrees on one thing – we shouldn’t just give rich people tax breaks so they can have even more money to do whatever they like with.

Don’t we?

That’s why I was intrigued by this proposal that would tie tax breaks to the actual creation of jobs.

The proposal was floated by Benjamin Barber, a Democratic theorist writing on Huffington Post.

Barber suggests a system of vouchers to make sure they’re creating jobs with their tax breaks.

“Conservatives should certainly welcome the principle of vouchers, which they have been proffering for a long time to the poor for education, groceries and housing – and now, courtesy of Mr. [Paul] Ryan, for Medicare too,” Barber writes, referring to the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s proposal to have the government give future Medicare recipients cash to buy insurance instead of health care. “The premise has been that a voucher prevents "irresponsible behavior" by those being helped, like buying drugs instead of groceries or a golf caddy instead of private schooling for the kids. It's a way to prevent the poor from getting all that "free stuff" Mitt Romney thinks they are always conniving to acquire.

Basically, it’s so simple I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t suggested it before: If you create real jobs, you get a tax break. No job creation, no tax breaks.

While Barber appears to suggest granting the tax cuts first and taking them away if the tax break doesn’t lead to jobs, I’d flip it: base the tax cut on hard proof that the jobs have been created.

Proponents of this latest version of the trickle-down theory should have no problem with the wealthy actually having to prove they’re creating real jobs to earn their tax breaks.

Because nobody wants to give away money for nothing, right?

I think the proposal could be refined to link the quality and number of jobs to the size of the tax cut.

For example, buy a yacht: no tax cut. Enjoy your yacht.

But prove you created a significant number of high-wage jobs with health care benefits and pensions, get a bigger tax cut.

Extending the logic of Barber’s idea, if you outsource jobs, shouldn’t your taxes increase?

Barber has hit on an issue that extends beyond just tax cuts – government officials have been extending all kinds of subsidies to business owners for creating jobs without ever requiring proof that the business owners actually create the jobs, or requiring that the subsidies be returned if the jobs are destroyed.

The very notion that we’ve allowed these huge tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding proof that they lead to real, not just theoretical, job creation, suggests how far we’ve moved away from the sensible fact and data-based world into a realm based on wish fulfillment for the wealthy who dominate our politics. The notion that proponents of the tax cuts want to pay for their extension by eliminating tax breaks that help the middle class, like the home mortgage tax break, also suggest how far our political debate has gone astray. Barber’s proposal suggests a way to get it back from fantasyland.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan / Tax breaks - 08/27/2012

Paul Ryan's battle for billionaires

Thanks to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, we’re going to be saved from a negative campaign. Now we’ll be elevated by a campaign about Big Ideas.

At least that’s the latest tripe being peddled by the Big Media, which has spent a lot of time drooling over the insane Ryan budget plan House Republicans passed before it died, only to be joyfully revived by Democrats who sought to pin in to the chests of their Republican opponents in Congressional races, then revived again by a befuddled Mitt Romney, who seems to want to cling to it (for his base) and distance himself from it (for everybody else).

According to the media, Ryan is a cheerful wonk who is the only one brave and bold enough to propose a plan to reduce the federal deficit. Never mind that the numbers don’t add up, or that his budget scheme involves a massive future reductions not only of Medicare but all government services except defense spending.

Ryan has become a top expert at capitalizing on legitimate skepticism about government and economic anxiety in the wake of the 2008 bailout and grafting those feelings on to the austerity agenda of the 1 percent – crushing all government regulation, reducing popular government services like parks and health care for the elderly, and privatizing Social Security while placing the burden of the nation’s fiscal problems on those least able to afford it and keeping tax rates low for the wealthiest Americans.

For our media elite, these are what pass for serious ideas. There’s little scrutiny beyond reporting Ryan’s rhetoric, in which he insists he’s out to save Medicare and merely facing a fiscal reality that others are afraid to confront.

You don’t have to dig very deep to find Ryan’s real motives, and who the winners will be if he wins his fight.

As usual in contemporary politics, the reality can be found in the money that has fueled Ryan’s rise. Among his top campaign contributors: Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS bank and Wells-Fargo, along with corporate powerhouses like AT&T, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Northwestern Mutual. He’s been closely associated with the billionaire Koch Brothers’ Americans For Prosperity.

Once you look into Ryan’s actual record, he looks a lot more like your garden-variety congressional hypocrite: preaching the free-market gospel while he votes for the 2008 no-questions-asked bank bailout, trashing the Obama administration stimulus package while making sure that his congressional district got its share of the spoils.

If the media were doing its job, Ryan would be dismissed for the craven con artist that he is, not lionized. Mitt Romney claims that he chose Ryan to balance out his own inexperience in Washington. But Ryan’s efforts to push through his budget scheme have failed miserably – except at making him a media darling.

If the media were doing its job, the headlines would be describing Ryan’s real, and embarrassingly modest, legislative record since he was elected to Congress in 1998. His first successful piece of legislation renamed his local post office in Janesville, Wisconsin for longtime Wisconsin Democratic congressman and former defense secretary Les Aspin in 2000. His other legislative achievement has been a bill to amend the IRS code to modify the taxation of arrow components. (Ryan uses bows and arrows for sport.)

Along with other fellow Republicans, he signed on to the Bush tax cuts, a partial-birth abortion ban and several efforts to increase sanctions against Iran.

Aside from that, he’s co-sponsored eight pieces of legislation issuing commemorative coins and five resolutions honoring Ronald Reagan.

There must have been some tough choices involved. Just who exactly should get a commemorative coin in their honor? Not just anybody, and you’re bound to make somebody mad. But it’s not exactly a profile of courage. How much courage does it take to do the bidding of the CEOs who keep you in office, against the retirees and the poor who can’t afford fat contributions and lobbyists?

 

 

 

 

 

Congress / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Social Security - 08/16/2012

Strong message for weak leaders

A New York jury didn’t just acquit a midlevel Citibank executive, they sent a strong, clear message to Washington.

The only question is, how do we get Washington to start listening?

The message came along with a not guilty verdict in the case of a Citibank executive, accused by the SEC of negligence for failing to provide disclosures to clients that his own bank was betting against the complex financial packages that the bank was selling.

Brian Stoker’s lawyer argued that he was just one of many who were doing the same thing in Citibank’s employ.

The attorney argued that it was others, higher up the chain of command at Citibank,  who had committed the misconduct.

Evoking the child’s book, “Where’s Waldo?” the lawyer, John Keker, invited jurors find those hidden characters who were really to blame.

Not only did the jurors acquit Stoker, they wrote an unusual letter to the SEC: “This verdict should not deter the SEC from continuing to investigate the financial industry, review current regulations and modify existing regulations as necessary,” the jurors wrote.

Twenty-three year old juror Travis Dawson told the New York Times: “I’m not saying that Stoker was 100 percent innocent, but given the crazy environment back then it was hard to pin the blame on one person. Stoker structured a deal that his bosses told him to structure, so why didn’t they go after the higher-ups rather than a fall guy?”

And the jury foreman, Beau Brendler, told American Lawyer magazine: ”I would like to see the CEOs of some of these banks in jail or given enormous fines,” he said, “not a lower level employee.”

In a separate case, Citibank has already agreed to pay a fine on the collateralized debt obligations at the heart of the case against Stoker.

While the Justice Department is touting that civil fines for fraud have skyrocketed, the Times reported that prosecutions against individuals, especially those at the top, are rare to nonexistent.

“A lot of people on the street, they’re wondering how a company can commit serious violations of securities laws and yet no individuals seem to be involved and no individual responsibility was assessed,” Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of a subcommittee that oversees securities regulation, said at a recent hearing.

The SEC has been hobbled by 20 years of inadequate funding and a revolving door that delivers SEC lawyers right into jobs with the firms that they’re supposed to be regulating, or with the law firms that represent those firms.

And that’s not the worst of it.

Prosecutors take their cues from the top. The Obama administration, from the president to his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner and his attorney general, Eric Holder, has consistently blamed the 2008 financial collapse on stupidity and greed but said that most of the worst banker conduct was not illegal. President Obama has paid only lip service to holding bankers accountable while doing nothing.

The most recent example is a mortgage fraud task force the president announced in January. It took months to get staff and office and the task force has done little more than issue a couple of subpoenas and some press releases.

So it’s no wonder that the SEC continues to avoid pursuing the financial elite.

Meanwhile, both presidential candidates and the big media continue to ignore the issue of banker accountability.

As Mike Lux has pointed out, in the 2010 exit polls, 37 percent of voters blamed Wall Street for the on-going weak condition of the U.S. economy. Those voters, who are angry at Wall Street and skeptical of government, had voted 2 to 1 for Obama in 2008, but in the midterms, broke 56 to 42 percent Republican. They now view the president as a “Wall Street liberal.” These voters have no illusions about Romney, but  given the choice, they will favor the candidate who promises to lower their taxes and reduce the deficit, according to Lux.

Can our political leaders hear the message that the New York jury is sending? Or has the money that rules our political system completely drowned it out?

Contact your representative and let them know we haven’t forgotten all the promises to hold Wall Street accountable for its misdeeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citibank / Martin Column / Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - 08/10/2012

Blame game won't help distressed homeowners

There’s a big pile-on, calling for President Obama to fire the housing bureaucrat who’s blocking the latest administration housing initiative to reduce principal for underwater homeowners.

Ed DeMarco, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is a Republican holdover appointed by President Bush.

Though DeMarco is supposed to be only acting head of the agency, President Obama has never replaced him.

Now DeMarco is refusing to allow Fannie and Freddie to implement a recent initiative that would offer principal reduction to homeowners who owe more or their mortgages than their homes are worth since the housing bubble burst.

DeMarco’s position is full of holes: he’s worried that if the government doles out principal reductions to some homeowners, homeowners who don’t qualify will lower their incomes and get behind on the their mortgages just to get in line for a principal reductions.  And DeMarco claims that principal reduction would be bad for taxpayers, even though his own agency’s research proves him wrong.

Lots of smart folks, including the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, are calling on the president to fire DeMarco. For Krugman and the Democrats, it’s just the latest example of Republicans blocking the President and the Democrats at every step from fixing the economy.

It’s certainly true that Republicans have done nothing themselves to get the economy going and focused solely on demonizing the president and the Democrats.

But do you remember that fiery speech the president gave blasting the presumed Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for his do-nothing approach to the foreclosure crisis?

Do you remember the president’s strong speeches blasting Republicans’ efforts to blame the foreclosure crisis on borrowers rather than the big banks?

Neither do I.

Is it the Republicans’ fault that the president and his administration have pursued one failed strategy after another that propped up too big to fail banks while not substantially helping homeowners?

Is it Republicans’ fault that the president abandoned one of his campaign promises and failed to push for what could have been one of the most effective strategies to force intransigent banks to renegotiate with strapped borrowers – so-called judicial cram-downs of mortgage debt in bankruptcy court.

That would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduced mortgage debt as they can other kinds of debt. But it would have accomplished the larger purpose of encouraging bankers to renegotiate with borrowers before they ever got to bankruptcy court.

Only now, after more than three years, when there is a real, live Republican to blame, has Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner come out swinging – not with aggressive new policies, but against DeMarco.

Two astute observers of government response to the foreclosure crisis, David Dayen at Firedoglake and Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism have pointed out that the Obama administration has been slow to embrace principal reduction in the first place or to convince the public that it’s needed.

In addition, the administration needs to do more to overcome another huge hurdle: under the tax law, the amount of principal reduction will be taxable when a temporary exemption expires at the end of the year.

By all means, the president should fire DeMarco. He should embrace a fight with Republicans when they try to block a permanent appointment to the post. But that should only be the beginning. He should also fire Tim Geithner, who has directly overseen so many of the administration’s previous attempts to deal with housing, which range from the merely feeble to incompetent and downright disastrous. As Neil Barofsky points out, it’s Geithner himself who has stood in the way of principal reductions previously.

If the president and the Democrats are just interested in politics, using DeMarco as a scapegoat will probably help them score some points. But if they’re serious about using principal reductions, the president needs to tackle the opposition directly and convince the public that principal reduction can be a useful tool. And President Obama needs to confront the arguments against them forcefully, whether those arguments come from foot-dragging bankers and investors or dug-in Republicans.

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 08/06/2012

Is born-again bank buster for real?

Who is Sandy Weill and why should we care that he now says he thinks big banks should be broken up?

Weill built Citibank into the financial colossus whose spectacular collapse in 2008 helped tank our economy. He said he had a vision of creating giant financial supermarkets that conjured up convenience, friendly service, well-lit aisles and lots of choices. But what he was actually building were massive financial tankers fueled on fraud and risky, toxic assets no one understood, kept afloat with dirty back-room deals, hijacked regulators, lobbying and campaign contributions.

To make that vision a reality, Weill also did more than anyone else to drive the final spike through the heart of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which for seventy years had kept risky investment banking separate from federally-guaranteed traditional banking, reducing the risk of bank failures. President Clinton signed the bill repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999.

For his efforts, Weill, 79, made gazillions before he retired in 2006, ahead of the financial collapse.

He also earned a spot among a very select group - Time Magazine’s “25 people to blame for the financial crisis.”  Weill, Time said, helped create the country’s “swollen banks,” which remain one of the economy most serious unsolved problems.

His Citibank is one the worst, and remains on life support only through $45 million [million?] worth of the taxpayers’ generosity.

It didn’t help Weill’s reputation that a few weeks after Citibank accepted its bailout, he used the Citibank jet to fly to his vacation in Cabo, a flight immortalized by the poets on the New York Post copy desk with the headline: “Pigs Fly.”

It was only six months ago that Weill announced he was “downsizing” and simplifying his life, selling his Central Park West apartment in Manhattan for $88 million – more than double what he’d paid for it, as well as attempting to unload his yacht for nearly $60 million. Weill moved to another apartment downstairs.

But downsizing doesn’t mean the same for an uber-banker that it does for the rest of us. He spent $31 million on the largest real estate-deal in Sonoma County’s history, buying a Tuscan-inspired villa that includes 8 acres of vineyards, seven miles of private hiking trails, and an 11,605-square-foot mansion made with 800-year-old Italian roof tiles and 200-year-old wood beams, and a fire truck that comes with seven firefighters. A real estate agent cautioned against viewing Weill’s purchase as a sign that the real estate market in the county north of San Francisco was recovering. As one Coldwell Banker agent said: “[The sale] is not an indicator of an emerging real estate recovery, but rather the ability of the world’s wealthiest individuals to buy what they desire.”

There’s been all kinds of speculation about why has now come out in favor breaking up big banks. But the best way to judge whether he’s serious, or just trying to get a little good PR, is to examine how much cash he’s willing to spend to make it happen.

When bankers, led by Weill, wanted to repeal Glass-Steagall, they fought for 20 years and spent millions in lobbying and campaign contributions before they won. The big banks would certainly put up a similar fight against its reinstatement. No one knows better than Weill that when it comes to changing banking regulations, it’s not what people say that matters; money talks.

How much is Weill willing to spend in support of his newfound conviction? Without massive amounts of money behind them, his words are no more than an old mogul’s sad, empty cry for attention.

 

 

 

Glass-Steagel / Lobbying / Martin Column - 07/30/2012

Left, right and left out

On so many issues related to the state of our economic recovery, current notions of liberal and conservative don’t seem to apply.

For example, should we allow a real free market to work in our financial system?

Should we crack down hard on those Wall Street bankers who broke the law?

Should companies that want to foreclose on property have to follow the law?

If you’re in favor of real financial free market, tough law enforcement and following the law, are you conservative or liberal, left or right?

What you are is in the majority, and the most important political designation in the U.S. in 2012 – left out.

Your views are reflected only rarely in the political debate at all and never in the presidential debate. Sure, President Obama has repeatedly promised to get tough on Wall Street, most recently in the state of the union in January, but based on the results, those promises have little credibility. President Obama preaches for an activist role for government with the occasional populist flourish, but that impulse wilts if Republicans or campaign funders show the least resistance.

His opponent, Mitt Romney, considers any crackdown on Wall Street an affront to the beloved job creators to whom we should all be bowing down – even if they don’t actually use their wealth to create any decent jobs.

What we get instead of a real debate on how to get an economy that works for ordinary folks is a faux argument over the role of venture capitalist tycoons, between the candidate who used to be one and our president, who has relied on them a key source of campaign funding as much as Romney has.

What we get is the fiscal cliff drama about whether or not to shut down the government.

What we get is each side offering scary versions of what the other will do.

What we get are Mitt Romney’s assurances that if we just get the regulators out of the way, the wealthy job creators will get to work, regardless of whether anybody can afford to buy their products.

What we get is the president’s half-measures and handwringing. But it’s all political theater that doesn’t replace real jobs, real plans to revive housing and keep people in their homes and real accountability for bankers. It doesn’t replace a real debate about the role of big money in overshadowing those issues in our elections. Right now, both sides have left those out of their campaigns.

Politics is a team activity and our natural tendency is to root for our guy, downplay his flaws, and point out how much worse the other guy would be. But this election should not just be rooting for our team and beating the other guy. It should not be about rooting for our guy we’re so hyped up about how scary the other guy is.

It should be about who is willing to confront the big money, not bend to it.

It should be about who can really get people back to work, keep us in our homes, guide an economic recovery that’s not just for the wealthiest.

We should demand that we’re more than just a rooting section for our team, that our bread and butter concerns are not left out.

 

 

 

Congress / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 07/28/2012

Tell Mitt: Don't run campaign on drug money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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