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

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

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

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

Getting a Haircut and a Hotdog

Lawmakers are always looking for a fig leaf when it comes to presiding over a massive public bailout of their friends on Wall Street. So, for example, when Treasury Secretary Geithner appeared on Capitol Hill last March to explain why AIG got one hundred cents on the dollar, which it promptly turned around and handed over to Goldman Sachs and its other Wall Street partners, Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus wanted to know, “Was there any discussion over a haircut – [the Wall Street Banks] taking 95% or 90% as full payment?”

Five or ten cents on the dollar – that’s what Congressman Bachus and his colleagues on Capitol Hill think is a sufficient penalty for having hopped into bed with AIG? 

AIG / Goldman-Sachs / Harvey Column - 12/14/2009

Wall Street's Back – And Has Detroit by The Throat

While financial institutions drastically reduce lending again to private lenders and businesses, they’re also tightening the vice on cash-strapped public agencies from California to New Jersey.

This aspect of the financial meltdown has gotten less attention than the bonuses and the bailouts: how AIG and other Wall Street giants sold cities, towns, school boards and other public agencies high-risk investments and complex financing schemes during the boom. Now that the economy, the government agencies’ credit ratings and all those risky investments have gone bust, Wall Street is hounding cash-strapped governments from California to New Jersey for its money.

Derivatives / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column - 12/04/2009

Heads banks win, tails taxpayers lose

Remember when high risk and reckless trading led to economic collapse?

That was so five minutes ago.

Goldman-Sachs is back to its old tricks, roaring to record profits from high-risk trading - and the federal government is aiding and abetting the whole thing.

You might have thought the feds would be discouraging Goldman from using the economy as its private casino, but that’s far from the case.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column - 09/15/2009