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

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

Phony Moderates, Real Power

Beware wolves dressed in moderates’ clothing.

Especially the “fresh thinking” as gussied up by the group calling itself “Third Way,” which tries to put a genteel, highbrow facade on its advocacy for increasing austerity and financial insecurity for the majority of Americans.

Digging beneath the sunny platitudes about promoting growth, you will find that the organization is chock full of high finance types and their political servants, so it’s no surprise that they’re more interested in rethinking what they like to belittle as entitlements and boosting too big-to fail banks than they are in raising questions about the financial system.

And they’re not laying down these proposals just to hear themselves talk.

These people have real power to set the terms of the debate and strongly influence decision-makers.

The most obvious example is President Obama’s new chief of staff, Bill Daley, the former top official of J.P. Morgan who sits on Third Way’s board.

He’s just the latest in a string of  bad appointments the president has made to oversee the nation's economy, from Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to Gene Sperling, the Goldman-Sachs alum who fought for financial deregulation in the Clinton White House, who was recently appointed to replace Summers on the Council of Economic Advisers. Then there's Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s CEO the outsourcing, plant-shutting ace who Obama put in charge of reducing the unemployment rate.

For his part, Daley seems to have earned his job as the president’s chief adviser by fighting against financial reform, especially from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The mainstream media has worked hard to foster the idea of centrism, with Third Way as a prime proponent of “moderate ideas.”

But there’s nothing moderate about the continuing unhealthy influence of corporate America over our political process, fostering policies that are turning us into something more like a Third World country polarized between haves and have nots than the land of opportunity for all.

There’s nothing moderate about the fear-driven wealth and power grab, otherwise known as the federal bailout, that entrenched the wealth built for a select few in the years of the bubble economy, while it increased economic insecurity for the rest of us. As Neil Barofsky, TARP’s inspector-general, pointed out in his most recent report, it also entrenched the political and financial clout of “too big to fail” financial institutions.

There’s nothing moderate about the austerity agenda of shared sacrifice which consists of cuts to Social Security, Medicare and education.

There’s nothing moderate about the attack on the economic system that was built in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, which combined the power of the free market with a system of regulation and safety nets. That attack, with its intellectual underpinnings in the work of the economist Milton Friedman, was launched in the 1980s and has been carried forward by politicians of both parties.

Meanwhile, two of the most impassioned politicians standing up to that attack, from opposite ends of the spectrum, would probably be characterized by the mainstream media as extremist: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, and Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian from  Texas. Those two men, who would probably find much to disagree on, worked together to pass a bill to audit the highly secretive activities of the Federal Reserve during the bailout.

You may or may not agree with Sanders or Paul either, but they aren’t afraid to challenge a status quo which props up the powerful while undermining the powerless.

You can scour Third Way’s materials and you won’t find anything that challenges the risky practices of financial institutions that wrecked our economy. You won’t find anything that challenges the power equation that props up the status quo. Behind its rhetoric of moderation, Third Way knows which side it’s on.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / President Barack Obama - 02/08/2011

Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone’s sequel to his 1984 hit "Wall Street" opens as the Bubble is about to burst on a culture of material excess that makes Gordon Gekko’s 1980s cell phone – then a symbol of extravagance available only to the mega-rich – ridiculously quaint. Stone’s Wall Street circa 2008 is set in a New York constructed of light, with ubiquitous flat screens providing instantaneous, 24/7 updates on the status of global power and wealth. When the results of decades of speculation first hit the housing market and then the stock markets, the great titans of Wall Street start eating their own. But that was only an appetizer for the main course: the American taxpayer.

I really couldn’t enjoy the love story between Shia LaBeouf and money, much less the one between Shia and his girlfriend, who happens to be Gekko’s estranged daughter and thus presents a trading opportunity for the ambitious young man. As the movie traced the collapse of Bear Stearns and then the stock market into a pile of scrap paper, I got more and more angry.

In one scene, the silver-haired heads of the giant firms that run Wall Street – surrogates for Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, etc. – cloaked in bespoke suits, are gathered around an ornate table in a wood-paneled conference room with one of their former colleagues, who is now the Secretary of Treasury (aka Hank Paulson), to discuss how much taxpayer money they need in order to stay afloat. Hundreds of billions of dollars are referred to in single digits. The consensus, quickly obtained, was “seven.” It was like the Godfather movies, when the heads of the Families would convene to handle some event that threatened their criminal way of life.

I found myself remembering the scene, in the third Godfather, when small-time hood Joey Zasa locked the conference room doors from the outside, trapping the heads of the Families inside so they could be slaughtered by his assasins.

The nation hardly needs Oliver Stone’s portrayal of the markets as organized crime to stoke people’s recollection of what the debacle did to our economy and our kids’ futures. Our anger has reached a white hot point that, like the sun in a magnifying glass, is now being directed against public officials all over the country. “Money never sleeps” is Gordon Gekko’s new mantra, and vast sums of money are flowing into the political process to influence the November elections - largely an attack on incumbent Democrats in Congress.

But where was all this money back in the third week of September, 2008, when the Bush Administration’s three page proposal to bail out Wall Street with billions in taxpayer money was presented to Congress along with the threat that the United States would collapse if it wasn’t approved on the spot?

In what I must acknowledge was a serious overestimation of the impact one citizen could have at such a moment, I flew to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, thinking I might be able to draw someone’s attention to the sheer lunacy of what was being proposed. Joan Claybrook, the President of Public Citizen, and I held a news conference just outside the House Banking Committee hearing room, where the plan was being presented by the Bush Administration. We were like two voices whispering in a hurricane. Later, I met with members of the California congressional delegation who were in shock and ready to do the bailout deed forthwith. Ok, I said, at least require disclosure of how our money was spent and a quid pro quo: that the companies receiving taxpayer dollars could not loan them back to us for more than a few percentage points profit. The legislators responded to the interest rate cap as if I had proposed that they resign from Congress.

It would have been nice back then if there had been a hugely funded campaign backed by angry Americans telling Congress not to act hastily or stupidly. But in fact, the big money we are seeing now in American politics is not from the grassroots, but from the same greedy folks who caused the debacle in the first place or who profited from the bailout. According to US News and World Report, business and conservative backed organizations are behind the  “independent expenditure” campaigns that are targeting Democrats and outspending them two to one. A recent article in the New Yorker uncovered two extremist billionaire brothers funneling over $100 million from their family oil business into Tea Party non-profits. Long-time big business Republican operatives like Karl Rove (now running a group called "American Crossroads") and Dick Armey ("FreedomWorks") are supplying more than tea for the new tea party.

The sudden resurgence of interest in politics on Main Street would be cause for great celebration, and the opportunity for real change, as citizen leader Jamie Court writes in his new primer on political activism: “The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell.” Instead, it’s just another dismaying example of big money corrupting our political system. If it succeeds, get ready for more speculation, more bubbles, and more pain for the average American.

"Greed is good," Gekko said back in the day, but Wall Street needs to own Washington, and Wall Street is already projecting victory in November.  Commenting on the rise of the Dow in September, an analyst said, "’There is a good chance that the strength we have seen in the market recently is due partly to an expectation about the result of the election... Investors are starting to understand that a likely result of this election is gridlock, and that is good."

Harvey Column / Outrage - 10/03/2010

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

Taking Aim at Wall Street - With Jack Bauer

After a day consumed with the Goldman-Sachs hearings, last night I caught up with the latest installment of  the television show “24.”

Spoiler alert: I’m going to disclose what’s happening in “24, ” which focuses on the life of a mythical high-level super antiterrorism agent, Jack Bauer, who is pitted constantly and single-handedly not only against the wily, relentless terrorists but against the corrupt and inept politicians and government officials who are his bosses, usually at the same time.

I don’t always agree with the politics of “24.” But I find it insanely entertaining and profoundly troubling. It’s also one of the few public entertainments that confronts directly the issues of authority and morality we’ve been grappling with since 9/11.

In the latest episode, Bauer actually goes against his president, to whom he’s previously shown the utmost loyalty, because he finds out she’s covering up evidence of an assassination. She’s doing it for the greater good of course; to promote a fragile Middle East peace agreement.

At some point, Bauer finds that the principle of accountability is stronger than his ingrained loyalty to his president.

Accountability, Bauer says, is so fundamental to democracy that it cannot be compromised.

When one of his former colleagues, now his new boss, hears what he’s scheming, she cautions him not to go against his president. “You’re not thinking clearly,” she says.

“I’m the only one who’s thinking clearly,” Bauer shoots back.

After a day of watching Goldman’s officials studiously avoid answering questions in the Senate, “24” put a grim exclamation point on one of the most infuriating aspects of the financial crisis: the utter lack of accountability the financial industry has borne for how it wrecked our economy, through fraud, ineptitude, greed and recklessness.

The Obama administration has made clear it’s not interested in punishing bankers: for the greater good of repairing  the economy, we’re told,  we don’t want to look backward too closely.  We need to move forward.

Left unspoken are the millions in contributions that Wall Street has lavished on the Democrats, and the web of interconnections between the administration and the financial industry, most notably Goldman-Sachs.

We’re offered the faux accountability in the emotionally gratifying theater of the Senate Goldman hearings, the SEC’s attempt at reviving its abysmal reputation after missing the Madoff and Stanford massive fraud schemes by suing Goldman for fraud, and the limp, clumsy Financial Inquiry Commission led by Phil Angelides.

Which are fine as far  as they go. I hope they provide some impetus to put real muscle into financial reform, and they serve some purpose in reminding people how angry and ripped off they feel.

But let’s not forget they’re mostly theater. For example, the Republican senators took turns with their Democratic colleagues beating up on Goldman for CSPAN, while outside of camera range they get their Wall Street fundraising mojo back.

One of the sharpest critics of the lack of accountability has been Bill Black, a former bank regulator during the S&L crisis, who emphasizes that it was multiple robust criminal investigations that uncovered the widespread wrong-doing at the heart of that financial meltdown.

One official who gets it is Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, aka the bailout, who has raised the possibility of criminal investigations and tangled with the Treasury Department.

Meanwhile the mainstream media  serves up pap about how the mild financial reform proposed by the Obama administration is “the biggest overhaul of the nation’s financial system since the Great Depression.”

That’s just not true. The largest overhaul of the system would be the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had kept federally guaranteed traditional banking from riskier casino-style gambling activities which banks found fabulously lucrative before they blew up the economy. The current reform proposals contain nothing as earth-shattering as that.

Despite happy talk of an economic recovery  that still looks far off to many on Main Street, the politicians are finding the public’s outrage over their handling of the financial crisis is not abating, fueled in part by the political grandstanding.

Like Jack Bauer, we’ve had it with the corruption and the blundering. Public outrage over Sen. Chris Dodd’s close ties to subprime cronies forced him to retire. Conservative Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, facing a tough reelection battle, wrote a tough bill that would regulate toxic derivatives. Then she was forced to give away  her Goldman-Sachs campaign contributions. On Tuesday, 62 members of Congress wrote a letter demanding that the Justice Department, not just the SEC, investigate Goldman-Sachs. And a handful of senators are preparing amendments that would toughen financial reform.

I know “24” is a fantasy but one of the reasons it’s so compelling is the way it embodies and scrambles the desperation of our current moment, and Jack Bauer, armed to the teeth in a stolen helicopter, touched a nerve this week. Accountability is our most important arsenal.

Martin Column - 04/28/2010

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

What Would Pecora Do?

There have been lots of positive comparisons between Phil Angelides and Ferdinand Pecora, who led an earlier investigation of Wall Street excesses that led to the Great Depression.

Pecora was a no-holds barred former prosecutor who ran his hearings with meticulous preparation and theatrical flair, and his work galvanized public support for widespread reforms.

Some have been impressed by Angelides’ reputation as a reformer from his days as California treasurer, when he tried to use the power of the state’s investments for socially worthy causes and implemented some protections for shareholders. Angelides was widely praised after public hearings earlier this year for his understanding of high finance and his scolding of the head of Goldman-Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, comparing him to a used –car dealer.

I’ve been less impressed by Angelides, who doesn’t seem to have a grasp on the opportunity he has to marshal support for real financial reform. And he’s too cozy with a Democratic leadership that’s been soft on Wall Street in the wake of the financial meltdown.

I’m also suspicious of Angelides, the politician and former real estate developer who unsuccessfully ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, because of his close ties to the Democratic Party elite. In addition, I’m wary of the impact of Angelides' main job running a coalition promoting green technologies. That’s certainly a laudable goal, but Angelides and his Apollo Alliance aren’t going to get very far without lobbying the Obama administration and the Democrats, who would not be happy with a hard-hitting report.
Whatever drama Angelides manages to muster at any given moment, I’m concerned that his multiple roles and background will cause him to soft-pedal his investigation. Those concerns were only heightened after Angelides surfaced as part of a curious SEC report last week that cautions firms about “pay to play” in the state investment business.
According to the SEC, when Angelides was running for treasurer in 2002 he hit up a top J.P. Morgan official to co-chair a fundraising event. It wasn’t just an honorary position. The price tag for the co-chairmanship? $10,000.

According to the report, the official didn’t co-chair the event but donated $1,000 to Angelides” campaign personally ­– and helped raise $8,000 more. In asking other J.P. Morgan brass to contribute to Angelides, the official noted that that the state of California was an important client for the firm.

Just how important became clear in the next couple of years, when J.P Morgan received about $37 million in fees from the state on more than 50 bond offerings totaling $15.8 billion – overseen by Angelides as state treasurer.

In the SEC’s curious take on the matter, neither Angelides nor J.P. Morgan is accused of doing anything improper.  Angelides isn’t even mentioned by name. The agency merely uses its report to caution finance officials about not running afoul of SEC regulations.

OK, so the SEC doesn’t think Angelides did anything wrong soliciting funds from J.P. Morgan and then giving them the state's business. But the report serves as a bitter reminder that those who we’re counting on to get to the bottom of the financial meltdown are steeped in the toxic brew of cash and politics that has seeped into the core of our government.

I hope I’m proven wrong about Angelides; that his intimacy with this unseemly world has left him with a sense of sustained outrage and not empathy for it.  But it will take more than a few zingers to convince me. I mean, let’s be serious. Would Ferdinand Pecora have solicited money from J.P Morgan? Not much chance. After Pecora grilled the son of the legendary banker, J.P. Morgan, Jr. described the investigator as having “the manners of an assistant prosecuting attorney who is trying to convict a horse thief.”

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 03/23/2010