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

Guide to congressional cosmetics

President Obama praised the STOCK Act when he signed it into law in April as a good first step to rid Congress of financial conflicts that undermine public confidence.

But it’s really no more than a fast makeup job to cover up the continuing blemishes on our democracy and give the president and members of Congress some talking points for the campaign trail.
The STOCK Act is supposed to prohibit legislators from profiting from the nonpublic information they get on the job. The STOCK Act also prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings unavailable to the public, and provides some additional public disclosure of congressional stock trading.
But we already know that members of Congress do better than civilians when they invest in the stock market. According to a 2011 study, investment portfolios of members of the House beat the market by about 6 percent annually, mimicking the performance of the stock portfolios of their Senate colleagues.
As an example, the Washington Post reported, four congressmen sitting on a committee investigating deceptive billing practices by video game makers sold their stock in the country’s biggest video game maker, GameStop, one of the companies under investigation.
One of the most egregious examples is Sen. Tom Coburn, the Republican Oklahoma senator who has made a name for himself preaching government austerity and self-righteously criticizing both parties for not having the courage to make the cuts needed to reduce the debt.
But austerity and sacrifice were apparently not on Sen. Coburn’s mind when he bought $25,000 in bonds in a genetic technology company at the same time he released a hold on legislation that the company supported. A hold is an informal Senate practice by which a senator can stall a piece of legislation. Coburn, meanwhile, cast one of the few votes against the STOCK Act, dismissing it as nothing more than a stunt.
One clue to just how innocuous the STOCK Act is: it was opposed by only two votes in the House and three in the Senate. This confirms my theory that whenever you see much ballyhooed-bipartisanship at work, you can be sure that members of Congress are either doing the bidding of the 1 percent, or covering their own butts.
The bottom line is that while members of Congress pass laws that prohibit other government officials from presiding over companies and industries in which they have a financial interest, Congress effectively exempts itself from such broad restrictions.
Writing on Yahoo Finance, Ron DeLegge outlines the STOCK Act’s major flaws and omissions: it still allows the sleazy, little-known practice of members selling “political intelligence” to lobbyists as well as continuing to allow members of Congress to own stock in industries over which they can exert influence.
The STOCK Act reminds us, when it comes to Congress, we shouldn’t be distracted by lame cover-ups or blather about bipartisanship, we should follow the money.
And we shouldn’t forget: it’s not their money.
It’s our money.

Bipartisanship / Congress / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 07/06/2012

No Lobbyist Left Behind

If we forced CNN commentators to wear the names of their clients on their sleeves like NASCAR drivers we might have a deeper, more honest debate over what’s going on in Washington.

Unless you live under a rock without any form of media, it’s hard to miss the nonstop frenzy over dumb comments made by CNN commentator Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney.

Rosen said Romney never worked a day in her life, which made her unqualified to comment on the economy. Republicans then attacked Rosen as another in a long line of Democratic elitists who have no respect for women who work in the home.

When she comments on CNN, the network labels Rosen a “Democratic strategist,” though they don’t disclose any particular strategy that she’s come up with.

CNN doesn’t mention her work representing many high-profile clients in Washington, D.C. with interests across a wide range of issues. Her firm, SKDKnickerbocker is filled with former government employees cashing in on their contacts on behalf of their corporate clients. The firm, which includes President Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn as managing director, isn’t required to disclose clients because it doesn’t acknowledge that what it does is lobbying. In Washington-speak the firm is “political consulting and public relations firm.”

Last year, Bloomberg Business week reported that the firm coordinated an army of lobbyists unleashed by a coalition led by Google, Apple and Cisco pushing for a tax holiday.

The Republic Report compiled a partial list of clients, including big railroads, agricultural interests, PepsiCo and General Mills and for-profit education companies.

In addition, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Dunn pitched SKDKnickerbocker’s services as part of a team that offered to restore hedge funds’ sullied reputations, though apparently nobody swung.

Rosen’s poke at Ann Romney may have stirred up media frenzy, offering just the excuse for a jive revival of jive working mom v. stay-at-home brawl that sheds no light and offers no insight to anybody.

It’s also not the kind of controversy that’s likely to upset Rosen’s clients, who will recognize it for the sideshow it is compared to their free-flowing access to the White House. It’s more likely that it will provide Rosen with an opportunity for some good-natured self-deprecating humor to grease her way as she makes the rounds through the corridors of power.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about how it holds itself to a higher standard by not taking money from lobbyists. But that doesn’t mean lobbyists don’t have a strong presence in the White House, as the New York Times reported Saturday. “Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits,” the Times reported.

Several years ago, GOOD magazine came up with the idea of making politicians wear suits with the names of their biggest contributors, like NASCAR drivers advertise their sponsors. Politicians have been reluctant to embrace the idea. They’re perfectly happy to keep us focused on the sideshow provided by Rosen and those like her, who babble phony nonsense on TV but profit from their access to the real game off-screen.

Lobbying / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/17/2012

Stop Forecclosuregate Bailout

Is President Obama going to try to sell us another bank bailout in his State of the Union address tonight?

Of course, he won't call it a bailout. He'll tout it as “the largest multi-state settlement of charges of wrongdoing against corporate malefactors in history;” something that sounds important and unprecedented.

But don’t be fooled, a bailout is exactly what Obama administration officials are scheming, under the guise of settling foreclosure fraud charges against the big banks.

The fraud stems from widespread robo-signing in which banks used forged documents or had employees sign off on documents they hadn’t read.

The Obama administration has been pressuring state attorneys general to end a joint federal-state investigation with a sweetheart deal that would amount to another bailout for the banks – rewarding them again for their bad behavior, this time with a light slap on the wrist.

Unlike in 2008, we know a lot more about how government officials under the influence of Wall Street misbehave. When administration officials met privately with state AGs Monday in Chicago, they were met with protestors, and a number of groups have been mobilizing phone calls to the White House and state AGs.

Let me give you some perspective: Banks have made hundreds of billions off the adjustable, high-interest loans they pawned off on borrowers, then sliced and diced and resold to investors until the bankers’ shenanigans sank our economy. Now the Obama administration wants to settle with them for between $19 and $25 billion in fines. Some of that money could be sent directly to 750,000 borrowers who were found to be victims of robo-signing. But there haven’t any thorough investigations to determine the full scope of that scandal or how many people were actually effected.  Part of the money could be used to reduce principal (by a piddling $20,000) for a small number of homeowners, and some could be used to pay housing counselors, who provide advice for people facing foreclosure.

But as in previous foreclosure reduction efforts and previous settlements with the banks, enforcement and accountability are completely lacking.

And while $19 to $25 billion may sound like a lot of money to us, to the bankers, it’s pocket change: It’s neither punitive nor a deterrent.

This foreclosure deal is so bad that Kamala Harris, the California AG who is a close ally of the president’s, walked away from it, promising instead to join with Nevada’s AG to scrutinize the bankers’ foreclosure practices more closely.

In doing so, Harris is behaving like real law enforcement official, not a bank apologist. Like any prosecutor, she knows she has to have solid evidence in hand before she talks about a plea bargain.

A  handful of other state AGs are expressing skepticism about the proposed settlement, but the Obama administration continues to pressure the AGs to settle before the banks’ behavior is fully investigated and understood.

As MIT economist and Baseline Scenario blogger Simon Johnson told Dave Dayen at Firedoglake, “Why go small when you have a strong case for fraud?”

Harris isn’t the only one who walked away from what she saw as a shabby deal for her constituents. The New York AG, Eric Schneiderman also balked, and when he started to question the deal, he was booted off the negotiating committee.  What particularly disturbed Schneiderman was the notion that as part of a proposed settlement, banks would get immunity from lawsuits, not only relating to robo-signing, but for other mortgage-related fraud as well.

“I wasn't willing to provide a release that ... released conduct that hadn't been investigated, essentially,” Schneiderman told National Public Radio. Schneiderman has started his own investigation.

Initially the joint state-federal investigation looked like it had teeth. Back in 2010 when the process began, Tom Miller, the Iowa AG who headed the multi-state task force, stated bluntly: “We will put people in jail.”

What happened?

Remember what Deep Throat told investigative reporters Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate: Follow the money.

After Miller launched that initial investigation of the banks’ foreclosure practices, he raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate interests – more than 88 times as much as he’d raised before the investigation. Not all that much money in the scheme of things, but apparently enough to inspire him to back off. Now Miller is leading the settlement juggernaut.

Where we see fraud, our leaders see financial opportunity.

We can’t let Miller and the Obama administration let the banks off the hook again at our expense. We want thorough, transparent investigations and indictments where appropriate.

Please call the White House today and tell them that if it walks like a bailout and quacks like a bailout, we’ll know it’s a bailout, no matter how administration officials try to dress it up.

 

And we don't want any more bailouts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/24/2012

We the Fee

I couldn’t find any comment from the Republican presidential candidates on one of the most compelling financial events of the last week: Verizon’s virtually instant reversal of its $2 fee on people who pay their wireless bills over the phone or online.

Nor apparently did the White House have anything to say, even though the Federal Communication Commission’s announcement that it was “concerned” about the fee no doubt factored into Verizon’s decision. The FCC, once the cell phone industry’s best friend in Washington, D.C., has morphed into something actually looking like a consumer protection agency under Obama. It also killed the AT&T – T-Mobil merger that would have destroyed competition in the wireless marketplace and led to vastly higher prices and much worse service. The President certainly deserves a victory lap – and could use one – but remained incommunicado during his vacation in Hawaii.

Nothing from the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street either.

Fees have become the bane of the American consumer. Airlines make more money from fees than from air fares. Banks replaced tellers with machines and now force their customers to pay $3-$5 for the privilege of accessing their own money. Hotels apply “resort fees” for using the typically impoverished gym. And then there is the coup de grace: the fee you have to pay for getting a bill in the mail – a favorite of the cell phone and health insurance companies.

Undisclosed, or at best hidden in the fine print, these fees cripple consumers’ ability to compare prices. Which becomes a nightmare if you realize you are paying too much and decide to take your business elsewhere: many of these companies require you to stay with them for two years or pay an early termination fee in the hundreds of dollars.

Verizon’s retreat from the fee was a major victory for consumers, who organized a massive internet/Twitter/Facebook protest worthy of Zuccotti Park or Tahrir Square. In November, Bank of America tried to institute a $5 fee for using a debit card – it too was forced to back down in the face of national outrage.

How then to explain the silence of political candidates and public officials? The simple answer harkens back to the Occupy metaphor. The political class doesn’t sweat the small stuff like a $2 fee – they can afford not to. But most Americans can’t afford to throw away two bucks.

Harvey Column / Occupy / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Tea Party - 01/03/2012

Channel surfing at the White House

I went to the White House Friday week for a full day listening and talking back to top White House officials with about 100 Democratic activists and organizers from California, organized by the Courage Campaign.
The White House folks seemed to listen hard. Gathered in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, we heard from top staff including chief of staff Bill Daley, senior advisors David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett, EPA chief Lisa Jackson, and Labor secretary Hilda Solis, along with other staff on specific issues. They asked us not to offer specific quotes from people, but they didn't offer up any juicy secrets or stray from the administration talking points we've all heard before.
They got an earful of what they have certainly heard before as well: like many others across the country, we wanted the president to fight harder for bolder programs to reduce unemployment and address the foreclosure crisis.
There were a series of breakout sessions on a variety of issues: immigration, lesbian and gay rights, labor and environment. But the concerns were the same. Would the president fight harder? When would he compromise and how much would he give away? I was disappointed that the White House didn't offer a breakout session on a especially critical issue for Californians: the foreclosure crisis.
According to the White House, President Obama doesn't get credit for how he hard he has fought against tough foes and and an economic crisis he didn't create. They cited his recent, trip to the bridge between Rep. John Boehner's and Sen. Mitch McConnell's districts where he channeled former president Ronald Reagan, exhorting the Republican leaders, "Help us repair this bridge."
I keep wishing President Obama would channel FDR, who thought that government could actually work with people to solve problems, instead of Reagan, who preached that government was itself the problem, and that it should be starved, shrunk and gotten out of the way.
Channeling one of Reagan's pithy phrases might be OK, but we'll never reduce unemployment right now using the Gipper's approach.
For that, we'll need the fearless, positive, can-do approach of FDR, who knew that government could help when the private sector wouldn't. He never achieved his goal, according to William Leuchtenberg, in Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. That was to put ALL unemployed Americans in the Depression to work. His programs only created jobs about a third of them, but not for lack of trying.
Not all of his program was so simple, but some of it was. For example, he gave unemployed white-collar workers jobs teaching people to read.
While he didn't face the monolithic, intransigent opposition President Obama faces in Congress, he offered a bold and pragmatic vision that included vilifying the bankers whose wild speculation threw the country into Depression, and acknowledging that the country was a in a deep crisis that would require dramatic, sustained government action.
Measuring Obama's Jobs Act by the standard of what FDR was able to accomplish, you can see how his proposal falls short. If Republicans passed it whole, which is unlikely, it would create at most 1.9 million jobs, providing work for nowhere near one-third of the nation's unemployed.
Obama's plan appears to be motivated by fear - fear of failure, fear of Republican rejection, fear of alienating independent voters, when what we need is audacity.
It does not seem to be motivate by an audacious vision of government action that would actually get the country back to work.

The jobs plan still might not pass, but what people are hungry for, more than bipartisanship, is that audacious vision that Obama promised and FDR delivered.
Has President Obama been so busy channeling Reagan that he forgot what FDR said about fear?
Mr. President, tune in to the right channel!

Martin Column / Outrage / Uncategorized - 09/26/2011

Rearranging the Deck Chairs Tonight

U.S. Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, thinks Republican and Democratic members of Congress should sit with each other, rather than separately by party, when President Obama makes his State of the Union speech tonight in the Capitol. In a letter to the leadership of the House and the Senate that has gotten a lot of attention in D.C., Udall said that “partisan seating arrangements at State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States…. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room – while the other side sits – is unbecoming of a serious institution.  And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the President is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.”

Udall is right about the symbolism of the tradition, which dates back two centuries, but his proposal is just more symbolism.

This isn’t one of those dinner parties where the hosts break up the married couples to inspire more lively conversation. Sitting next to each other isn’t going to stop the Democrats from applauding, or the Republicans from sitting on their hands or worse, like when a congressman from South Carolina screamed “you lie” during a health care speech by Obama to a joint session of Congress in 2009, or when at last year's State of the Union, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly disagreed when the President criticized one of the Roberts court’s more extreme examples of judicial activism. With differences so deep, putting congresspeople within reach of each other may not be a good idea at all.

So what exactly is the attraction of Udall’s proposal? As in every mass tragedy in recent years – from JFK’s assassination to 9/11 to the carnage in Arizona – there is a brief period in which people want to reach out, beyond politics, for reassurance that we are all, or at least most of us, still human beings. We’re still within that gauzy penumbra. Speaking in Tucson, Professor Obama got high marks from the opinionators and the public for pointing out that incivility cannot explain insanity – and thus smothering the debate over the name-calling and extreme partisan politics of our era. But is that really the problem in America today?

True, the majority of Americans probably are uncomfortable with the current decibel level. We remember wistfully an America when things were better all around – or perhaps merely seemed so. But there is, without any question, plenty of reason to be angry right now. Not since the Depression have so many people suffered while so few prosper. Our American spirit has been shaken, maybe shattered. We have been betrayed by those we entrusted to protect us.

I don’t agree with many of the loudest, angriest people, but I don’t blame them for being loud or angry.

Sometimes that’s the only way you get things done.

Addressing another exercise in symbolism – a new non-profit political organization called “No Labels” dedicated to “bipartisanship” – New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently made the point: “The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation.”

When you look at what has happened to this country, the dire conditions at home and the dangers we face abroad, and what we have to do to make sure our kids have some measure of the security and prosperity we enjoyed, talking about where members of Congress sit is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Congress / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Uncategorized - 01/25/2011

In this “Bust Bowl,” It’s Every Person for Themselves

During the 1930s, drought and dust storms combined to devastate farms in the heartland of the United States, already decimated by the Great Depression. One quarter of the population of the “Dust Bowl” lost their farms and ranches when the banks foreclosed on them. Millions left the Great Plains for California or elsewhere.

Today, the entire nation is trapped in a “Bust Bowl,” laid low from coast to coast by the collapse of an economy based largely on finance and speculation. The “official” unemployment rate, which has been above 9.5% for the last fourteen months, understates the true devastation wrought by the Wall Street debacle. Vast numbers of our citizens have descended into poverty: 42 million Americans – one in seven – are considered poor.  Just an hour or two outside LA, 15 to 20% of residents in towns like Bakersfield and Riverside are below the poverty line.

Back in the Thirties, farmers joined together to protect each other against foreclosures: trying to block authorities from seizing the farms, moving furniture back into the homes of the evicted, and refusing to bid on properties that were foreclosed. But there’s little sympathy for our neighbors evident these days.

To the contrary, speculation has ingrained itself so deeply in the American psyche that people view foreclosures as an opportunity to snatch up a home at distressed prices. And now that some banks are pulling homes off the market because they can’t prove they hold the mortgages, as my colleague Martin Berg has described, would-be purchasers are unhappy. The New York Times quoted a Florida mother who was supposed to move into a foreclosed “three bedroom steal” when Fannie Mae took the house off the market. “Now I’m sharing a room with my son,” she complained. “What the hell is up with that?”

It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who is trying to reap some kind of a windfall from someone else’s tragedy.

I know, everyone’s just trying to get by. The Times noted that one man who had lost his own home to foreclosure after falling behind on his payments had made a successful bid on another foreclosed home – his “dream house” – only to have the deal frozen by the bank.

But is the solution to beggar thy neighbor?

Consider the debt collector profiled in the New Yorker this week. A former drug dealer who did some time, “Jimmy” now runs a small operation in Buffalo, New York. He buys bad debts from businesses like banks and credit card companies for a few cents on the dollar, and then does what he can to collect from the people who owe the money. Anything he can get, he keeps. With so many Americans out of work and deeply in debt, the collection business is booming these days. Buffalo’s home to quite a few such firms these days, because, as Jimmy explains, “Buffalo is broke!” Jimmy’s got five kids and he’s trying to make a living and meet the payroll for his staff, whose job is to nag and cajole people into paying something on what they owe. Plus he’s up against some bigger firms that are willing to break the law in order to collect. But it’s not a pretty picture, especially because it soon becomes clear that Jimmy’s company is in trouble, and he may soon find himself among the debtors of Buffalo.

The average American is not going to be able to leverage himself out of this economic nightmare.

In the Thirties, the federal government ultimately came to the rescue: prodded by Roosevelt, Congress authorized the courts to reduce a farm mortgage to its diminished market value, and to suspend a farm foreclosure for three years. (A conservative US Supreme Court initially struck the law down as an improper intrusion of the government in the banking business, but it was later upheld.) Farmers were also allowed to borrow money through the federal government to pay off their old mortgages. This was the New Deal.

This time around, Wall Street firms have been given access to trillions of dollars of federal money at rates approaching zero interest, but with no requirement that they lend this taxpayer money back to taxpayers at all, much less at fair interest rates. Thus the banks, credit card companies and investment firms are back in business and in fact, most are rolling in dough. The rest of us have to pay exorbitant interest to borrow our money, if it is offered at all. And at the behest of Wall Street, the US Senate rejected a proposal to allow federal bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages so people could stay in their homes. A few days ago, the Obama administration rejected a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures. "While we understand the eagerness to make sure that no American is foreclosed upon in error, we must be careful not to over-reach and apply a remedy that will make the underlying problem of foreclosures worse," according to the Federal Housing Administration.

I'd call this a "Raw Deal."

Foreclosures / Harvey Column / Outrage - 10/10/2010

The Lawyer With the Dragon Tattoo

This year’s most fearsome movie heroine is Lisbeth Sander, the hacker vigilante who outwits corporate and political evildoers with her superior investigatory skills, not to mention some kickboxing and the deft use of a taser. “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” smashes and hacks her way through the government officials, business executives and journalists that comprise Sweden’s lazy and corrupt Establishment. They do everything they can to stop her, but – I’m about to give away the ending – Sander ultimately triumphs, exposing decades-long corporate and government conspiracies.

Elizabeth Warren shares none of Sanders’ characteristics – except an exceptional intellect – ­but when it comes to inspiring fear and loathing among the denizens of Washington and Wall Street, she is every inch as frightening, as has been pointed out over the last few days in profiles and posts across the mediascape.

Warren, a bankruptcy professor at Harvard Law, long criticized the practices of America’s banks and credit card companies in law reviews and academic pieces. In 2005, when the financial industry was lobbying Congress to make it harder for the average American to declare bankruptcy, Warren penned a landmark analysis that concluded that most Americans sought bankruptcy protection not because they were freeloaders but because they could no longer afford to pay their medical bills. Long before the current crash, Warren proposed the establishment of a federal agency to protect consumers against credit card tricks and other financial abuses.

In November 2008, in a rare example of a perfect congressional appointment, Senate President Harry Reid put her in charge of the congressional task force monitoring how the $700 billion in taxpayers' bailout money was spent. She has demanded answers to the same question we ask here: “where did the money go?”  The results of her investigations, which can be found here, pull no punches.

Back in 2008, no one could have expected that Congress would create a financial consumer watchdog agency of the kind Warren advocated for years.  But her powerful and outspoken performance as chair of the bailout oversight panel has made her the obvious and only credible candidate to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the otherwise innocuous financial “reform” legislation Congress passed a few weeks ago.

Which, of course, has got Wall Street fired up, members of Congress tied in knots and the White House cornered. Unlike the Byzantine complexities of the financial swindles and the ostensible legislative “solutions,” none of which garnered public attention much less support, the question of whether the President will appoint a skilled lawyer/consumer advocate to protect consumers, or whether he will instead choose a Wall Street insider as he did when he appointed Treasury Secretary Geithner and White House economic advisor Larry Summers, is one the public and press can easily grasp.

The appointment raises the kind of simple and straightforward “whose side is he really on?” question that Obama has so far been able to soft peddle, though he unceremoniously surrendered on the public option in the health care bill and on “too big to fail” banks in the financial reform bill, to name just a few instances of his unilateral disarmament.

Make no mistake: Warren is a highly sophisticated lawyer that knows all the tricks of the financial industry and how to use the powers of government to stop them. This expertise will be essential. I wrote a ballot proposition, approved by California voters in 1988, that regulates the insurance industry. Having spent the last twenty-two years defending it against incessant lawsuits by industry lawyers and not infrequent efforts of elected state officials to hobble it, I can tell you that few decision-makers in the federal government have the technical skills and expertise to go head to head against the battalions of lawyering orcs deployed by big financial firms. Warren does.

Which brings us back to the fascinating spectacle of the hypocritical Washington establishment trying to grapple with her candidacy. She is, literally, made for the job, and a spontaneous grassroots campaign for her appointment is mounting around the country. But the politicians, obeying their paymasters on Wall Street, are trying to figure out a strategy to sabotage her nomination. It’s almost comic to behold. Republicans should be hailing Warren as a savior of beleaguered taxpayers, but one of their Senate leaders said that her tenure as chair of the bailout watchdog was “marked with ‘controversy”” and implied that Warren doesn’t have the necessary qualifications.

It’s the same for some Dems: Senate Finance Committee Chair Chris Dodd, who had never met a financial “innovation” (or industry lobbyist) he didn’t embrace until the whole rotten system collapsed two years ago, damned Warren with faint praise, then suggested she couldn’t be confirmed. He floated the name of FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, but she said no thanks.

Nor has the Obama administrationt been particularly supportive. Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Geithner was forced to dispel rumors that he is opposed to Warren by mouthing some platitudes about how “capable” and “effective” she would be in the post. A White House spokesperson told reporters, “We’ve got many good candidates. I know that the president will look at this job and the several other jobs that are created as part of this legislation and make an announcement.”

Warren’s appointment could be one of the few meaningful victories for consumers in the aftermath of the Wall Street deregulation disaster. She is not your typical accommodating political appointee. She does not appear likely to “play ball” with Team Obama or anyone else inside the Beltway when it comes to protecting consumers against the pillaging financial industry. The White House is well aware that once appointed, she would be very hard to fire, especially for doing her job with the zeal it requires. Having never served in such a position, Warren has not yet been tested, so my assessment of her political spine is partly speculation. But if I’m right, she's at least as threatening as Lisbeth Sander.

Harvey Column / President Barack Obama - 08/07/2010

Bombing Ants in the Sausage Factory

The only aspect of the financial reform legislation that’s truly strong is the level of rhetorical nonsense that both parties have unleashed around it: Democrats and the media exaggerate when they praise it as “the toughest financial overhaul since the Great Depression.”

Not to be outdone, the Republican House minority leader, John Boehner, has weighed in, describing the proposal as a nuclear weapon being used to kill an ant.

Which would make the financial crisis the ant, I guess.

On Tuesday, the nuclear bomb had to go back to the, uh, sausage factory, for some more grinding after Sen. Robert Byrd’s death and the defection of a former Republican reform supporter left the Dems with less than the 60 votes they need to overcome the wall of Republican opposition.

One of the few chinks in that wall had been Sen. Scott Brown. But Brown balked after a $20 billion tax on hedge funds and banks was inserted into the legislation to pay for the costs of modest additional regulation. The Republican senator from Massachusetts said he opposed placing a greater burden on financial institutions and he feared the costs of the tax would be passed on to consumers. So the reform proposal is headed back to the conference committee.

Let’s be clear: overheated and mangled rhetoric aside, the financial reform proposal does nothing to reduce the risk posed by our “too-big to fail” banks or to prevent another crisis. The proposal leaves much of the details to regulators subject to lobbying by the very institutions they’re supposed to oversee.

Now legislators think they’ve found a better bet to fund their reform: you!

According to the New York Times, they’re considering ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program early and diverting about $11 billion in taxpayer funds.

The Times observed this leaves legislators with a couple of awkward choices. “So,” the Times concludes, “the choice becomes a tax that might be passed along to consumers, or a charge directly to American taxpayers.”

Is this the best they can do? I’m increasingly sympathetic to Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who is bucking his president and party, opposing reform because it doesn’t get the job done.

I would suggest that Boehner got it wrong, that the ant[s] are not the financial crisis; they’re the legislators scrambling around serving the banks’ interests when they’re supposed to be serving ours.

But that would give ants a bad name.

Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / TARP - 06/29/2010