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

Around the Web: On to Financial Reform

With the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership declaring historic victory on health care reform, the next big item could be fixing the troubled banking system.

It could make the battle over health care look like a walk in the park. The financial industry, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are all lined up to kill or weaken it.

They’ve already succeeded in getting Sen. Chris Dodd to weaken his reform proposal, which the Senate Banking Committee passed Monday on a 13 to 10 party line vote. Here’s the Atlantic’s take, including what Dodd had to say Monday.

Getting Dodd to soften his stance probably wasn’t that tough. He’s traditionally a staunch ally of Wall Street and only took a strong stance when it looked he was going to have to face angry voters. But then Dodd dropped out of the race, became a lame duck and returned to form as the financial industry’s best friend.

For example, Dodd has abandoned support for a strong independent financial consumer protection agency, instead placing it within the Federal Reserve, which has ignored consumers in the past even though it had authority to protect them. In National Journal’s Clive Crook’s assessment, Dodd’s proposal will enshrine “too big to fail” banks in law rather than fix the problem.

Now the full Senate will consider it. Here’s Barry Ritholtz’s analysis of what should be on the final bill.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/22/2010

Around the Web: Rewarding Fed Failure

Bottom line on the new Chris Dodd reform proposal: much watered down from his earlier proposal and maybe even weaker than the weak House bill.

Here’s the summary from A New Way Forward: “The bill contains no real solution to too-big-to-fail, no real enforcement guarantees, the bad guys are off the hook, the financial system will continue to be as big and dangerous and full of risk taxpayers will likely own. Dodd made a few good steps forward and major steps backwards”. The rest of their analysis is here.

From the Atlantic Wire, a solid roundup of assessments. The takeaway: Too many concessions to the big banks, and it is still faces many obstacles to passage. And who exactly besides Chris Dodd and Wall Street thinks it’s a great idea to house consumer protection within the Federal Reserve? Only last year, Reuters reminds us, Dodd was labeling the Fed “an abymsal failure."

But Elizabeth Warren, the congressional bailout monitor who has campaigned aggressively for strong reform, including an independent agency to protect financial consumers, offered a lukewam endorsement of Dodd’s plan.

I’ll give Alan Sherter the last word. When Dodd says that he doesn’t have the votes for an independent financial consumer protection agency, what he really means is that “lawmakers have more to gain by advocating the interests of banks than those of consumers.”

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Derivatives / Executive Pay - 03/15/2010

Less Kabuki, More Reform

Does the president get it yet on financial reform?

Or is his tougher stance toward the bankers part of a kabuki performed for the public while real reform is compromised away backstage?

The politics around the battle for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are thick with intrigue and shifting positions.

A separate agency is a crucial aspect of any reform because the present regulators have done such a dismal job of protecting consumers’ interests.

We have every right to be suspicious of the president and the Democrats, based on their timidity in fighting for stronger regulation and holding accountable those responsible for the crisis.

The latest cause for doubts stems from the unsavory spectacle of Democrats and Republicans falling over themselves to reassure Wall Street that they are the bankers’ best bet to represent the interests of the financial industry.

Meanwhile, the president appears be jawboning the key Senate author of reform, Chris Dodd. A long-time recipient of Wall Street largesse, Dodd was facing a tough reelection campaign, based on some of his more unsavory dealings with Wall Street. In the midst of that campaign last November, he came out with a tough reform proposal, including an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

But as his campaign looked increasingly hopeless, Dodd decided to retire. Since then he’s been signaling that he wants to back off the independent consumer agency.  President Obama met with Dodd last month and insisted that the independent agency is “non-negotiable.”

President Obama has his own changing political calculations. He originally supported a milder version of bank reform passed by the House. After the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat several weeks ago, the president all of a sudden decided to haul out his lone financial adviser who has advocated breaking up big banks, former Fed chief Paul Volcker. (Previously Obama had been ignoring him, letting a cast of Wall Street insiders run his handling of the banking crisis.)

Obama, with Volcker by his side, voiced support for breaking up the largest big banks as well as placing some new limits for some of the banks’ riskier activities.

Earlier this week at a Senate hearing, Dodd aimed unusual criticism at the president, questioning the timing of his announcement, labeling the president’s embrace of Volcker’s ideas “transparently political.”

Dodd didn’t stop there: he suggested that the president’s proposals to get tough on the big banks threatened the process of crafting a reform proposal that would get bipartisan support.

Key Republicans have already indicated what that would mean – no independent consumer financial protection agency, for one thing.

The Democrats are caught: The bankers who fund their campaigns are demanding watered-down reform that will ensure business as usual. Angry voters are demanding robust regulation and accountability.

The president has to demonstrate that his embrace of Volcker’s ideas isn’t just a gimmick. He’s got to flesh his proposals out with details and fight for them in public and not compromise them away in the back rooms.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know, too, that you’re tired of political theater. It’s past time for real reform.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 02/04/2010

Fed Up: Down With Bernanke

President Obama can’t credibly rail against Wall Street fat cats while fighting for their chief enabler.

Here’s all you need to know right now to decipher the confusing messages from the White House and the Democratic leadership:

Ignore the faux populist rhetoric and keep your eyes on the contentious U.S. Senate vote on confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve.

If Obama and Democrats want to show they now “get it” on why people are so angry over the mishandling of the bailout and the economy, they should dump Bernanke without delay.

But the White House and Democratic leadership, including senators Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, continue to strongly support Bernanke. Other Democratic senators, like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, as well as Republicans such as senators Richard Shelby and John McCain, oppose him.

The prime reason Bernanke deserves to be dumped is that he is not a reformer or strong regulator during a time of reform and increased regulation. The crisis hasn’t caused him to reconsider. Bernanke even opposes a key plank in President Obama’s reform proposal – the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He may nod reassuringly in the direction of Main Street but he’s an insider of the Wall Street elite whose prevailing philosophy is a combination of “What’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S.A” and “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Some observers credit Bernanke with keeping the country from slipping into another Great Depression.

The country managed to avoid an economic fiasco on the scale of the depression. But why should Bernanke get the credit?

Everything the Fed does is cloaked in a secrecy and doublespeak that mocks the president’s promise of the most transparent administration in history.

What we know for sure about the Fed’s response is that it shoveled cash and cheap credit in the direction of its favored Wall Street targets. Bernanke and the Fed have resisted disclosure of any facts and figures about what they did. When the details do emerge, they smell fishy.

For example, Reuters reported on emails that were obtained through subpoena by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, who is investigating the role of the Fed in the AIG bailout.

What Reuters found was that the Fed, under Bernanke’s direction, along with the SEC, wanted to protect the details of the AIG bailout with a level of secrecy usually reserved for matters of national security.  In the emails, Bernanke’s staff ridicules the clamor for more public disclosure about the bailout.

At issue are payments the Fed made to firms that carried insurance with AIG on bed bets those firms had made on investments. Those firms, called counterparties, included the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Fed paid off AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar on their bad bets: extremely unusual with companies in such deep distress relying on the kindness of taxpayers not to take some losses.

Just what do Bernanke and the Fed have to hide? Whose interests are being protected?  We need to get to the bottom of those questions, not reward those keeping us from the answers to them.

Even if Bernanke did get credit for his role in the bailout, that wouldn’t be enough reason to confirm him for another term. He missed the housing bubble before the meltdown and has shown no indication he would recognize another bubble when it occurs. He has also misread the impact of the economic stimulus.

In addition, the Fed under Bernanke's watch failed at on one of its cores missions – reducing unemployment. Bernanke is more afraid of increasing inflation than he is of increasing unemployment. It’s time for the Fed to shed its cloak of secrecy and elitism and push for an economy that benefits everybody, not just Wall Street. That transformation will be challenging; Bernanke has shown he’s not the kind of leader for these times.

Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trying out the old scare tactics, threatening that the markets will fall if Bernanke loses his job. But these are the same kinds of scare tactics that a previous administration used on Congress to forestall debate in its haste to push a poorly considered bailout scheme. We may have expected such tactics from the Bush Administration, but President Obama set higher standards for his administration. Now is the time for him to live up to them.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know too.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/25/2010