reform - Page 3 - Represent Consumers

Quotable: Sen. Ted Kaufman

"After a crisis of this magnitude, it amazes me that some of our reform proposals effectively maintain the status quo in so many critical areas, whether it is allowing multi-trillion-dollar financial conglomerates that house traditional banking and speculative activities to continue to exist and pose threats to our financial system, permitting banks to continue to determine their own capital standards, or allowing a significant portion of the derivatives market to remain opaque and lightly regulated."

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware, March 11, 2010

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010

Tea Party For Two

Is the Democratic Party obsolete?
That’s the question that keeps nagging me as I watch President Obama and the Democratic leadership fumble away their opportunities to fight for meaningful reform of health care and the financial system.
The president and congressional leaders consistently shy away from fighting for reforms they themselves propose, such as the public option or the consumer financial protection agency.

They obsess over whether someone will accuse them of partisanship, or whether they will spook the markets if they crack down on reckless profligate bankers. They appear to find any excuse to avoid pushing the kinds of fundamental of changes that would challenge the health care and financial industry.

I don’t think you can blame the Republicans, whatever their own faults. They oppose reform. They’re fighting Obama and his policies as a way to regain power. They’re pursuing that opposition determinedly, and they’re betting it will pave their way back to a majority. It’s not the Republicans’ fault if they set traps for the Democrats and the Democrats continually fall for them.

Members of the Democratic leadership have shown profiles in cowardice when it comes to fighting for any reforms opposed by the insurance or financial industries. In the latest display, House and Senate leaders are furiously trying to blame the other for the death of the public option, even though it’s supported by a majority of Americans and even 40 members of the U.S. Senate.

But the insurance companies have fought the public option, which would provide those forced to buy health insurance under reform an alternative to private insurance. So the Democratic leadership has shown determination to find a way to eliminate the provision without leaving their fingerprints on the corpse.

The same with financial reform, where the Democrat leadership has zigged and zagged but hasn't won the fight for strong independent consumer protection or meaningful regulation of the complex investments that blew up in the meltdown. Sen. Chris Dodd, the long-time friend of insurers and financial titans who serves as Senate Banking chair, flirted with a strong reform proposal when he was running in a tough reelection campaign. But he backed off after he decided to retire and now appears ready to resume his traditional role in service to the bankers’ lobby. As an industry publication recently noted, insurance companies will miss Chris Dodd.

The Democratic leadership don’t seem to stand for any strong principles.
The president and Democratic leaders pay only lip service to the deep anger in the country over the erosion of the middle class, and the bank bailout that pumped up Wall Street while leaving Main Street on life support. The Democrats fear that anger because they know that their own Wall Street-friendly policies have helped fuel the series of speculative bubbles that brought prosperity and then a crash that wiped out the financial security of millions of Americans.
The president and his party are banking that the economy will improve enough by later this year, and 2012, to blunt voters’ anger.
If it does, the Democrats will claim credit for setting the economy right without having unduly upset their contributors in the financial and insurance industries. Even better for the Democrats, they will be able to bolster their fundraising by showing how they hung tough against the call for stronger reforms.
The Democrats came into office promising not to “waste a crisis.” But their efforts to reform health care and the financial system and to put Americans back to work have shown a distinct lack of urgency.
Could there be another way?

Obama will face voters on the 100th anniversary of the last presidential election in which a third-party candidate beat a major party candidate. The third-party candidate was a former president, Teddy Roosevelt, running on the progressive Bull Moose ticket promising to bust up the powerful big corporations of the day, known as trusts. Roosevelt was angry that the president who followed him, Republican William Howard Taft, hadn’t followed in his activist political footsteps. The former president was not afraid to show his ire, calling on his followers to launch “a genuine and permanent moral awakening.”
Taft, for his part, favored a laissez-faire policy toward business and regulation that resonates with the era that we’ve been through. “A national government cannot create good times,” Taft said. “It cannot make the rain to fall, the sun to shine, or the crops to grow.” But by meddling, government could “prevent prosperity that might otherwise have taken place.”
Sound familiar?

Roosevelt lost the election to Woodrow Wilson, but he got more votes than hands-off Taft.
Today the tea party is rumbling on the right, threatening revolt against the Republicans. There’s already the beginnings of a coffee party. If the economy doesn’t cooperate with the Democrats, the tea party’s discontent could be just the beginning of the end of the two-party stranglehold on our government.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 03/12/2010

Innovation Just Isn't What It Used To Be

When Wall Street wants to get out the big intellectual artillery in the argument against strong financial reform, they haul out innovation.

Regulation will strangle innovation, and we can’t have that, the financial titans contend. Innovation is the strength of America, without it we will lose our competitiveness, yadda yadda yadda.

But over the past several decades financial innovation has focused too much on mathematical models and not enough on a vision of improving the country and people’s lives.

Selling mortgages with exploding balloon payments doesn’t qualify as innovation; it’s a cruel trap.

The recent version of financial innovation, complex investments and gambling vehicles like derivatives and credit default swaps, no doubt made many bankers wildly rich, but these “weapons of mass of financial destruction,” as Warren Buffet labeled them back in 2003, also planted hidden, little-understood land mines of risk that helped create the financial crisis when they blew up.

It’s no longer just the pitchforks that are questioning the value of these innovations. Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief born again as the lone voice for meaningful financial reform in the Obama administration, recently said the only modern innovation that brought real benefit to people was the ATM card.

And the financing of innovation in the rest of the economy isn’t faring any better.

A couple of top economists, including a Nobel Prize winner, weighed in recently with a scathing view of the financial system in the Harvard Business Review.

Edmund S. Phelps (the 2006 economics Nobel winner) and Leo M. Tilman, both of Columbia University, wrote in the January issue [no link]: “The current financial system is choking off funds for innovation...Outdated accounting conventions and inadequate disclosures make it impossible to evaluate the business models and risks of financial firms. Excessive resources are allocated to proprietary trading, to lending to overleveraged consumers, to regulatory arbitrage and to low-value-added financial engineering. Financing the development of innovation takes a back seat.”

To finance opportunities in clean and nanotechnology that the current financial system is ill equipped to serve, the authors propose a government-sponsored bank of innovation.

The bank bailouts have no doubt soured people on the notion of the government in the banking business and rightly so.

But this hasn’t always been the case.

It’s worth remembering that the greatest financial innovation of the past 70 years was a government-sponsored program called the G.I. bill.

I heard about the G.I. bill growing up because it financed my dad’s education after he returned from World War II. Many others got help with home loans.

Ed Humes, an author and former Pulitzer Prize winning investigative newspaper reporter, has written a splendid account of the G.I. bill, “Over Here.” It captures how individual lives as well as the entire nation was shaped by the ambitious program.

The idea of a massive program to help veterans was first articulated by FDR, in part to prevent a reoccurrence of the bitter 1932 Bonus March, when angry World War I veterans and their families descended on Washington, D.C. to demand promised benefits. The government response was a fiasco – soldiers were ordered to fire on the persistent veterans. Nearly 10,000 were driven from the veterans’ encampment; two babies died. The resulting stink helped Roosevelt defeat the sitting president, Herbert Hoover.

I spoke with Humes about the history behind the G.I. bill.

The proposal faced stiff opposition from the financial industry and the education community.

“They argued that the average Joe returning from World War II was capable of being neither a college student nor a homeowner. The bill was basically rammed through over their objections, because of a combination of altruism and fear.”

It didn’t hurt that the bill was created by the American Legion, a conservative veterans’ group.

The G.I. bill was an overwhelming success, not only for the veterans but the college system, the building industry (it helped create the suburbs) the economy at large and the banking industry as well (it created the modern mortgage industry). “For every dollar spent,” Humes said, “seven was returned to the economy.”

Humes draws a direct connection from the G.I. bill to today’s bailouts. “They had a dead housing market, it had never recovered from the Depression. But did they throw money at the banks? No. They encouraged people to buy homes.”

The G.I. bill shows what’s possible when those who are governing possess large vision, heart, will, persistence – and fear. No mathematical model can come close.

Derivatives / Martin Column - 03/03/2010

Strong Financial Consumer Protection Not Optional

While a key Democrat has been wobbling in his support for an agency to protect financial consumers, President Obama and members of his administration have recently come out strongly in support.

But will they fight for it in the face of relentless opposition from bank lobbyists, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats?

The Obama administration’s abandonment of the public option in the health care debate provides a grim omen for the financial reform battle.

Some have compared the public option to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Both enjoyed broad public support but have been fiercely opposed by the businesses they would challenge: insurance companies fought hard against the public option while financial institutions fiercely oppose the consumer protection agency.

Aside from industry opposition, the public option and the CFPA shared the potential to provide a shield for consumers against abuses.

At various times, the president also supported the public option. Today his spokesman said the public option just didn’t have the votes. But that assessment was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. There’s little evidence that President Obama put much pressure on legislators in support of the public option, and his ambiguity in public didn’t help it, either.

After initially supporting the public option, the president signaled it was not a crucial aspect of health-care reform.

But the public option offered the only potential check on the insurance companies, which are about to get a glut of new customers forced to buy policies from them. Democrats are suggesting a tepid combination of subsidies and insurance cooperatives that won’t provide meaningful accountability for the insurance companies.

Now Republicans are digging in their heels in opposition to the CFPA, with the usual rhetoric about wasteful government bureaucracy. It’s nothing but a thinly disguised fundraising pitch to woo the financial industry back from Democrats. Chris Dodd, soon to be retired head of the Senate Banking Committee, has suggested the consumer protection function might co-exist within some other agency. That’s a very bad idea. Just look at how much consumer protection the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and other agencies accomplished in the housing bubble and its aftermath.

If that’s not enough to convince you, look at the recent shenanigans by banks and credit card companies piling on new fees.

The New York Times reported this morning how banks are getting ever more aggressive in socking their customers with higher over-draft protection fees. Credit card companies, even in the face of new regulations, are finding new ways to gouge their customers, charging fees for paying off your card on time, or even charging fees for not using a card.

There’s nothing stopping the Treasury and the Fed from using their bully pulpits to rail against these continuing abuses now. But they don’t. They ignored warnings about predatory lending during the housing bubble and have shown no stomach for protecting consumers since the economic collapse.

Dodd is supposed to unveil his latest version of financial reform this week. Let President Obama and your senators know that you won’t be fooled by financial reform in name only. Whether President Obama is capable of staying the course we don’t know. But we do know we need a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 02/23/2010

Bad Government

In his weekly address last Saturday, President Obama said, “What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem.” Obama’s speech was about health care reform, but his point goes to the heart of the debate underway in this country – a debate that the Tea Party movement has given a sharp edge.

American’s have lost their confidence in the basic institutions of our democracy. It’s not just the President’s rating that is down in the polls, it’s Congress’s, the United States Supreme Court, even the college system.

There is more than ample justification for this stark collapse of trust. As I wrote last summer, I believe it all begins with the crash of the Money Industry after years of deregulation by federal officials who, quite simply, sold out – and then showered billions of taxpayer dollars to save the speculators while the rest of the economy, along with millions of people’s jobs and savings, went into the tank. Even now, the Wall Street execs whose greed and speculation caused the crash continue to call the shots in D.C.

After that pitiful performance by our government, who can blame people for distrusting Washington’s plan to fix the health care system?

Lately I’ve been pondering two other disasters that might have been averted had government done its job.

An appendix (PDF) to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission describes in agonizing detail how our government was unable to mount a defense of the nation that day despite trillions of dollars spent on defense and the military in preceding years. That morning, there were only fourteen jet fighters guarding the country. Flight controllers couldn’t connect the dots as the multiple hijackings unfolded; FAA officials failed to follow procedures to communicate with the military; scrambled fighters were too far away and sent to the wrong locations; the military never even knew how many or which commercial airplanes were involved until all four were down. A fateful order from the White House to shoot down any commercial planes that refused to land never even reached the fighter pilots who by then were flying combat cover over the East Coast.

On that horrible morning, it was only when individuals took matters into their own hands – the passengers of United 93 who fought the terrorists as their plane headed for a strike on he nation’s capitol, or an FAA manager who ignored protocols and unilaterally ordered all planes in the air to land – that more lives were spared.

Or, consider the case of Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama professor who shot six colleagues a few weeks ago. As rendered by the New York Times, her profile now, after the deed, reads like the description of “angry loner” we have grown familiar with from previous mass murders, but no one ever connected the dots of her obviously deranged life. In 1986, she killed her brother but claimed it was an accident and got off, perhaps due to political connections; in 1993, she was questioned in connection with a pipe bomb sent to one of her college professors; in 2002, she punched a women in the head at a House of Pancakes for taking the last booster seat.

What to do, then, about such profound failures by government? Do we follow the suggestion of Glenn Beck, who over the weekend blamed progressivism – the philosophy of engaged government championed by Theodore Roosevelt – for our nation’s ills?

I’m not one of those people who is offended by the eruption of angry Tea Party organizations around the country. To the contrary, the TP’rs are raising questions, pointing out problems and demanding answers from elected officials – just what an active citizenry is supposed to do.

But I disagree with their premise, which is that government is responsible for all that is wrong with our country, and that the solution therefore is a castrated federal government or no federal government at all.

That’s stupid.

We need police. We need the military. We also need a cop on the corporate beat in the executive suites of Wall Street. And we need rules and regulations to prevent health insurance companies from ripping us off or condemning us to death.

When our government institutions fail us, as they have, through incompetence and corruption, the answer is not to get rid of government, but to make it work better. How to do that? Read my next column.

Harvey Column / Outrage - 02/22/2010

Good Riddance to a Bipartisan

Let's take a closer look at one of the most overhyped buzzwords in politicspeak: bipartisanship.

Especially as it relates to the battle for financial reform, the call for bipartisanship threatens to drown the entire debate in meaningless twaddle.

Take for example the retirement announcement by Evan Bayh, who said he was calling it quits because he just couldn’t take how politically divided the Senate had become. Nearly the entirely Washington establishment, including the press corps went into a mad swoon over Bayh, lamenting the sad lack of bipartisanship.

I shed no tears for Bayh, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who was MIA in the debate over financial reform, and was among those moderate Democrats who was expected to oppose one of the most important proposals: creation of a stand-alone financial consumer protection agency.

Bayh did lead a group of Democrats whose idea of leadership was compromising with Republicans during the Bush Administration. What really got Bayh’s juices going was fiscal discipline and budget-cutting. Now that the Republicans have shown that they have no interest in reciprocating Bayh’s spirit of compromise, he’s got no one to play with in the Senate.

It was left to the astute cable TV comedian, Bill Maher, and a lone blogger on the Huffington Post to identify Bayh, for what he really is: A Democrat who represents corporate interests in the U.S. Senate.

During his 20-year political career, Bayh was a fundraising juggernaut. As far as I can tell, no one in the mainstream media dwelled on the $26.6 million in campaign contributions Bayh garnered, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics. His top contributor was not from Indiana. That would be the financial giant Goldman-Sachs, which ponied up more than $165,000, edging out the drug company Eli Lily for the top spot. The third top contributor was Indiana-based Conseco Inc. an insurance company. Another bailout beneficiary, Morgan Stanley, was right up there too, with more than $81,000 in contributions.

Finance and securities was the second largest industry in contributions to Bayh, outdone only by corporate law firms.

Freed from the constraints of politics, Bayh’s first act after announcing he wouldn’t run again was to stick up for one of his beleaguered constituents – the student loan industry. The administration is proposing to stop subsidizing that industry and loan directly to students. Bayh’s against that, concerned that Indiana-based student loan servicer Sallie Mae will lose jobs.

If this is bipartisanship, it’s exactly what’s wrong with the Senate, where health care and financial reform are now gasping for life, in the stranglehold of supposed centrists like Bayh and another retiring Democratic senator, Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Dodd is also a top recipient of contributions from the financial sector. You have to wonder whether Bayh and Dodd’s next stop will be top lobbying firms, where they can continue to earn top dollar from Wall Street.

We don’t need more compromise with Goldman-Sachs and Sallie Mae under the guise of bipartisanship. Let’s retire all the blather about it along with Bayh. We don’t need more senators like him who do Goldman Sach’s bidding and then piously whine about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. We need real reform and we shouldn’t settle for politicians who don’t have the guts to fight for it.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column - 02/19/2010

Obama Strikes Out

That didn’t take long.

Just a couple of days after the New York Times reported that Wall Street was unhappy with the return on its massive investment in the Democratic Party; President Obama softens his rhetoric on the big bankers. He told Business Week he didn’t “begrudge” bailed-out too big to fail bankers their bonuses, benignly comparing them to all the top baseball players who earn fat salaries yet don’t make it to the World Series.

“That’s part of the free-market system,” Obama opined.

Obama knows some of the bankers personally, he tells Business Week, and finds them “savvy businessmen.”

Before the bankers complained publicly about their lack of return on campaign contributions to Obama and the Democrats, the president had recently been trying out a tougher stance: suggesting “too big to fail” banks, their risky behavior and the fat bonuses that fuel it should be reined in.

President Obama has been consistently inconsistent in the fight over financial reform. He’ll make strong proposals one day (judicial cram-downs to help homeowners in foreclosure, for example) and then leave them to die without his support in Congress under withering assault by bank lobbyists. He’ll blast the bankers’ bonuses one day and cozy up to them the next. It was less than a month ago that the president labeled the bonuses “obscene” and pledged to tax them.

By contrast, the bankers have been relentless and shrewd in their fight to delay, confuse, stymie and water down attempts at reform. They have fought in the back rooms, in the media and the floors of Congress, using checkbooks and rhetoric.

The president is spot on, however, when he refers to the remaining big bankers as savvy. After they wrecked the economy, they didn’t waste the financial crisis. They’ve come back bigger and stronger than ever, with fewer competitors, with a firm grasp on a steady pipeline of cash from the federal treasury.

For a more clear-eyed view of the bankers, what they’ve been up to and what they have to do, we have Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor and congressionally appointed bailout monitor. “This generation of Wall Street CEOs could be the ones to forfeit America’s trust,” she wrote Monday in the Wall Street Journal [no link]. “When the history of the Great Recession is written, they can be singled out as the bonus babies who were so short-sighted that they put the economy at risk and contributed to the destruction of their own companies. Or they can acknowledge how Americans’ trust has been lost and take the first steps to earn it back.”

With his wish-washy approach, the president is in his own real danger of losing America’s trust as a champion of reform. Making lame comparisons between ruthless bank CEOS and clueless overpaid athletes doesn’t help the president’s credibility any.

Even the analysts on ESPN Sports Center know that.

Contact the president yourself and let him know what you think of the bailed-out bankers’ bonuses.

Executive Pay / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail / Uncategorized - 02/10/2010

Bailout Beat Might Be His Last

Most of official Washington operates in a state of slow-mo lethargy when it comes to working on financial reform.

Not Neil Barofsky, who is saddled with the cumbersome acronym SIGTARP.

That stands for Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, also known as the federal bailout.

He’s a one-time federal prosecutor who in his former life prosecuted Colombian drug gangs and white-collar criminals.

As one Republican senator told him when Barofsky got the inspector general’s job, if he did his job properly, he’d never be able to get another.

Barofsky seems to have taken it to heart.

Last week, along with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, he filed suit against former top Bank of America officials, charging them with fraud for concealing how bad Merrill-Lynch’s losses were from B of A’s own stockholders while B of A was in the process of acquiring Merrill during the melt-down.

Barofsky also recently launched an investigation into the shady federal bailout of AIG and its counterparties, including Goldman-Sachs.

Meanwhile his regular quarterly reports to Congress continue to pack a punch. He has consistently warned against the administration’s rosy predictions of how taxpayers will benefit from TARP.

He’s focused instead on the continuing dangers of doing nothing to rewrite the rigged rules of the financial game that favor bankers’ bonuses and betting with taxpayers’ money over the interests of consumers and homeowners.

“Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008,” Barofsky wrote in his most recent report, “absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.”

In fact, the whole focus on whether taxpayers are getting “paid back” is a smokescreen for TARP’s failures. While the administration has touted banks’ repayments of their TARP money, the repayments are backfiring on the administration, giving it less leverage over the banks. Released from their TARP obligations, the banks are free to return to lavishly rewarding their employees for risky trades that rack up short-term profits.

Barofsky, writing in plain language that consumers and concerned citizens can understand, states that while the TARP program stabilized the financial system, it hasn’t met most of its other goals. “Lending continues to decrease, month after month, and the TARP program designed specifically to address small-business lending — announced in March 2009 — has still not been implemented by Treasury,” Barofsky wrote in the January 30 report. “The TARP foreclosure prevention program has only permanently modified a small fraction of eligible mortgages, and unemployment is the highest it has been in a generation.”

Barofsky was appointed by Congress to monitor TARP. Yet Congress has done nothing to hold the current administration accountable for the bailout’s failures. Meanwhile the Senate continues to pursue what appears to be its quest to squelch reform, in direct contradiction of what a majority of Americans want. Specifically Sen. Christopher Dodd appears to be on the brink of negotiating away a stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a linchpin of President Obama’s reform plan. The financial industry fiercely opposes such an agency.

Contact your representative and senator today and let them know you support Barofsky’s strong work on TARP. While you’re at it, let your senator know you’re paying attention to the battle over financial reform, and that they should start paying attention to the will of the majority instead of the bank lobbyists.

Martin Column / SIGTARP - 02/09/2010

It's Alive!

Wall Street has weighed in with powerful evidence that the United States Supreme Court was right when it concluded a few weeks ago that corporations are the same as human beings. Turns out, Wall Street has feelings, and they are hurt.

Wall Street is so “irked” at President Obama and the Democratic Party that it is rebuffing their requests for political money, according to the New York Times. “[I]t doesn’t feel good,” when Obama talks about Wall Street greed, complained a Morgan Stanley executive. “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’” whined a major Wall Street executive. He warned: “‘We are not going to play that game anymore.’”

That’s just a bluff, of course, because Wall Street has been playing the Washington money game for decades – in fact, as we documented in our two hundred page report (PDF) last year, the nation’s economy is in the toilet now because between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street spent $5 billion on Washington, and Washington, without even a hint of partisanship, rolled over – deregulating the industry and encouraging the orgy of speculation that led to the crash.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case guarantees that big business will always be happy by solidifying corporate control over the nation’s legislative process. Discarding one hundred years of previous decisions, the court held that, under the First Amendment, when corporations spend money in the political process, it’s the same as when people make speeches.

This is a travesty. The practical effect of the decision is to accord huge multinational corporations the power to nullify the First Amendment rights of individual Americans. While you and I are “free” to drag a soapbox on to a street corner and proclaim to our heart’s content, credit card companies, hedge funds, insurance companies are now “free” to unleash tens of millions of dollars from their corporate treasuries in an attempt to fix the outcome of any political debate in their favor. Sometimes that will backfire, as it did when insurance companies spent $80 million trying to persuade voters to defeat Proposition 103, the insurance reform I wrote back in 1988. Californians figured out who was on the their side, and who wasn’t. But in the vast majority of lower profile issues, in which elected officials are called upon to choose between the policy choice favored by a huge money donor and the one that’s better for constituents, the money talks.

That’s why, despite the near-collapse of our financial system at the hands of the Money Industry, their lobbyists have still been able to stymie just about every congressional proposal to prevent another crash: reform of derivatives and the student loan system, creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and the recent proposal by the White House to ban banks from speculation.

The tyranny of the British monarchy led to the American Revolution. The Supreme Court’s decision substitutes a corporatocracy for the oppression of kings. So far, the tea parties that seem to be erupting spontaneously around the nation are directing their fire at the bailouts and other encroachments of government. They also need to keep an eye on the corporations that are arguably more powerful than the government already, or will soon be so thanks to the Supreme Court.

Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/09/2010