figure - Represent Consumers

Until the morning of January 21, 82-year-old former Federal Reserve president Paul Volcker had been a lonely and largely ignored figure among President Obama’s economic advisers.

Volcker seemed to be the only one of Obama’s advisers not under the spell of the “too big to fail banks” and their highly touted innovations.

Volcker was especially vocal about protecting the public from the financial world’s riskier innovations. As he told a financial conference last year, “Riskier financial activities should be limited to hedge funds to whom society could say: ‘If you fail, fail. I'm not going to help you. Your stock is gone, creditors are at risk, but no one else is affected.’ ”

It was Volcker who had said that the only financial innovation to benefit consumers in the last 20 years was the ATM card.

But he wasn’t getting much traction with the president and his advisers.

Then the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

In a lurch back toward the populism he had embraced during his campaign, President Obama hastily reached out for Volcker.

During a press conference, the president endorsed something he called the Volcker rule as an essential plank of his financial reform plan. That rule would restrict banks from risky proprietary trades with their own (borrowed) money.

Here’s what the president said:

“Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do. Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

For more on proprietary trading and the Volcker rule, read this from Rortybomb’s Mike Konczal and the NYT. For more about why the Volcker rule was a good idea, see this from WSJ’s Dealbreaker.

Obama mentioned the Volcker Rule a couple more times, as did the man who was marshaling financial reform through the House, Rep. Barney Frank.

But neither the president nor anybody else in the Democratic leadership ever mounted a public campaign to make it an essential part of reform. In fact, within a month, the president was already backing off his support of the Volcker rule.

And now, like many other parts of the reform that would have protected consumers and inconvenienced banks, it has been largely gutted.

Bloomberg reports “lobbying by banks and congressmen sympathetic to Wall Street’s views, as well as some administration members in the banks’ defense, trampled the views of Volcker and others who favored a stronger proposal.”

The weaker provisions won’t even go into effect for as many as 12 years.

It would have been one thing for Obama and the Democrats to go down swinging on the Volcker Rule. But they didn’t even put up much of a fight.

If you’re as disappointed as I am with the president’s lack of leadership on this, after he made such a big deal about it, why not let him know?

“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?

Around the Web: Volcker Rules - Not!

F**king Grandmothers, Widows and Orphans